Cows, Comforts, and the Cost of Complacency

By

-

9 December 2024

I am a beef producer and spend a lot of my time observing cattle. I gain a lot from observing cattle – how they interact, what they like, their different attitudes – and see so many similarities in my own world.

In the not too distance past, cattle roamed over vast plains in outback Australia with little interference from humans. The paddocks were large and open, fences were few and far between and they had ample space to graze, mingle, and flourish. Life was good. But over time, things have changed. Paddocks have become smaller, management has changed and fences have multiplied, confining movement and limiting access to better pastures and other mobs of cattle.

New barriers have been devised to manage cattle, moving them between paddocks and forcing them into -tighter holdings. Most of the mob follows the changes without question, lured by promises of greener pastures. But there are always the suspicious cows; these cautious individuals linger at the gates, wary of what lies ahead. Occasionally, they may even try to dart past the dogs, desperate to return to their freedom.

we must remind people of the values that once defined us: self-reliance, personal responsibility, and the freedom to choose our own path.

To keep the cattle compliant, graziers may use a clever plan. Sweet licks and grains are placed in the next paddock, conditioning the cows to associate their new enclosures with rewards. For most, this will be enough – they will eagerly line up at each gate, ready to move forward when asked. But not every cow can be bought. There are always the troublemakers—heads high, ears forward—standing their ground. For these rebels, teams of dogs can be used to nip at their heels and force them into submission – mine are named Greenie, Labour, and Libby.

Laneways are great for mustering – cattle can be moved easily, even into small yards. Most will move willingly in whatever direction you ask, especially if distracted by treats. But again, there will always be troublemakers – their instincts screaming that something is not right and looking for a way out. Troublemakers are culled, removed from the mob, and the whole mob becomes more compliant without them.

The rest of the mob, oblivious to the fate of their mates, will graze contentedly on the treats provided and move wherever needed. They will gain weight, and perhaps become overweight, their focus solely fixed on the next mouthful. One by one, pen by pen, they too will be loaded onto trucks, meeting the same fate as their rebel mates.

Life was good. But over time, things have changed.

This story holds a warning for all of us who value freedom and independence. Like the wary cows, some of us see the dangers in the barriers that restrict our choices, the constant push toward conformity, and the alluring distractions to prevent us from noticing the encroachment on our freedoms.

But many do not. The promise of comfort and security blinds them to the true cost. The “free” gifts and conveniences offered by ever-expanding systems of control are little more than bait. The fences multiply, and the paddocks grow smaller, until there is no way out.

We stand at a crossroads. If we do not act, if we do not challenge the systems that erode our freedoms, we will end up like the first cows loaded onto the truck. The safety blanket of ever-growing control is easy to accept, but tearing it away will take courage and determination. Change must come carefully, deliberately. Rushing risks alienating those who have grown used to this way of life. Transformation is a game of inches, not miles.

Join Mailing List

To reclaim what has been lost, we must remind people of the values that once defined us: self-reliance, personal responsibility, and the freedom to choose our own path. These principles have been eroded by decades of creeping control. Many younger generations do not know a world where independence was the norm, where individuals and communities thrived without interference.

It is time to resist the fences. To refuse the sweet licks and grains. To awaken others to the path we are being led down, and to inspire the courage to choose something different. The journey will not be easy, but the alternative is far worse.

Let us not be the cows who march willingly to their fate. Instead, let us be the ones who stand tall, who see the open fields for what they are, and who fight to preserve them—not just for ourselves, but for all Australians.

Jim Willmott

Jim Willmott is Queensland Senate candidate for the Libertarian Party and former Chair of Property Rights Australia. Recognised for his contributions to rural communities, he volunteers with the National Rational Energy Network, supporting communities affected by renewable energy developments. He advocates for reduced government intervention and traditional Australian values.

The Problems with Property Taxes

By

Jess Colby

-

2 December 2024

0

Property taxes are imposed on people who own property, the amount typically based on what the government deems the property to be worth.

Many states in Australia have property taxes (typically known as land tax). Local government also charges property taxes, generally known as council rates.

Property taxes are one of many taxes that affect everyday life and increase the cost of living. In this article, I will explain why I believe property taxes should be abolished.

Local governments are also financially incentivised to drive lower income people out of the area

Firstly, and most obvious, if people supposedly own their property, why should they have to keep paying for it? If you are paying to live on your own property, you don’t really own it at all. Especially given that the government has the authority to evict you and sell it off if you fail to pay the property taxes. I firmly believe that ownership of property should not be subject to the vagaries of government.

Secondly, as property taxes are calculated based on apparent property value, an increase in value brings an increase in taxes. The result is some low-income people cannot afford to pay and are driven out of their own home. Given significant inflation over the last few years and cost of living pressures, this is likely to become more common in the near future.

Thirdly, property taxes create a range of perverse government incentives, particularly at the local government level. For example, since some people pay more property taxes than other people, this can encourage local governments to create policies that favour people who pay more, which erodes equality under the law.

Property taxes are one of many taxes that affect everyday life and increase the cost of living.

Both state and local governments have the power to compulsorily acquire property for development in hopes of being able to benefit from higher property taxes compared to what the current owner is expected to pay.

Known as eminent domain, this is a process in which the government takes someone’s property from them against their will for what is meant to be a ‘public purpose’, though the government may choose to obtain the land for use by a private entity under the guise of ‘promotion of economic development’.

Join Mailing List

Although the government is meant to provide someone with ‘fair compensation’, there is no legal obligation at the state and local government level, and in practice is not common. They often ironically claim the property is worth less than the value used to calculate the property taxes during the process of acquisition.

Local governments are also financially incentivised to drive lower income people out of the area to attract higher income people who build higher value properties that result in higher property taxes. In a quest to increase property values and property taxes, there is an incentive to regulate what people do on their properties which has impact on personal freedom and property rights.

I believe that property taxes, along with many other taxes such as sin taxes, inheritance taxes and GST, should be abolished, leaving us with a simple flat tax for all money earned over a certain threshold paid by both individuals and businesses.

Jess Colby

Jessica Colby is a young libertarian advocate who has been passionate about political issues from an early age. She became involved in the Libertarian Party shortly after turning 18 and is now Treasurer of the South Australian branch.

Identity Politics vs Individual Liberty – A Personal Reckoning

By

Scott Harrison

-

25 November 2024

0

Few political affiliations draw more stigma and ostracism than white nationalism and neo-Nazism. The fear and disdain these ideologies provoke make them a potent weapon to wield against political opponents. The Victorian Liberal Party’s 18-month internal conflict, centred on allegations of links to neo-Nazis, illustrates how damaging such accusations can be.

No one wants to be branded a Nazi, yet both sides of politics continue to flirt with the rhetoric of ‘identity politics’ that fuels such extreme manifestations. As they see it, you are defined by the group, or identity, to which you belong, in particular your gender, race, or sexual preference. Each side typically targets constituencies based on such identities.

Distanced themselves from the working class Australians who were expressing the same fears they had stoked

I know this personally because for six years of my teenage life, I embodied the most extreme version of the ‘identitarian right.’ My personal experience with racist nationalism positions me to argue that both progressivism and conservatism in Australia contribute to its resurgence. Moreover, libertarianism was not only the antidote to my own toxic beliefs, but is essential to countering the divisive nature of identity politics.

For most, being an ‘actual Nazi’ is unimaginable. This extremist, violent ideology requires more than mere exposure to certain ideas — it involves a process of radicalisation shaped by psychology, peer groups, and the surrounding culture. Here, I will focus on how culture and ideas drove my radicalisation, and how they continue to pose a risk to vulnerable young people. It is less autobiography and more cautionary tale.

The 9/11 attacks were a defining moment in my life. At 12 years old, I became captivated by history and politics, realising that events and ideas shaped the present and were in constant competition. This set me on a path of seeking where I fit in this world.

At school, teachers often portrayed Australia as a colonial oppressor, its culture irredeemably marred by the sins of white settlement and the White Australia Policy. Multiculturalism, they implied, was both penance and salvation. According to this narrative, Australia had no intrinsic culture, and what existed was enriched only by others. Progressives cast Australians – particularly white males like me – as oppressors. I was the villain in the story of my own country.

Meanwhile, the Howard government promoted multiculturalism and nationalism, tinged with anti-Islamic sentiment. Events like 9/11 and the Tampa crisis linked immigration to terrorism. John Howard’s refrain – “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” – fuelled public fears. To my 12 year old self, growing up in Melbourne’s working-class northern suburbs with large Lebanese and Turkish populations, these narratives resonated. The progressive view vilified me for my identity, while the conservative view glorified an Australian identity under threat.

I naturally leaned toward conservatism but carried an anti-authoritarian streak, fuelled by the Iraq War’s WMDs deception. Together, these narratives primed me to adopt an ideology offering both belonging and an outlet for my growing xenophobia and distrust of the establishment.

In 2005, the Cronulla riots became the spark. At 14 I was seeking answers, and the media’s portrayal of Australia as inherently racist clashed with my own experiences. Conservative leaders, meanwhile, distanced themselves from the working class Australians who were expressing the same fears they had stoked. Disillusioned, I turned to the internet, where white nationalist forums offered an alternative worldview. Here, my conservative leanings devolved into outright racism. By embracing conspiracy theories, including a Jewish global agenda, my transformation into a neo-Nazi was complete.

For six years, I was deeply involved in this violent subculture, promoting its ideas online and on the streets. This period profoundly shaped me, for better and worse.

Both progressivism and conservatism in Australia contribute to its resurgence.

Thankfully, I began to change. Exposure to libertarian ideas during Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign planted the seeds of a new worldview. Libertarian principles of non-aggression and individual liberty stood in stark contrast to my authoritarian beliefs, offering a path forward based on individualism, voluntary cooperation and mutual respect. It took two years to fully disentangle myself from neo-Nazism, but by 2010 I was free.

Determined to promote liberty I joined the Liberal Party, hoping to steer it away from identity politics and back toward classical liberalism. This hope was short-lived. After my past was exposed, I resigned – a blessing in disguise, given the party’s continued departure from principles of individual freedom.

Join Mailing List

Ten years later, I remain a libertarian, advocating for an ideology that values individuals as unique and capable of forging their own paths. Unlike progressivism and conservatism, which exploit fears and biases to create division, libertarianism fosters cooperation and mutual understanding. It champions less government interference, trusting that most people will live peacefully when left to their own devices.

Today’s political landscape is more polarised than it was in 2001. Identity politics, central to both the progressive left and conservative right, is the most dangerous driver of radicalisation. By creating ‘us vs them’ mentalities, it breeds resentment and hatred, ultimately leading to violence. The antidote is to focus on individuals, not groups. Libertarianism, which prioritises individual freedom and responsibility, is the ideological counterweight we desperately need. It is an idea whose time has come.

Scott Harrison

Scott began his political career on the far-right but, repelled by identity politics and big government, he then found a political home as a libertarian. Now he champions grassroots activism and community building. An IT professional and father, he’s passionate about free speech, religious freedom, and parental rights.

It’s Free Speech, stupid!

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

18 November 2024

0

It has been just over thirty years since the term, “It’s the economy, stupid” was coined by political strategist, James Carville, during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential election campaign.

While that maxim remains central to the prosperity of any nation, there is a new kid in town and the world has just witnessed its great rebirth in the United States.

I say “rebirth” because the fight for freedom has never ended.

Australia seems intent on launching straight into the depths of its hell!

America has returned the right to true liberty to the table, and with it put other nations on notice if they want to participate in a relationship.

Vice President elect, J D Vance, recently raised the issue of free speech during an interview on discussions around NATO:

“It’s insane that we would support a military alliance if that military alliance isn’t going to be pro-free speech. I think we can do both. But we’ve got to say American power comes with certain strings attached. One of those is respect free speech, especially in our European allies.”

It is not just the magnitude of Trump’s victory that is stunning, but the highlighting of the age-old rule that freedom is fragile and must be guarded around the clock if we are to preserve and pass it on to the next generation.

When ancient Republican Rome was on the cusp of civil war, and prior to its great fall with the ushering in of the Empire, Cicero continued to warn his fellow senators and the people that tyranny must always be defeated.

Cicero said in a fiery speech in 43 BC:

“No calamity could befall the Republic without it being the fault of the Senate.”

He was right in the sense that those who are given the honour to guard their nations fail when they preside over its fall. But so, too, the responsibility must rest with the people, particularly in our modern era when we all have access to what is happening around us.

America has returned the right to true liberty to the table

If we claim to not know, then we are admitting to ignorance and worse, wilful ignorance.

Cicero campaigned against the tyranny of Marcus Antonius following the assassination of Julius Caesar. He saw Antony as a worse tyrant than Caesar himself. He knew the consequences of speaking out, but he went on the offensive anyway.

One of his most poignant warnings was when he told a fractious and divided Senate that Antony would stop at nothing to enslave them all:

For if he found slavery bearable for himself, why foist a master on us? If in his boyhood days he endured the lusts of those who tyrannised over him, was he also to produce a master and tyrant over our children? And so, when Caesar was killed, Antonius became to the rest of the community what he wanted Caesar to be to us.

Join Mailing List

Oh, what words that ring so close to home!

While America embarks on unshackling itself from the reign of tyranny, Australia seems intent on launching straight into the depths of its hell!

It honestly beggars belief that Australian leaders, left and right alike, cannot understand that if we are to continue to enjoy a close relationship with the largest democracy in the world, and our most important ally, we must obliterate these heinous censorship laws and sack any public servants who continue to push for them.

It really is about Free Speech, stupid!

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

The Dangerous Use of the Military

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

15 November 2024

0

Ever since the Romans, standing armies have been viewed with deep suspicion. They are expensive to maintain, which often leads to onerous taxation, and they have an appalling record as instruments of oppression.

In Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England, Henry St. George Tucker wrote: “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

America’s founding fathers were of the same opinion. Having freed themselves of British military tyranny, they were in no hurry to suffer the same fate at the hands of their own government. Alexander Hamilton thought Congress should vote every two years “upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot”, while Thomas Jefferson suggested the Greeks and Romans were wise “to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army.” James Madison wrote: “Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Standing armies remain a threat to liberty, much as they were in the time of the Romans.

In the twentieth century, with the growth in technology, a well-trained professional military became difficult to avoid. Some democracies, Switzerland being a well-known example, created a small full-time professional core but retained its reliance on citizen militia. Most others sought to limit the use of the military to national defence. Every dictatorship, by contrast, has used its military to retain power.

Our Australian Defence Force, while not enjoying the status of the military in Israel or America, nonetheless has widespread community support. It is also seen as professional and competent, if seriously under equipped, with no political agenda other than a growing trend towards wokeness.

Its role is also notionally limited to national defence, despite occasionally getting involved in such things as delivering relief supplies, erecting field hospitals or evacuating those affected by natural disasters. This is reinforced by the constitution, which nominates the Governor-General as commander in chief, not the Prime Minister, Defence Minister or state premiers.

But things have changed over the last few years. The ADF has not only provided logistics support during major bushfires, but has also engaged with police in traffic control. And during the Covid restrictions it worked alongside police to enforce border closures and quarantine and, in Victoria, to enforce a prolonged severe lockdown. A very important line was crossed.

Sections 92 and 117 of the constitution guarantee free movement of people and trade between the states. Although the High Court decided to allow WA’s border closures during the Covid period, many legal scholars believe it could go the other way in a similar case. For the ADF to have helped enforce border closures that might be unconstitutional is a particularly serious concern.

Our Australian Defence Force, while not enjoying the status of the military in Israel or America, nonetheless has widespread community support.

As for Victoria’s lockdowns, the implications for the ADF were worse by an order of magnitude. With the authority of a state of emergency, Victorian police were given extremely wide powers including the right to enter premises without a warrant, to enforce rules on exercise, working from home, wearing a mask, home quarantine, distance from home and essential work.

They attacked people walking peacefully and socially distanced, questioned and threatened those who post on Facebook about going walking, broke down doors and arrested those who advocated protests about the loss of freedom, and selectively arrested those who actually protested. Moreover, much of this occurred with a degree of thuggish enthusiasm that would be familiar to any of the last century’s dictators.

Join Mailing List

The only reason the police were able to do all this was because of the broad backup provided by the ADF. They could never have done it without them.

The ADF needs to focus on its national defence role. Indeed, given the worsening situation with China, that ought to be its only purpose. Perhaps it might have a role occasionally in providing relief during emergencies, but it should have absolutely no role in law enforcement, even indirectly.

Standing armies remain a threat to liberty, much as they were in the time of the Romans. We should not tolerate the ADF diminishing our liberty.

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

My 12 Years in Australia: Dreams, Doubts and Determination

By

Warren Wang

-

13 November 2024

0

The 30th of October marked my 12th anniversary in Australia. Twelve years ago, I left China — or more precisely, I escaped from China. I was extremely driven by a desire for freedom, following two life-changing years of struggle with Chinese authorities after speaking out against the authoritarian regime. I left in pursuit of freedom, better study opportunities, and the chance for personal growth. In this article, I want to share my personal story, while also discussing its relevance to labour laws, national productivity, and personal finance.

I still remember the day I landed in Sydney. The sky was so blue, the air so fresh, and with every single breath I could smell freedom. I arrived with $2000 in cash, and after paying three months of rent upfront as a guarantee, along with the first month’s rent, I was left with just a couple of hundred dollars. My first place in Sydney was a tiny single room, no more than 8 sqm, in a shared house that cost me $150 a week, cash. My hard-working parents had paid for my tuition, and I was determined not to ask them for another cent for my living expenses. From that moment, I was on my own.

Australia’s complex labour laws or take the risks that some of my previous employers did to create opportunities for young or unskilled workers.

So I started looking for jobs. I found my first gig as a waiter just three days after arriving and started working on the first weekend. After that I worked multiple jobs, most of them off the books. The lowest-paying job I held earned me $8 per hour—half of the legal minimum wage. I worked over 40 hours a week, more than double the legal limit for a student visa holder, while pursuing a full-time Master’s degree at Macquarie University. If anyone wants to come after me or my former employers now, well, there are no records.

Looking back, those hard-working days are some of my fondest memories. But what I really want to say is that every time I hear politicians or the media talk about poverty, homelessness, or the need for more welfare to support minority groups, it disgusts me.

Financially speaking, most Australians, whether rich or poor, are among the wealthiest 10% globally. Australia still enjoys a relatively free economy, with far less bureaucracy than most countries. Life here may not always be easy, but genuine poverty is rare unless one chooses to head down that path. I’ve often argued that a minimum wage is unnecessary; the market itself will set the minimum rate. In 2012-2013 I earned around $10 per hour, which many claimed was not a liveable wage. They were wrong. I survived through sheer hard work, labouring day and night, making muffins and donuts in the mornings, and working late shifts in restaurants. Not only did I survive, but I also managed to save. I bought my first car, a 1999 Toyota, for $1500 cash, and graduated in the top 10%.

Today, based on my conversations with small business owners, the market minimum wage is already close to $20 an hour, not far from the legal minimum. This is partly due to our poorly managed immigration system and disastrous COVID policies, both of which severely impacted labour markets.

A truly free market doesn’t need the government regulating wages, nor does it need laws dictating when a boss can or cannot contact employees (the so-called “right to disconnect”). Overly powerful, corrupt unions, under the guise of protecting workers, are suffocating the economy and severely limiting our freedom and productivity. In 2022 Australia ranked 16th out of 38 OECD countries in terms of labour productivity, and I would imagine we have further fallen behind in the last two years.

The sky was so blue, the air so fresh, and with every single breath I could smell freedom.

I’m genuinely grateful to all the employers who gave me opportunities when I was a freshly arrived young man with awkward spoken English and barely any life skills. I worked, I learned, and I built a future. After completing my studies and a few uninspiring professional experiences, I launched my career as a mortgage broker. I started as a one-man operation, and today lead an award-winning top national brokerage team with over 30 brokers. Regrettably, I seldom hire anyone onshore; instead, I employ people offshore, as I am unwilling to navigate Australia’s complex labour laws or take the risks that some of my previous employers did to create opportunities for young or unskilled workers.

The more I observe, the clearer it becomes that many laws and regulations are actively harming the economy. Take a recent example: NSW Revenue is attempting to apply payroll tax to companies like Uber and mortgage broking aggregators. The government despises self-employed people and businesses because they can’t control us. They want to grab every dollar they can from every hard-working individual who creates real value—whether it’s by driving a taxi or providing mortgage services.

Join Mailing List

In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, John Galt’s final speech warned of the collapse of society if entrepreneurs, creators, and employers were to go on strike. This is not far from the truth. Every time the government imposes another tax, another restriction, another regulation, they are pushing society closer to the brink. If innovators, business owners, and workers stop creating, producing, and striving for excellence, the whole system collapses.

We don’t need more welfare. We need a freer economy. We need more Milei and less Marx. Australia became a prosperous nation because of freedom, not because of regulations. The more the government meddles, the more it stifles the potential for everyone.

Over my 12 years in Australia, I’ve experienced moments of frustration—particularly with the country’s COVID policies and its tendency to copy the authoritarian policies of the nation I left behind. Despite these setbacks, I remain optimistic. I look forward to a future where Australia embraces more freedom, becoming the country I once dreamed of—a place that inspires and attracts those who cherish liberty.

Warren Wang

Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.

Was John Locke a Proto-Libertarian?

By

Jonathan Cole

-

11 November 2024

0

English philosopher John Locke is widely regarded as the father of liberalism. Libertarianism is a product of this liberal tradition, much to the embarrassment of today’s American liberal progressives who successfully coopted the term in the early twentieth century, irrevocably associating it with the Left.

However, if Locke was the progenitor of liberalism, and libertarianism is a branch in its tree, then the question arises: was Locke a proto-libertarian? (“Proto-libertarian” is the term used by Zwolinksi and Tomasi in The Individualists to describe foundational thinkers in the libertarian tradition who predate the emergence of the term).

Whether modern “liberal” states like Australia reflect the Lockean hope or the anarcho-capitalist fear regarding the security of property is well beyond the scope of this short essay.

The fact that those advocating small government, the sanctity of private property, the virtues of free market capitalism and genuine individual freedom (of the kind that allows people to do and say things that offend) can and do claim to be the true heirs of liberalism scandalises today’s self-described “liberals” who believe in redistributing wealth, constraining the evils of capitalism, enacting social justice and protecting citizens from “hate speech.” Libertarians, whether they recognise it or not, are party to a conflict over the legacy of Locke.

Locke, like all political philosophers of his day, began with the human being’s “state of nature,” which is to say assumptions about the fundamental nature of human existence before the emergence of society, government and the state—the human animal in its natural habitat, if you will. Locke believed that the human being’s state of nature was absolute freedom. “Man,” he maintained in the Second Treatise on Government (1690), was “absolute Lord of his own Person and Possession, equal to the greatest, and subject to no Body.” So far, so libertarian. The question, given this state of nature, was on what legitimate grounds any human being could willingly cede this absolute freedom to form society, with its structures of power, authority, law and government? If man is free, Locke asked, how could he “subject himself to the Dominion and Controul [sic] of any other Power?”

if Locke was the progenitor of liberalism, and libertarianism is a branch in its tree, then the question arises: was Locke a proto-libertarian?

Locke’s answer rests in property. In the state of nature, he observed, the human being was vulnerable to the “invasion of others.” As such, man’s “enjoyment of the property he has in this state [of nature] is very unsafe, very unsecure.” It is this insecurity, according to Locke, that led humans to form societies for the “mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and Estates.” Human beings, though absolutely free in the pre-societal state of nature, nonetheless surrender some of their freedom in order to secure their property. It is important to note that in this Lockean perspective property precedes the formation of society and the state, which is to say that it is a pre-political natural right. The Lockean state, therefore, exists specifically to safeguard the individual’s natural right to property.

At this point we run into controversy regarding the relationship of Locke’s justification for the state with libertarianism. Minarchists, of the classical liberal variety, are inclined to agree with Locke that the state, along with its coercive power, can be justified on the grounds of the protection of property, including the most valuable property, human life. On the other hand, the anarcho-capitalism finds itself in total opposition to this Lockean justification of the state. The rationale for forming a state in the Lockean schema is the threat posed to property by other human beings. In the anarcho-capitalist perspective, in contrast, it is in fact the state that poses the greatest threat to property rights, through its extractive and appropriative tendencies. Whether modern “liberal” states like Australia reflect the Lockean hope or the anarcho-capitalist fear regarding the security of property is well beyond the scope of this short essay. I merely note that Locke could scarcely have predicted, let alone conceived, that the European states of his day, with their weak administrative capacity, could evolve into the gargantuan authoritarian behemoths that we know today, with their ideological and technological capacity to regulate and monitor every domain of human life.

Join Mailing List

In any event, we will never know whether Locke would have embraced the label “libertarian” were he alive today. But his recognition of the essential pre-political human rights to freedom and property, along with his attempts to justify the existence of the state solely on the basis of securing its citizens’ property, are enough to warrant his description as a proto-libertarian, i.e., someone who tilled the soil out of which libertarianism was to grow more than three centuries later. What’s more, it seems unlikely that Locke would recognise what passes for “liberalism” today in America, and increasingly in Australia, as sharing and articulating the ethos of his political philosophy. Libertarianism may be a neologism born of the need to disassociate classical liberalism from the leftward drift of the term “liberalism” in the twentieth century, but its ideas have a long pre-history tracing back through English, French and American liberalism all the way to its source, more than three centuries ago, in John Locke. This should not be forgotten.

Jonathan Cole

Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”

Trump promised libertarians. Here we go!

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

8 November 2024

0

As I write, the American Left’s echo chamber is strangely silent, no doubt stunned at the announcement.

Let’s set the scene: Across the swampy stench of Washington D.C., where the only things typically ‘efficient’ are the lobbyists’ ability to secure pork barrel projects, comes a revivifying breeze. It’s not just any change; it’s the kind of disruptive innovation that could only come from someone who thinks space travel should be as common as a trip to the supermarket. Here’s Elon, not content with electric cars, interplanetary colonisation, and brain chips, deciding to take a crack at what might be his most Sisyphean task yet: making the government efficient.

Now, imagine the reactions. The Left, already on edge from Milei’s ‘Afuera!’ chants across the pond, are positively quivering. ‘Elon’s gone too far this time!’ and ‘Ron Paul will be the end of us!’ they’ll wail, as if expecting the sky to fall because someone dared to challenge the Deep State. They see visions of chainsaws to the bureaucratic red tape, of waste being not just reduced but annihilated. To them, it’s as if Musk has invited a von Mises vampire into the house of government – not because he’s inherently evil, but because he’s going to drain it of all its toxic, contagious blood.

This isn’t just about cutting fat; it’s about rethinking the very structure of government.

And you can understand why Elon might want to spice things up. He’s a libertarian now in all but having ‘I Love Hayek’ tattooed on his forehead. Consider his recent revelations. The government fined Space X $140,000 for the crime of spraying fresh water on his launching pad to cool the rockets on take-off. We’re talking Brownsville, Texas, which annually receives 700+ mm of fresh water just in rain alone but, no, Elon’s fresh water is an environmental disaster.

Then there was the ensnaring Catch-22 by the Kafkaesque bureaucracy. One law forced him into DEI hires of illegal immigrants while the other law bound him to only employ US citizens for defence security reasons. Cop that! Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. No wonder Elon’s now a libertarian and turned to the Grand-Poo-Bah of freedom fighters in the good doctor from Texas.

And why not? If you’ve ever tried to navigate the bureaucratic labyrinth of even Australian federal departments, you’ll understand why this might just be the revolution Americans need. Here’s Ron Paul, the man who once asked, ‘Where in the Constitution is there any authority for Congress to fund education?’, now potentially wielding the scalpel to slice through the Gordian Knot of government department duplication.

Consider this: the US has departments that could be triplets in their redundancy. There’s the Federal Department of Education, the State departments of education, and the local government school district departments. What the first two do, apart from employing teacher union reps, no one knows. And then there’s the US Department of Energy, which might as well be named the Department of Irony given its track record on energy efficiency. Both could do with a severe diet and who better than Dr Ron Paul, the perennial advocate for limited government, to serve up the meal plan?

It’s not just any change; it’s the kind of disruptive innovation that could only come from someone who thinks space travel should be as common as a trip to the supermarket.

This isn’t just about cutting fat; it’s about rethinking the very structure of government. Elon Musk, with his penchant for first-principles thinking, might just be the catalyst needed to ask: Why do we have all these agencies? What are they actually achieving? And most importantly, do we need them at all?

Hell, government might get a new three-letter agency: KPI.

Oh, the fear and loathing this move will garner from the financially-affected Left. They will see this as the first domino leading to the end of civilisation as we know it, the sky will fall and we must warn the king and the rest of the town! They’re terrified of the idea that government might actually serve the people, not the bureaucrats. They envision a world where their pet projects might get the axe, where the gravy train of government waste might finally derail.

Gone, the mercantilism causing democratic drift. Gone the corporatism and consultants with their snouts in the troughs.

Join Mailing List

Yet, for those of us who dream of a government that functions with the precision of a Tesla assembly line, this is a moment of hope. If Ron Paul and Elon Musk can bring to the government the same disruptive innovation seen in SpaceX or Tesla, we might just see the start of a Great Revolution in America, resulting in a government that’s lean and, mostly, out of our lives.

All hinges on a Trumpian victory.

As we Australians watch the greatest spectacle on Earth, mindful of our observer-status but somehow still drawn like a moth to flame, let’s raise a glass to the potential end of American decline. And here’s to Elon, who operates by first principles, and Ron, as principled as they come and possibly entering his last act of public service. May these tenacious two be poised to make the Department of Government Efficiency not just a dream, but a reality.

Afuera!

This article first appeared in the Spectator Australia.

Kenelm Tonkin

An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.

Faulty Towers

By

Max Payne

-

6 November 2024

0

NIMBYism, building costs, consumer tastes, regulation and taxation will keep Victoria’s housing supply low, despite efforts from the Allan Government to power ahead with new developments.

Despite the best efforts of the Victorian Liberal Party, the political winds are indeed changing in Victoria, and Jacinta Allan has laid out her plan to rise from the ashes of a heavily indebted and incompetent government. The plan is currently three-fold:

Release new land for greenfield development
Adopt an Auckland-style relaxation of restrictions on subdivisions or development on existing blocks to encourage a proliferation of townhouses and granny flats
Most controversial – to develop various ‘activity centres’ within suburban Melbourne, including affordable high-density housing.

Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers.

We aren’t talking about large-scale social housing construction by government. The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria. However, those key groups are not really interested in building or buying affordable, high-density housing, no matter how good the location.

The Covid 19 pandemic, along with the work from home arrangements prompted by it, created a wave of demand for housing in regional/rural areas with larger blocks and dwellings, given the reduced value of city amenity while locked at home. As both the public and private sector attempt to re-establish on-site work, Allan hopes to revitalise Melbourne by concentrating new housing around transportation and employment hubs.

But the fact is, Australians don’t really like living in apartments or units. Indeed, if recent demonstrations in Brighton are anything to go by, we don’t like living anywhere near them! For years now, unit prices in cities such as Melbourne have virtually flatlined as supply has increased but demand has tapered off. The price of free-standing houses, on the other hand, has skyrocketed.

The cultural attitude towards apartments in general is one of suspicion. While houses and residential land are revered as sound investments, apartments are known to attract less capital growth, are expensive to own (strata fees, etc), and prone to defects. No matter how many trains go past a day, Australians will happily pay a premium for a detached house.

The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria.

But what really brings Labor’s proposal to its knees is the economics of building high density housing. Developers are facing increased material and labour costs due to inflation and competition from major government infrastructure projects, while also navigating a myriad of regulations and taxes. As a result, apartment blocks are typically developed for the boutique and high-end market. Affordable high-density housing simply isn’t worth it in the current economic environment.

As for greenfield sites, they have issues of their own – not least that Allan’s proposal will see many future sites not delivered for another decade. Basic road, water and sewerage infrastructure costs are higher, and increasingly Melbourne is eating into its nearby food bowl and placing new residents at the mercy of increased fire and flood risk at the urban fringe.

Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers. This approach will allow for controlled infill – not flooding existing suburbs with hordes of new residents but still making better use of existing infrastructure and space.

Join Mailing List

Allan’s government and other Labor divisions have sensed the need to differentiate themselves as the party which will genuinely increase housing supply, whilst labelling any opposition from the Greens and Liberals as ‘blocking’. If the recent Queensland election results are anything to go by, the strategy might be a cunning one in metropolitan seats.

However, if Allan is serious about adding new supply to Melbourne’s housing stock, she ought to ask herself why she has made Victoria the most unattractive state for housing and business investment in the country. Only by removing onerous property, land, and windfall gains taxes, easing the regulatory burden on new builds and slowing their bungled infrastructure program, could she hope to actually stimulate new home building.

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Breaking the Adoption Taboo

By

Bob Day

-

30 October 2024

0

Over 40,000 Australian children are currently in government-sponsored care. Approximately 30,000 have been there for more than 2 years. Less than 200 were adopted.

The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’

Compared with similar countries Australia has very low rates of adoption.

It seems the chief barrier to increasing the rate of adoptions in Australia are state and territory government child protection authorities. In South Australia, for example, the inquest into the death of toddler Chloe Valentine revealed the abject squalor of the environment the child was forced to endure – an environment authorities were well aware of.

The best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems

An anti-adoption culture appears to be ingrained in state and territory child protection authorities.

Jeremy Sammut, from the Centre for Independent Studies, has written extensively on this issue*. He summarises the situation as follows:

“Australia’s child-protection system keeps applying the same, flawed strategies which basically means children are harmed by the very system that’s meant to protect them. It puts an over-emphasis on family preservation prolonging the time children are kept with highly dysfunctional families. When, as a last resort, they are finally removed they are churned through unstable foster care and returned to their families where the reunification is likely to break down. For many children, they spend almost all of their childhood and adolescence in care and never get a permanent and safe family for life. Many of these children could have, should have, been adopted.”

19^th Century English philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart Mill was one of the first to declare that “Children have independent rights as future citizens. If parents fail in their obligations to fulfil those rights, then the State should step in.”

Regrettably, the rights of abusive parents seem to outweigh the rights of abused children.

It has been 50 years since the introduction of the single mother’s pension by the Whitlam Government. This policy helped end the practice of forced adoption as the provision of taxpayer-funded income support gave women who became pregnant out of wedlock the option of keeping their children.

The unintended consequence, however, is that welfare for single mothers has led to the very social problems forced adoptions were designed to prevent – the inability of many single mothers to properly care for their children.

The right to welfare became a pathway to welfare dependency which has contributed significantly to the scale of the child protection crisis confronting Australia today.

In South Australia last month, a bill was introduced into the parliament requiring that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy after 28 weeks not euthanize the child and induce it stillborn, but deliver it alive.

After 28 weeks, with proper care, babies are viable outside the womb.

The bill did not prevent women from terminating their pregnancies, it only insisted that if a woman decided to terminate her pregnancy after 28 weeks, the baby must be born alive, not euthanized and be born dead.

The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’

Presumably, as the woman was planning to abort the child, giving the child to a loving couple to adopt would not be opposed. This would have given rise to a significant number of new adoptions.

The bill was defeated 10 votes to 9 in South Australia’s Upper House.

As a woman’s ‘right to choose’ a termination was not being compromised, why anyone would oppose saving the life of the child when it was going to be aborted anyway is beyond me.

In 2019, the Federal Government’s House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Report, ‘Breaking barriers: a national adoption framework for Australian children’, stated that the best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems.

Five years later, little has changed.

Join Mailing List

For children who are unable to live with their biological parents, adoption has been internationally proven as the best way to provide a safe, stable and loving family life.

While it has been argued that adoption robs children of their identity, modern ‘open adoption’ models which are specifically designed to maintain children’s connections to their cultural heritage and birth families disprove such claims.

It has also been claimed that adoption will steal children all over again. Again, NSW adoption reforms disprove such claims.

The perception that adoption is a socially unacceptable and illegitimate practice based on past practices such as forced adoptions and indigenous experiences must end. There can be no meaningful change or end to the cycle of intergenerational dysfunction until that taboo is broken.

*Dr Jeremy Sammut is the author of several research papers and the book, ‘The Madness of Australian Child Protection: Why Adoption will Rescue Australia’s Underclass Children’. His research influenced reforms which were passed in 2018 by the NSW Parliament.

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

Bacon Sandwiches, Sausage Sizzles and Red Tape

By

Jess Colby

-

25 October 2024

0

On Saturday the 5^th of October 2024, a friend and I were visiting Melbourne when we decided to attend an anti ACMA bill protest being held on that day. Upon arrival, I noticed a sausage sizzle but was disappointed to find there were no bacon sandwiches, just sausages in bread.

Later I went up to the stall to suggest they add bacon sandwiches to their next sausage sizzle. I was informed that bacon sandwiches required separate permits to sell at community events, with the bacon sandwich permit being more difficult to obtain.

I walked away feeling slightly annoyed that I could not buy a bacon sandwich because of some stupid government rule. It may not be the worst of government transgressions, but it is certainly a great example of regulations and red tape having an inconvenient effect on everyday life.

Although some council bureaucrats responded to my question in a manner that easily answered my question

Upon returning to my home city of Adelaide, I decided to contact a range of councils in South Australia and the rest of Australia to see how common it is to require separate permits to sell sausages and bacon sandwiches. I contacted all the councils below on the 8^th of October 2024.

Below is the following enquiry I sent them:

“Hello,

I was just wondering, if I were to organise a community event or help organise a community event such as a community footy game or even a protest, would I require separate permits to sell both sausages in bread and bacon sandwiches at a stand or would I be able to sell both sausages in bread and bacon sandwiches on the same permit?

Thank you

Jessica Colby.”

Although some council bureaucrats responded to my question in a manner that easily answered my question, some did not, and some were even unsure whether bacon or sausage sandwiches could be sold under the same permit as if this was an extremely difficult question.

Many responded mentioning event permits. I would reply to these emails asking whether I would be able to sell bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread under the same permit or would I require separate permits. Some did eventually answer my question although that wasn’t always the case.

Some gave answers that were confusing and even contradictory. A few would direct me to other people or tell me to contact some government health organisation and say they were unsure. A few insisted on speaking on the phone rather than email and one even told me to contact some other authority about getting other permits before they would further discuss my question.

I believe that this example illustrates how red tape unnecessarily restricts our everyday lives and makes things that should be simple more complicated than they need to be. Explaining how government overreach affects our lives at the daily level is a great way to mobilise the community against government overreach.

Below I have created a chart of council areas in South Australia and around Australia showing my attempts to interpret the responses I received from council bureaucrats as of the 18^th of October 2024.

Yes: Separate permits required to sell bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread.

Bacon sandwiches required separate permits to sell at community events

No: Bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread can be sold under the same permit.

Inc: This covers a range of responses including an unclear answer, or I found confusing, no clear response or I was directed to someone else. This also includes responses where I asked them to clarify their response, and was still waiting on a further response as of the 18^th of October 2024.

NR: No response as of the 18^th of October 2024 other than automated replies and updates that my enquiry was being transferred to some other council representative to answer it.

N/A: Turns out Sydney does not permit food to be sold at community events or protests.

Council Area	State	Separate permit required to serve bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread	Notes
City of Adelaide	SA	Inc
City of Burnside	SA	No	Must be under same marque or kitchen to use same permit to be covered under same notification
City of Campbeltown	SA	Inc	Told to contact Eastern Health Authority
City of Charles Sturt	SA	Inc	Likely yes
Town of Gawler	SA	No
Town of Walkerville	SA	NR
Adelaide Hills Council	SA	Inc	Given a list of people to contact

City of Marion	SA	No
City of Mitcham	SA	Inc	Likely yes but not 100% sure
City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters	SA	NR
City of Onkaparinga	SA	No
City of Playford	SA	Inc
City of Prospect	SA	Inc
City of Salisbury	SA	No
City of Tea Tree Gully	SA	No

City of Unley	SA	No
City of West Torrens	SA	No
Mid Murrey Council	SA	No
City of Port Augusta	SA	No
City of Port Lincoln	SA	No
Flinders Ranges Council	SA	No
District Council of Mount Barker	SA	No	As long as all the food sold at the stall is listed on the one application form, only one permit will be required for all.
Berri Barmera Council	SA	NR

District Council of Loxton Waikerie	SA	NR
District Council of Grant	SA	NR
Roxby Council	SA	No	Need FBN number
City of Hobart	TAS	No
Tasman Council	TAS	No
North Canberra Community Council	ACT	Inc	Told to contact Access Canberra
City of Darwin	NT	Inc	Told to contact Northern Territory Health Department
Alice Springs Town Council	NT	Inc	Was told to contact NTG Health as the council officer was unsure on the specifics of whether both can be cooked under the same permit.

City of Perth	WA	NR
City of Bunbury	WA	No
City of Greater Geraldton	WA	No
City of Rockingham	WA	No	Sausage sizzles need one permit that includes both bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread
Shire of Broome	WA	No
Brisbane City Council	QLD	No
Sunshine Coast Council	QLD	NR
Cairnes Regional Council	QLD	NR

City of Townsville	QLD	No	Need a separate permit for every separate food stand
City of Melbourne	VIC	Yes
Yarra City Council	VIC	No
Maribyrnong City Council	VIC	Yes
Whitehorse City Council	VIC	NR
City of Greater Geelong	VIC	NR
City of Greater Bendigo	VIC	No
West Wimmera Shire Council	VIC	Yes

Join Mailing List

Mildura Rural City Council	VIC	NR
City of Sydney	NSW	N/A	Food cannot be sold be sold at community events or protests in Sydney
Georges River Council	NSW	Inc
Waverly Council	NSW	Inc
City of Wagga Wagga	NSW	No
Broken Hill City Council	NSW	No
City of Wollongong	NSW	No
Dubbo Regional Council	NSW	Inc	Was told in the final email that ‘there is no such thing as a permit’ ???

Jess Colby

Jessica Colby is a young libertarian advocate who has been passionate about political issues from an early age. She became involved in the Libertarian Party shortly after turning 18 and is now Treasurer of the South Australian branch.

I’ve got a little list

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

23 October 2024

0

In Gilbert and Sullivan’s opera The Mikado, the character Ko-Ko is appointed to the position of Lord High Executioner. He prepares a list of people to be executed, singing: “I’ve got a little list. They’d really not be missed.”

I’ve often thought this should be the way we deal with those responsible for Australia’s tragic response to the Covid hysteria. I have a list, and I really don’t believe those on it would be missed. The question is, is it more than a fantasy?

A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account. Royal Commissions certainly have broad investigative powers, but they cannot decide guilt or innocence. They can only make recommendations.

A Royal Commission is only as good as its terms of reference, which are written by the government. There is an unwritten rule on that – only establish an inquiry when the outcome is either already known or won’t do great harm to the government.

There is also a problem with jurisdiction. A Commission established by the Commonwealth is limited to investigating federal issues. That would include international border closures, repatriating Australians, vaccine ordering, the vaccine rollout, use of troops, and the advice of the Commonwealth Health Officer and health agencies. It could also look at what the federal government failed to do, such as follow its own pandemic plan or challenge the states’ border closures.

Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity?

It would require a state-initiated Royal Commission to investigate the policies and actions of state governments. That includes the medical advice to justify state border closures, compulsory masks, curfews, lockdowns, other movement restrictions, the Covid zero fantasy, the separation of families, business closures, mandatory vaccination, and of course vaccine certificates.

Only a state Royal Commission could consider whether the loss of basic rights such as free speech, freedom of religion and the right to peaceful protest, or the suspension of parliament, were reasonable and proportionate. And unless the terms of reference were specific, the behaviour of state police would not be considered.

There is also a question of competence. Commissioners are generally retired judges; that is, elderly lawyers. A career as a barrister and judge is not necessarily a sound qualification for investigating complex non-legal issues. From my observation such people mostly don’t understand business or economics, and expecting them to come to grips with epidemiology and immunology might be optimistic. Add the possibility that they will overestimate the risk given their personal vulnerability to Covid, and an objective review is far from certain.

But let’s assume, for the sake of the fantasy, that a Royal Commission with broad terms of reference was established that is brave, competent, and thorough. Let’s even assume it is a joint federal-state commission. What might it achieve?

In my fantasy, it would name those responsible for doing so much damage to our liberal democracy, and spell out the crimes they committed. The patronising, sanctimonious, unscientific Chief Health Officers. The cynical, manipulative political leaders. The lying propagandists and political boosters. The cowardly, craven media. The senior police who sanctioned brutal repression of protests.

It would also offer a strong reminder of the fundamentals of a free society: that freedom and safety are not interchangeable; that personal responsibility should always trump government control; that avoiding deaths at any cost is not the role of the government; that executive government must be accountable to parliament. And perhaps most importantly, that those who violate these principles must pay a price.

A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account.

Notwithstanding some indications to the contrary, particularly in Victoria, Australia is still subject to the rule of law. An adverse mention by a Royal Commission might end a political or bureaucratic career, but it is not a conviction. And the reality is that virtually everything inflicted on Australians in the name of controlling Covid occurred within the law. Other than a few Victorian police perhaps, none of those named would be at risk of going to jail.

Some say this calls for a special tribunal, like that used to try senior Nazis at Nuremburg. This applied the principle that some things can never be legal or right, whether or not they were within the law at the time. That same concept underpins the International Criminal Court.

Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity? No doubt they inflicted needless suffering and misery on millions of their fellow Australians, imposing irrational and arbitrary rules with heartless brutality. And while they claim to have saved deaths from Covid, they contributed to others from suicide and untreated conditions, and caused profound harm to countless careers, businesses, marriages, and childhoods.

The crimes that the International Criminal Court may consider are genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. The world’s longest lockdown certainly felt like a crime against humanity to Victorians, and it would be satisfying to hear the former Premier and Chief Health Officer argue, in their defence, why family visits were prohibited but not visiting brothels; why council gardeners could work but not private gardeners; and why the Black Lives Matter protest was not a superspreader event unlike anti-lockdown protests and watching a sunset from the beach.

Join Mailing List

But that’s where the fantasy ends. A Nuremburg-style trial, even if it is warranted, would require special legislation. And a Royal Commission, even if established, is not likely to do no more than offer half-baked recommendations about preparing for the next pandemic.

Perhaps even worse, the pandemic showed that the commitment of Australians to democracy and freedom is wafer thin. They readily relinquished their rights and freedoms based on fear of a disease with a survival rate of 98 per cent, in the belief that the government would keep them safe.

This is a problem that will not be solved by a Royal Commission or Nuremburg type tribunal. Indeed, it would not be solved by making me Lord High Executioner and allowing me to deal with those on my list. It is a reflection of who we are as a nation.

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

This is What We Get for a Billion a Year

By

Lushington D Brady

-

21 October 2024

0

Australians more and more have reason to question why over a billion dollars of their taxes are poured annually into what has become nothing but a far-left propaganda outfit. A particularly nasty one at that, with a decided proclivity for feting anti-Semitic terrorists.

The ABC has made multiple changes to a story about Israel’s attack on Lebanon after receiving complaints claiming the article was “too sympathetic to Hezbollah and that it omitted relevant context and perspectives”.

Oh, just a mistake, the ABC apologists will no doubt airily hand-wave it away. Yet, it’s notable that, like its sister the BBC, the mistakes only ever go one way: against the Jewish state. In fact, the BBC was recently found to have endemic bias against Israel. The ABC is clinging to the Beeb’s brown shirttails.

The ABC will appoint one of its own staff members to ask its other staff members if they’re biased liars

ABC ombudsman Fiona Cameron received 16 complaints about the article titled “Lebanese Australian community heartbroken over Israeli attack on Lebanon”, which prompted her to examine whether the story met the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality and accuracy.

In her report, she assessed grievances by complainants that argued “the article did not stipulate that Hezbollah was a listed terrorist organisation and that the context for the escalation of the conflict in south Lebanon was unclear”.

The article was written by reporter Nabil Al Nashar.

Nabil Al Nashar… there’s something about that name. Can’t quite put a finger on it, though. Just like Antoinette Lattouf, who was actually sacked by the ABC for her pro-Hamas social media posts.

Looks like that well-publicised push by the ABC to hire more ‘diverse’ staff is really paying off.

That’s just the nastiest aspect of what is a concatenation of failures at the ‘national broadcaster’.

The ABC is facing accusations of airing misleading and “activist-led” journalism on two separate issues over the past fortnight, with both its flagship current affairs programs, Four Corners and 7.30, at the centre of the storm.

“Misleading”? “Activist-led”? Doesn’t sound like the ABC at all. You know, the ABC whose former leading presenter Fran Kelly openly bragged that she was an activist.

Lobby group Nuclear for Australia, which boasts 75,000 members, sent a formal complaint to the ABC on Friday in response to last week’s Four Corners episode titled ‘The Future of Nuclear Power in Australia’, arguing the program was deliberately misleading, failed to disclose conflicts of interests of interviewees, and omitted pertinent facts about the nuclear industry […]

In a formal complaint to the ABC, Nuclear for Australia said Four Corners’ “central assertion of the episode that [the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia] … was the sole reason power bills increased in Georgia is false”.

The ABC has made multiple changes to a story about Israel’s attack on Lebanon

“Instead, there were many factors that Four Corners didn’t mention including gas price increases due to the Ukrainian war, the cost of upgrading hundreds of transformers around the state due to storm damage, and the cost of grid infrastructure to support solar arrays in the middle of Southern Georgia,” the lobby group’s complaint to the ABC ombudsman reads.

Nuclear for Australia has called for the Four Corners episode to be removed from the ABC’s various platforms. An ABC spokesman said: “Any complaint will be dealt with according to the ABC’s usual processes.”

Meaning, the ABC will appoint one of its own staff members to ask its other staff members if they’re biased liars, and when they have all agreed with each other that they’re not, they’ll bury the whole thing and carry on as normal.

Such as, trying to stop better reporters from telling a less-biased story.

A senior ABC reporter has been accused of intentionally blocking a source from speaking to members of the press who were trying to scrutinise the quality of his journalism, a court has heard.

The Federal Court on Tuesday heard Mark Willacy instructed ‘Josh’, a confidential source at the centre of an allegedly defamatory article, not to speak with other media outlets, after a journalist from the Daily Telegraph started making inquiries about the substance of Mr Willacy’s story.

Join Mailing List

The story in question concerned ex-commando Heston Russell, who is suing the ABC, Willacy and journalist Josh Robertson over a story he alleges implied he was complicit in the execution of a prisoner in Afghanistan. The same story has already been exposed as using doctored audio, a fact which was previously brought to the ABC’s attention.

This is what we get for our billion dollars. I think we deserve our money back.

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

Know Thy Enemy

By

James Hol

-

14 October 2024

1

We all love to hate politicians, understandably so, and the last thing I want to do is advocate that we start treating politicians nicer. But it is important to identify the true threat to liberty.

STARRY-EYED BEGINNINGS

Whether we agree with them ideologically or not, it is true that most politicians begin their career with a genuine desire to improve their community. While there certainly are some that are drawn to the power and prestige that politics can bring, these are a minority.

Most politicians fall into one of two camps: fed-up professionals or lifelong activists who perceive an issue they genuinely feel needs redress. While we may disagree with the catalyst that ignited their passion or the solutions they prescribe, it is difficult to disagree with the sincerity of their conviction. Most of us who are politically active have felt this way before.

Recent proposals to increase the number of parliamentarians were widely welcomed, even among libertarians.

THE DEEP STATE

The biggest threat to liberty is something that has existed as long as government, but has grown exponentially over the last half century. It has gone by many names, recently portrayed in shadowy terms with conspiratorial overtones.

While the preferred modern verbiage is “the deep state”, it is nothing more than the faceless bureaucrats who comprise the ever-expanding three- and four-letter agencies of the executive government.

Western democracies, particularly those with Anglophonic origins, typically separate government into three arms: the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. The legislature, or parliament in Australia, is the part of government most of us think of whenever that unfortunate thought enters our mind – the part that democracy makes accountable to the people. The judiciary consists of judges and courts – the determiners of fault. While the executive government is far more nebulous and ambiguously defined – often referred to as “the enforcer”.

THE EXECUTIVES

The most obvious example of the executive government is the police: they enforce the laws that parliament creates, purportedly regardless of their view on such laws, and bring alleged offenders before the courts where fault is determined. Or at least, this is how it is supposed to operate. While I am sure there are still plenty of police officers enforcing laws they don’t agree with, police departments have included the additional function of political lobbying in the last few decades – and this is only increasing.

It wasn’t that long ago that most police departments were made of willing and capable men who were simply looking out for their community – much like the starry-eyed politicians mentioned earlier – often on a voluntary or part-time basis.

it is true that most politicians begin their career with a genuine desire to improve their community.

Now all police departments are highly formalised, employing many thousands of full-time officers, that regularly pressure the government to introduce ill-conceived laws for the primary purpose of making their jobs easier and safer. And while I wish no harm on our police, separating powers means the enforcement arm should not influence the law-making arm.

BLURRED LINES

Police are not even the most egregious offender. How about the Commonwealth Department of Education? It employed nearly 125,000 people in 2022, not one of whom taught a single student; all of them effectively lobbyists or busybodies; all of them pressuring the government to implement their agenda or enforcing compliance against teachers – you know, the ones who actually teach students – who dared not adopt their curriculum, whether deliberate or inadvertent.

The executive comprises the vast majority of the totality of government: the few hundred people we elect and their staff are effectively a rounding error. And as government grows, it is entirely within the executive government. Recent proposals to increase the number of parliamentarians were widely welcomed, even among libertarians.

Join Mailing List

TYRANNICAL ENDINGS

And it is this growth that makes our starry-eyed politician almost doomed to fail.

Government is so big it is near impossible for politicians to have sufficient knowledge, no matter how well intentioned. So they turn to the bureaucrats, who face no public accountability and often spend decades in their cushy jobs, who spoon feed them their agenda.
Even if our starry-eyed politician has some hesitation, he shrugs his shoulders and tells himself: well, I guess he’s the expert.

James Hol

While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.

Knee-Jerk Laws Are Bad Laws

By

Lushington D Brady

-

11 October 2024

0

Flag-ban laws should be repealed immediately, and let sunlight be the best disinfectant

Let’s be clear, here: as a free speech advocate, I don’t believe that states should be banning flags, symbols or slogans of any group. Whether it’s the Nazi hakenkreuz, the communist hammer-and-sickle, a Che Guevara icon or the Hezbollah flag.

Not only because the same state that can ban the iconography of ideologies I despise can also ban those of which I approve. More importantly, banning flags doesn’t make the ideology disappear, it only drives it out of sight. If there’s a wasp in the room, as C S Lewis said, I like to see it. No matter how uncomfortable it may make me or anyone else.

I also believe that the law must, if the rule of law is to mean anything, apply equally to all.

So, if Australian governments are going to – as they have – prosecute individuals for displaying banned Nazi symbols, they must equally vigorously prosecute those showing other banned symbols.

Such as the Hezbollah flag.

You can’t purchase a Hezbollah flag on eBay. Purveyors of flags in Australia are prohibited by law from selling it, and without descending into creepy nooks of the internet on the dark web only one online vendor of dubious provenance offers the flag for sale for $US40 ($58) but is out of stock. Perhaps there has been a run on sales.

Judging by the sheer volume of the ‘moderate Muslim majority’ waving Hezbollah flags in Melbourne and Sydney this past week, this is probably true.

Yet, despite such flags being prohibited, not one charge has been laid.

That’s because the relevant laws are a dog’s breakfast.

Merely displaying the flag in a public space is not sufficient for an arrest to be made. Police need to go through a veritable laundry list of vague law in part because our politicians imposed the reasonable person test – the formless everyman sitting on a Bondi tram – to determine if a person waving the Hezbollah flag at a rally is engaged in the “dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred, (which) could incite another person or a group of persons to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”.

There are various other codicils, and immediately we move into grey areas of interpretation to be left in the hands of police, judges, juries and magistrates.

The laws were written in haste last year, after Victoria police inexplicably escorted a group of neo-Nazis, who gatecrashed a Kellie-Jay Keen women’s rights rally in Melbourne, to front and centre on the steps of Parliament House. In a typical government, ‘we must be seen to be doing something’, knee-jerk response, both the Victoria and federal Labor government rushed the laws through.

And, as always, laws written in haste are very bad laws.

A week later the bill quietly was changed and took the giant leap from prohibiting the display of Nazi symbols where a reasonable person is likely to conclude that a Nazi hakenkreuz is totemic of racial hatred to symbols of proscribed terrorist groups where that same reasonable person may draw a different conclusion.

The motivation of parliamentarians appears to have been the all-too frequent legislative impulse: “We need to do something. This is something. So, let’s do this” […]

This is a mess of the government’s making based on cobbled-together law. The responsibility for the shambles extends to the entire federal parliament, which waved through the bill late last year in an orgy of self-congratulation. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Act 2023 is black-letter law that attempts to solve two distinct problems with one muddled law.

It may be useful in prosecuting those who tote Nazi symbols in public or online but it is less clear how it may serve to prohibit other symbols of racial hatred including Hezbollah’s flag.

Now, the same politicians who passed such obviously bad laws are pointing the finger of blame at police. Anyone but themselves, of course. But police can only try and prosecute the laws the politicians have passed. As Kerry Packer once told the Senate, he didn’t write the laws they accused him of using to minimise his tax (which he bluntly agreed he did), they did.

Join Mailing List

If they don’t like the outcome of the bad laws they write, they have no one else to blame but themselves.

Flag banning is very bad law. It should be repealed immediately and let sunlight be the best disinfectant.

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

Enemy of the state

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

27 September 2024

0

The clothes we wear may change, but the virtues and vices of mankind do not.

As a historian of ancient Rome, I am in awe of the vast and rich sourcebook of knowledge it offers to guide us on what to heed and what to avoid. Yet it appears that those we elect, rule over us with no regard for what we think, as they wield the proverbial sword of what they call justice.

The warnings from the Australian government to the people around the proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill are reminiscent of the treatment meted out to those who dared to criticise rulers in ancient Rome; the caveat being that brutality of the highest order is not in play here.

However, this Bill comes on the back of four years of politicians instilling fear into the population, so it is not a standalone government edict. I argue that it is the trigger for the final battle in protecting our liberties and freedoms.

Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation

We were warned in no uncertain terms by state premiers that the virus would “hunt down the unvaccinated”, and if we continued to ignore the dictates from on high, Senator Jacqui Lambie was there to warn that the government would come after us “lock, stock and barrel” unless we complied.

Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live. Now, they are being primed to accept the most illiberal piece of legislation imaginable. And they will achieve this not just with help from the scaremongering media, but through hopes of raising an army of civilian snitches.

When Lucius Cornelius Sulla was made consul in the early 80s BC and, later, dictator with the goal to restore the Roman Republican constitution, he told the people that if they obeyed him, he would introduce changes that would benefit them all. Should they decide not to, then punishment would be swift and savage.

Those he considered enemies, or friends of enemies, were put on public proscription lists. In addition, he added a statement “detailing a prize for killers, rewards for informers, and penalties for concealment.”

Guilt by association also copped a severe punishment:

“Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation, and there were actually cases of condemnation for showing sympathy or merely travelling in company with a suspect.”

The result of his unadulterated power?

Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live.

“He took sole charge of shaping all the political institutions of the state in the way he wanted. For there was no longer any talk of laws, or elections, or sortition, since everybody was quaking with fear and lying low or keeping silent.”

Forty years later, a group of three – the infamous triumvirate of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus – conspired to punish their enemies in their quest for vengeance following the assassination of Julius Caesar.

They prepared a list in private, and even traded names of friends and foes of one another, surrendering their own relatives if necessary.

“These included brothers and uncles of the men who proscribed them and of their subordinates, if they had done anything to offend the leaders or these subordinates.”

Join Mailing List

In principle, what is the difference of intent between 80 BC and 2024 AD?

The Roman consuls proscribed those who offended them through brutal means, as was the order of the day. Our leadership designs legislation to incriminate us if we dare to offend them.

The intent remains the same – to silence anyone with a different view.
The lesson here is more for the ordinary person than the egotistical politician, for they already know the rulebook inside out – how to manipulate the population. We, as people who merely want to live our lives in relative peace, must harness a sense of courage to stand against the machinery of an overbearing government, even if it means earning the moniker of being an enemy of the state.

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

What is at Stake in Religious Freedom

By

Jonathan Cole

-

25 September 2024

1

Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia. This has a lot to do with the fact that it is not really a freedom per se, so much as a collection of more fundamental individual freedoms with which people are much more familiar: freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly.

What makes religious freedom a distinct concept is the unique content of the conscience, thought and speech in question, and the unique purposes and function of association and assembly conducted in its name.

For example, religions represent the most ancient belief systems still in existence in our modern societies, and this ancient pedigree sometimes puts the religion, and its adherents, at odds with more recent cultural changes. Religions also tend to consist of more comprehensive and determinate worldviews than are typical of secular culture.

A society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is.

Secular world views, to the extent that they exist at all, tend to be more open, indeterminate and relativist than religious world views (militant secularists are the exception that proves the rule).

The comprehensiveness of the typical religious world view, and the ethical systems and modes of living that embody and express them, can make it difficult, if not impossible, for the religious believer to socially compartmentalise their faith, ensuring social friction in a secular, pluralistic society like Australia. Moreover, religious world views are held by a decreasing percentage of the Australia population, progressively widening the gap between the religious believer and the cultural mainstream.

Evidence of this widening cultural distance can be seen in the increasing demand for faith-based schools and homeschooling, as religious believers seek to ensure that their children can be educated according to their faith and world view, free from the corruption of the dominant non-religious state ideology and the secular values and mores that now permeate society.

It is a combination of the unique content of religious belief, on the one hand, and its socially relevant practices and public activities, on the other, that create the kinds of tensions and dilemmas at the heart of the debate about religious freedom. The pointy end of this debate relates to faith-based schools, which have to pastorally manage the presence of same-sex attracted and gender dysphoric students enrolled in them while remaining faithful to the religious teaching and ethos for which the school was established in the first place. This can be particularly vexed in circumstances of open enrolment, where children of parents belonging to the establishing faith of the school are enrolled alongside children of parents who do not belong to it, leading to competing expectations and demands on the school.

However, the key thing to bear in mind about religious freedom, and something often forgotten in public discussion, is that it is simply an expression and manifestation of the most fundamental individual freedoms that constitute a free society, and which most citizens take for granted as self-evident goods. As such, any restriction of religious freedom is by default a restriction of either freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or some combination thereof.

Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia.

That said, none of the fundamental freedoms that comprise religious freedom is absolute. All individual freedoms are subject to necessary limitations and compromises in the name of protecting individuals from violence, aggression and unjustified coercion. The terrorist cannot invoke religious freedom in order to justify the planning and execution of a mass casualty attack according to some perceived divine revelation or injunction.

The challenge for a society with a mixed population of (diverse) religious and non-religious citizens is to properly identify the necessary limitations on religious freedom, without unduly compromising and undermining the fundamental individual freedoms that are essential to the creation and sustenance of a free society, the only kind in which human flourishing is truly possible.

Join Mailing List

The boundaries of religious freedom, which is to say a society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is.

Anyone who professes to value freedom of conscience, thought, speech, association and assembly must care about religious freedom, and must want to see society recognise, preserve and defend ample social space for the practice and expression of religion—not because one necessarily accepts the metaphysical and moral claims of any particular religion, but because one can see the inextricable connection between religious freedom and the fundamental freedoms that constitute a free society, for theist, atheist and agnostic alike.

Jonathan Cole

Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”

How much should we pay our pollies?

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

23 September 2024

0

Among the many criticisms of politicians that I heard during my time as a Senator, the accusation that they are only in it for the pay and perks, looking after themselves rather than the country and voters, was one of the most common.

Sometimes this arose from dissatisfaction with certain politicians, but more often it reﬂected disdain for them all. Many Australians are convinced politicians are paid far more than they are worth.

I am inclined to agree.

This prompts the question – should politicians be paid at all? Should we treat parliamentary service as a career, as we do now, or as a form of public service necessitating an element of sacriﬁce? And if politicians are to be paid, what is an appropriate amount?

Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election

In democracy’s ancient home, Athens, eligible citizens all had a civic duty to participate in the governing assembly. There was no salary, although in the 5th century BC an attendance fee was introduced as an incentive.

In the British parliament, on which our democracy is based, service in the House of Commons was unpaid until 1911. Members of the House of Lords, who are mostly appointed, are still unpaid unless they hold an ofﬁcial position. They can claim an attendance allowance plus limited travel expenses, although many do not bother.

Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service. In New Hampshire, for example, state legislators are paid just $200 for their two-year term plus mileage. In Maine, Kansas, Wyoming and New Mexico, state politicians are paid less than what Australian local government councillors receive.

It’s different for heads of government, most of whom are well paid. Top of the list is the prime minister of Singapore, at more than a million dollars and over ﬁve times the pay of ordinary MPs. By comparison Australia is rather egalitarian; our government leaders are only paid about double what ordinary politicians receive.

But it is the pay of ordinary politicians that agitates people, and on that Australia is generous. A backbench member of the Federal Parliament receives a package (i.e. salary, allowances and superannuation) of at least $280,000. State politicians’ salaries tend to be only slightly lower.

This is far more than what most of them earned before getting elected and, more importantly, is much more than what they could earn if they lost their seat. This has a powerful effect on their behaviour.

Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election. In the case of New Hampshire, around half the members of the legislature are retired, with an average age of 58.

Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service.

Perhaps it is reasonable they be paid something. Being a senator can be extremely busy, as I found. There are not only long days in Canberra but also committee hearings and an endless stream of people seeking help. Most politicians treat it as a full-time job and their salary is their sole source of income.

But that need not be the case. While the workload for key ministers is typically substantial, ordinary MPs have considerable time-ﬂexibility. Indeed, some undertake additional study or write a book, while a few maintain a professional interest (such as doctors) or remain involved in an outside business (as I did).

More to the point, a great deal of the activity of politicians is designed to help them get re-elected. Being paid a handsome salary with generous expenses while doing this gives them a significant advantage over their unelected competitors.

Join Mailing List

The reason for entering politics ought to be service to the country rather than a lucrative professional career. It should attract people who have achieved more than navigated their way through a party, worked for existing politicians, and manipulated numbers to gain preselection. Politicians should also have a life outside politics that ensures they are not desperate to be re-elected.

It is difﬁcult to see how political service is substantially any different from serving on the board of a charity or other non-proﬁt organisation, for which there is reimbursement of expenses and possibly an attendance fee. It should ideally be no better paid than any other job an incumbent is likely to achieve.

And, of course, service in politics should be viewed as a temporary role that will end. And when it does, there should be something to go back to.

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

We are Family

By

Max Payne

-

20 September 2024

0

The family unit is a core tenet of a functioning free society. A strong, stable family environment provides a much-needed buffer against the encroachment of government dependence – a difficult bond to break.

As mainstream media finally begins to report on the potential impact of falling birth rates around the world, the blame is laid squarely at cost of living and the lack of financial stability experienced by those of child-bearing age. The cost of housing is chiefly to blame here, but the broader cost of living leaves young Australians chained to their careers and busy lifestyles. Without a stable financial base, people in their reproductive years are putting off the decision to have children.

Governments often harp on about their ‘family focussed’ budgets and policies but, in reality, government policy is increasingly hostile to building strong families.

Various taxes and duties create an unsustainable strain on small businesses and families.

Let’s begin by making one thing clear: subsidies for childcare are not a ‘family positive’ initiative. Parents cannot build strong families while raising their children is outsourced to daycare centres on the taxpayer dime. What these subsidies actually do is incentivise ‘workplace participation’ – hailed by activists as a metric of gender equality, but only really loved by big spending governments which rely heavily on income tax to fund their agendas.

The attack on genuine family time is mounted on other fronts too – with early childhood education increasingly touted as a necessary step in development, which by implication cannot be fulfilled at home. What’s more, state governments (which originally initiated Covid lockdowns) are now rushing to walk back public sector WFH arrangements to save the CBDs from their own policies! Thus, parents facing high cost of living are told their children need expensive early education and must not work from home. What choice do they have?

Governments often harp on about their ‘family focussed’ budgets and policies

So what can be done? First, it’s time to bring back income splitting, where the combined income of a married couple is ‘split’ for tax purposes, which can be leveraged by a single household earner to reduce their tax obligations. While tax policy continues to punish higher earning sole providers while incentivising dual income arrangements, children will continue to miss crucial time with their parents at home.

Second, major reforms to childcare and the wider education system must be initiated. Childcare should be largely deregulated; the escalating cost is not providing improved value but is an increasing burden on families and taxpayers. Tax credits should be available to families who opt out of government funded schools as well, encouraging homeschool arrangements.

Join Mailing List

Finally, massive spending and spiralling red tape at all levels of government must be reigned in, as they are fuelling the cost of living crisis that is crippling families. Ever increasing regulation on building codes, the drip feed of land supply and minimum standards for rental properties are drying up housing supply when more are desperately needed. Various taxes and duties create an unsustainable strain on small businesses and families, while increased spending drives inflation, sending mortgage repayments, utilities, food and fuel costs higher than wage rises. Who would want to start a family in that environment?

There can be no growth to our society if the family unit is being so critically undermined. How can we expect to raise a generation of independent thinkers and self sufficient upstarts if we can only afford to hand them over to the government while we work all day? If we can afford to have them at all.

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Use a VPN, but don’t stop there

By

Simon Anderson

-

16 September 2024

1

The socialist government of Anthony Albanese is, once again, proposing legislation to de-anonymise, monitor and censor the Internet. From across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand I can smell the American eKaren Julie Inman Grant’s enthusiasm for this sort of authoritarian crackdown.

As always the justification amounts to “Please! Won’t Someone Think of The Children!”, along with misdirections concerning child safety and insulating young minds from dangerous misinformation and disinformation. Coded language that really means truths that are inconvenient obstacles for leftist narratives.

Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new. Leftists in Western democracies have been endeavouring to implement them for decades. The problem has been public resistance, with opponents able to point to China and its Great Firewall as a handy example of how such initiatives enable totalitarianism.

There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught

A massive public relations campaign has been underway across the West for many years, conducted by western governments, aligned NGOs and supra-national organisations such as the WEF, attempting to sway public opinion against the maintenance of civil liberties across the Internet. A recent example is the coordinated attacks upon Elon Musk’s 𝕏 platform, which has largely refused to comply with government demands for censorship and state surveillance of 𝕏 users: censorship and surveillance to which other social media platforms such as Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook have been only too willing to comply.

Musk’s intransigence has attracted the ire of the authoritarian elites across the world, and not just Australia’s petulant eKaren Julie Inman Grant. From European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton’s jackboot demands for 𝕏 to comply with oppressive provisions of the bloc’s Digital Service (DSA) Act through Brazil’s Justice Alexandre de Moraes banning 𝕏 altogether in the country at the behest of the ruling leftist regime, to French president Emmanuel Macron luring Telegram CEO Pavel Durov to France so he could be arrested, the social media platforms allowing resistance to state censorship and surveillance have been put on notice.

Nonetheless, the attacks on the social media giants are a sideshow. The leftist elites are well aware that compliance by the social media companies does not solve the underlying issue of users themselves circumventing surveillance and censorship on platforms simply by moving to alternative platforms that refuse to comply.

We’re seeing this already as frustrated users flee Facebook en masse for platforms that don’t block their content and suspend their accounts when they post about Hunter Biden’s transgressions. The more adventurous migrate to decentralised platforms (or federated as the terminology goes) that don’t even have a corporation behind them for governments to bully. Remember MySpace? When one social media platform loses prominence, another rises to take its place.

The solution is to impose surveillance and censorship at the source rather than the destination: the users themselves. The preferred approach of the leftist elites is to impose technological restrictions and then to enact punitive punishments against those who circumvent them. Brazil has implemented this, with users caught using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to access banned sites such as 𝕏 facing fines of up to $US9,800 per infraction. China employs a similar technology/legislation regime though the punishments meted out to transgressors are considerably worse.

What is a citizen opposed to this totalitarian crackdown on basic civil liberties to do? In a democracy the true solution lies at source: cease voting for leftwing political parties that promulgate and promote this hateful ideology. But if you happen to live under such a government such as Australia, there are technical mitigations available too. In recent days I’ve heard chatter similar to “just use a VPN. Everyone will have a VPN app installed on their device in two minutes” to bypass restrictions. It’s not that simple.

Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new.

VPNs are great and everyone should use one. They are a trivially easy method of routing your traffic through another country, one with a better commitment to fundamental human rights. The problem is that VPNs are also trivially easy to detect. Detection by the state -such as in Brazil and China- is rapidly followed by state enforcement. I have heard sotto voce that the Australian Labor party intends such a ban on VPNs. Bring on the organ harvesting.

Fortunately for Aussies, people living under other repressive regimes have developed solutions. Technical advances from those on the side of freedom against the enforcement mechanisms of the leftists are in the ascendency, though it must be said there is no such thing as perfect security. The technique with the most value is obfuscation, a method of giving VPN traffic the appearance of being a different type of traffic, making it far more difficult to detect. The most mature and readily-available suite of sophisticated tools to obfuscate Internet traffic is the Tor network, a component of which the leftist elites endeavour to scare you about by using the bogeyman term Dark Net.

Tor works by bouncing traffic from ingress nodes through intermediary nodes to exits nodes back onto the Surface Internet in order to obfuscate the origin, meaning the user. This comes at the cost of additional latency but Tor has an equally valuable feature: the facility to obfuscate the type of traffic with pluggable transports, better known as bridges. Two of the most popular are OBFS4 bridges running on Tor relays and Snowflake, which operates as a simple peer-to-peer browser extension. Alongside VPNs, both of these are technologies Australians would be well advised to utilise.

Join Mailing List

In the escalating technology war against Internet civil liberties, advances in AI analysis of obfuscated traffic poses the most critical risk. A simple VPN may suffice for Australian Internet users and I recommend using one. Tor is the next step up and you should start using that too. It’s available for all platforms and devices.

There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught: following in the footsteps of other oppressive regimes the Australian Labor government is likely to discourage circumvention through VPNs and Tor with punitive penalties.

And as I alluded earlier, technology is merely mitigation. The solution is to vote the nasty bastards enacting these attacks upon civil liberties out of office.

Simon Anderson

Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.

Whose Ethics make it Ethical

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

11 September 2024

0

When I started my business 35 years ago, very few investment funds were describing themselves as ethical investors.

Some years later I joined an organisation of CEOs, business owners and senior executives that meets to share and discuss their challenges. I enjoyed our meetings right up until my group was required to listen to a speaker on ethics. When I asked for a definition of ethics and who decides what is ethical, I was told I was out of order. Not long after that I was asked to leave the group.

Some funds then began describing themselves as sustainable investors. I wrote a column about it, asking who defines sustainable, and has anyone ever knowingly invested in a company that was unsustainable? There were letters to the editor criticising me.

It then became ESG, or Environmental, Social, and Governance. Still seeking definitions, I found it supposedly incorporates sustainable investing, responsible investing, impact investing and socially responsible investing.

Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better.

I also found a claim that ESG criteria can “help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.” That sounded like the focus was on financial performance, which is good, but in fact it was not the case. The more I looked, the more I found it was all just virtue signalling.

Then came DEI, or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, which is all about how many women, black or disabled people are on the payroll. Not just virtue signalling, but bragging about it.

Funds that differentiate themselves like this are motivated by the desire to attract more investors and generate more fees for their managers. Furthermore, very few of those choosing to invest in these funds are using their own money; both the fund managers and their investors are deciding what is ethical or sustainable using other people’s money.

The problem is, most ESG funds deliver lower returns to investors. And, as I discovered, they don’t agree with each other about what it all means, and also don’t much like being questioned.

As it happens, I am an investor of my own money and regard myself as both ethical and sustainable. Moreover, I have no difficulty offering coherent definitions.

My favourite definition comes from former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who said, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. In my view that’s also ethical.

As to what it means in practice, here are a few thoughts.

I will never reject an investment in coal unless there are better nuclear or hydro options, delivering cheaper and more reliable power. It is not sustainable to subject the community to the vagaries of expensive and intermittent wind and solar power, and it is grossly unethical to compel families in India to continue burning cow manure for fuel or force children to do their homework in the dark.

I will absolutely invest in forestry. Not only is it renewable, in Australia it is also totally sustainable. When the alternatives are importing timber from other countries or building in steel and concrete, it’s no contest.

Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better. Genetically modified crops, modern herbicides, precision farming and minimum or zero tillage are not only sustainable but also boost yields, leaving more land for conservation. There is absolutely nothing ethical about staying rooted in the past, using out-dated technology to produce food that some people cannot afford to buy.

Help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.

Some ethical funds say they refuse to invest in companies that harm animals, by which they mean those that use animals to determine whether pharmaceuticals or cosmetics adversely affect humans. By what ethical standard is it preferable to expose our loved ones to the risk of life-threatening or disfiguring harm?

As for things like tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, these are matters of personal choice. Whatever we might think of them, the ethical approach is to not interfere in the choices of others. I’d happily invest in them if the returns were adequate. And if it means protecting liberal democracy from authoritarianism, I’d certainly consider it ethical to invest in armament companies.

That leaves a fairly small unethical and unsustainable list. Anything that funds or apologises for terrorism, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamism or corruption is on it. I’m also wary of companies that foster a woke culture; not only are they hypocrites but ‘go woke, go broke’ is more than a slogan.

Join Mailing List

But that’s just me – I don’t expect others to necessarily share my views, although it’s clear that an increasing number of people seem to be doing just that. For those with control over their own money, my suggestion is to simply invest in businesses that offer the best returns, and ignore those that virtue signal. You can then use the dividends or capital gains to help make a difference based on your own values.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

The Unholy Union

By

James Hol

-

9 September 2024

0

Conceptually, worker unions are quite compatible with libertarian ideology. Workers voluntarily leveraging their collective bargaining power is a perfectly acceptable free-market response to what can oftentimes be an unbalanced relationship between employers and employees. All libertarians would prefer to see these kinds of voluntary associations dealing with some of the natural consequences that markets create, rather than the coercive and violent state trying, unsuccessfully, to regulate them away.

LABOR MAFIA

However, the true purpose of the vast majority of mainstream unions in Australia is obvious to anyone who is politically active: to funnel money and membership towards the Labor Party. It is no secret that the only way to advance in the Labor Party is to become a union leader; it’s not even an open secret, it’s basically written on the door. Union thugs also provide a handy tool during election season; ripping down opposition corflutes and intimidating volunteers at polling stations.

The vast majority of contributions to the Labor Party come from the unions

This is not to say that there aren’t any good unions out there; plenty of unions do great work, but they are usually smaller and are eventually intimidated out of the space. Similarly, it is possible that in the time union leaders spend factionalising, politicking and satiating their political ambitions, they occasionally help a few workers along the way. But politics always comes first.

The recent news tying the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) to criminal organisations and intimidation tactics came as very little surprise to anyone who has spent even five minutes in politics. The only thing I was surprised about is that people didn’t know this already. The day we get to see the unions fully exposed, and their relationship with the Labor Party properly examined, is probably still a long way off though.

UNHOLY TRINITY

There is one other player in this tripartite corruption ring: industry super funds. In 2019, industry super funds paid over $10 million to Labor-aligned unions – up from just over $4 million ten years earlier. By 2030 it is projected the funds will be pumping over $30 million per year into unions.

Industry super funds are far and away the biggest political donors in Australia. However, these aren’t donations, it’s just plain corruption. Industry super funds pay their members’ retirement money to unions for vastly inflated and vaguely worded services: sponsorship fees, marketing costs and events. The industry super funds are adamant these are not political donations but legitimate expenses, which the Australian Electoral Commission happily goes along with.

Additionally, industry super funds invest heavily in union-backed infrastructure projects. The unholy trinity of the industry super funds financing the unions through the retirement savings of millions of Australians, which then go on to funnel that money to the Labor Party, is not only blatantly stealing from hardworking Aussies, but also propping up an inflated sector of the economy with politically influenced investment. These funds are also some of the most prolific when it comes to shareholder activism, driving much of the ESG-investing movement and wokification of corporate Australia.

Union thugs also provide a handy tool during election season

PAST PERFORMANCES

Prime Minister Albanese was heavily criticised for reneging on his election promise to stay out of our super, but the truth is that the Labor Party has been getting a big chunk of our super for years. The recent changes only further entrench industry super funds as the default choice for most Australians and push people further from having some degree of autonomy via self-managed super funds (SMSFs).

While much noise was made about the tax changes towards super, and rightly so, the payday superannuation guarantee starting from 1 July 2026 went past largely unnoticed. A change from which smaller funds and SMSFs will see largely no benefit.

The real beneficiary of these changes is ultimately the Labor Party. The vast majority of contributions to the Labor Party come from the unions – that almost goes without saying. Only 15 per cent of Australia’s workforce is unionised, yet the CFMEU alone donated over $3 million to the Labor Party in the last election year.

Join Mailing List

Industry super funds, with $1.2 trillion assets under management (AUM), control over a third of the AUM of all Australian super funds. There is no doubt that some of the exorbitant fees they charge their members are ending up in the hands of unions, and the money that they are actually investing is heavily skewed towards union-backed projects. Imagine when they can start relying on regular weekly or fortnightly inflows.

James Hol

While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.

Resisting centralist power – Part 3

By

Bob Day

-

6 September 2024

0

In a speech entitled, Rebuilding the Federation, Richard Court, then Premier of Western Australia, described the tide of centralism as follows:

“All the things that the States do best are under attack from the empire builders in Canberra. The bureaucracy running the Federal education system, as you know, is large but it doesn’t teach any students. There is an equally large health bureaucracy which doesn’t treat any patients.”

Court went on to make the point that the Constitution recognised that State governments were better placed to respond to local priorities.

Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations.

The States are left with constitutional responsibility for education, health, housing, law and order, commerce and industry, transport, and natural resources including land and essential services. But Court noted that, with the help of the High Court, the Commonwealth now has almost complete control in some of these areas.

Benefits of Federalism

Those who live in the major population centres on Australia’s eastern seaboard may not understand the importance of local decision making in the same way that those who live in the regions and smaller States do. In a country as large and diverse as Australia it is very difficult for a political administration and bureaucracy based in a distant national capital to take full account of, and understand, the interests and needs of local communities.

As a principle not only of government, but also of life, the best decisions are taken when all the parties to the decision know and understand the issues intimately. A federalist approach that seeks to allow States to exercise power in making decisions on local matters is infinitely better than centralised decisions at a distance. Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

Economic Benefits

The Productivity Commission has outlined the competitive benefits of federalism in improving performance in the Australian economy, saying:

“The competitive dimension of federalism, which provides in-built incentives for governments to perform better across a variety of areas, is operating well.”

There is an inherent competitiveness between the States that should be encouraged. State governments have a vital role to play in creating the right environment to attract and retain capital. We live in a global market environment in which competition between States will only serve to make each of them more efficient.

Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

By competitiveness, however, I mean real low cost, light regulation efficiency competitiveness, not taxpayer funded inducements to lure business from one State to another.

Perhaps the most valuable attribute of successful federations is the way in which they lead to a disbursement of power that fosters democracy and restrains corruption and abuse. While the division of powers among the stakeholders may cause frustration for those who desire an unfettered capacity to determine the course of events, it does introduce important checks and balances to the political process.

There is a creative tension that comes from the consensus building required to make a federation work, in the longer term serving both the individual and common interest.

Join Mailing List

Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations. The reason I am such a committed federalist is because it is by far the best way to govern a large and diverse country like Australia; far better than its alternative, centralism – power and law making centralised in one place.

Whilst it may seem counter-intuitive that six (or even eight), separate State service providers could be more efficient and cost effective than one big, centralized service provider, it is true nonetheless.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

Resisting centralist power – Part 2

By

Bob Day

-

4 September 2024

0

Following the Second World War, the most dramatic shift in the balance of tax power between the States and Commonwealth occurred.

In 1942, under the leadership of John Curtin as Prime Minister and Ben Chifley as Federal Treasurer, all income taxing authority was handed over to the Commonwealth by the States for the duration of the war under the defence power of the Constitution. This was intended to be temporary and to last for a year after the end of the war. However, while the war ended in 1945, the role of the Commonwealth as the sole income taxing authority did not.

For those concerned at the erosion of State rights through judicial activism, even worse was to come when, following the end of the Second World War, the High Court ruled that income tax collections could exist as an exclusive Commonwealth right under the normal powers of the Constitution.

Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federation in the world.

During the 1950s the State of Victoria mounted two legal challenges to the uniform tax legislation without success, and in 1959 at a Special Premiers’ Conference discussion of a return of income tax power to the States was on the agenda but could not be agreed. While there remains no legal barrier to the States exercising their right to levy income tax, there are practical (and political) reasons not to do so.

In the post war era, the centralisation of power continued to be affirmed through decisions of the High Court including the Franklin Dam case in 1988, the Queensland Rainforest case in 1989, Mabo in 1992, and the Wik Peoples case in 1996.

In speaking of the influence of the High Court and the threat to federalism arising from its decisions, Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia said:

“It is a basic rule in the interpretation of any written document and indeed a matter of common sense that the whole document must be looked at in order to ascertain the meaning of any particular part. It might therefore have been supposed that in deciding on the meaning of the paragraphs of the Constitution which confer power on the Commonwealth Parliament, the Courts would have resolved any ambiguity by interpreting the provisions in a way that would maintain the federal distribution of power which the Constitution so obviously appears to guarantee ….. However, since 1920 the High Court has consistently rejected an approach of that kind.”

The struggle for power continued in the High Court in 2006 with the States challenging the Commonwealth over the validity of the federal WorkChoices legislation, which was enacted under the Corporations power. The High Court overwhelmingly came down in favour of the Commonwealth. While workplace relations laws, prior to the WorkChoices legislation, were a relic of a bygone era and desperately in need of reform, the rights of States in the area of industrial relations were now all but gone. For example, the 1999 decision of the High Court to allow SA State government public servants to be covered by a Federal Award undermined that State’s competitiveness.

The ability of a small, low cost-of-living State to use its industrial relations system to create a competitive edge over the larger States is important. South Australia, for example, under Premier Sir Thomas Playford, used this strategy (in conjunction with tariffs) to build a manufacturing base in Adelaide in the 1950s and 60s. Likewise Tasmania may wish to trade-off high salaries for quality of life and a green and clean environment.

The most dramatic shift in the balance of tax power between the States and Commonwealth occurred.

Undermining the rights of States is also evident in the actions of a burgeoning and, at times, arrogant Federal bureaucracy where the controlling hand of the Commonwealth is exercised through the terms and conditions embedded in funding arrangements with State government agencies.

Since federation the tax revenue balance has moved dramatically from the States to the Commonwealth. The imbalance that now exists, known as Vertical Fiscal Imbalance, has put the Commonwealth in an all-powerful position, able to dictate to the States how and where funds are spent.

Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federation in the world. The Federal government raises over 70% of all general government revenues, much more than is required to fund its own operations. The States raise just over half what they require to fund theirs. The balance of the States’ financial requirements is met through Commonwealth grants. This gives the Commonwealth enormous economic power and influence, and is inefficient and inequitable. It has the effect of keeping States like South Australia and Tasmania in a position of mendicancy.

Join Mailing List

Ideally, the States and the Commonwealth should only collect taxes for their own purposes with taxpayers and consumers fully informed as to what is a State tax and what is a Commonwealth tax. Those who spend the money should have the responsibility of raising it. It is about accountability, and governments of all persuasions should be specifically accountable for the money they raise and spend.

The use of Section 96 of the Australian Constitution, which empowers the Commonwealth to make grants to any State “on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit”, has been used by Federal governments to wield power over the States.

The Commonwealth’s control over State borrowings has further served to erode the power of States and their capacity to control their own destiny.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

Resisting Centralist Power – Part 1

By

Bob Day

-

2 September 2024

0

In 1901, when six individual British colonies came together as a federation, it was in an environment of extensive and, at times, torrid debate. While there was widespread acceptance that the colonies could achieve together what they could not achieve alone, there was also apprehension about the extent to which the power to govern would become centralised.

The enthusiasm and sense of expectation surrounding the birth of a nation was tempered by concerns about the future autonomy of individual colonies. The smaller colonies were also apprehensive about the power and influence the larger colonies might exercise.

As a consequence, the process leading to the formation of the Australian Constitution was both painstaking and torturous.

One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.

During the first of the convention debates in 1891, Sir Samuel Griffith, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, captured the essence of concerns saying:

“We must not lose sight of the essential condition that this is to be a federation of states and not a single government of Australia. The separate states are to continue as autonomous bodies, surrendering only so much of their power as is necessary for the establishment of a general government to do for them collectively what they cannot do individually for themselves.”

In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.” It is clear, both from the Constitution and from the record of the Convention debates, that the Federal government was to have significant but well-defined powers. All powers not defined in the Constitution, known as the residual powers, were to remain the province of the States. However, the ink was barely dry on the Constitution before a growing appetite for centralised power emerged.

Foundations of Power

The powers of the Commonwealth were set out in Section 51 of the Constitution, and their scope described in 39 subsections known as a head of power. While the States retained the right to legislate on these matters as well, the Constitution provided that where any inconsistency existed between Federal and State legislation, the Federal legislation prevailed.

The powers ceded to the Federal government were very wide and included interstate trade and commerce, corporations, external affairs, taxation, defence, quarantine, currency, pensions, banking and many more.

Centralisation of Power

As one might expect, the first issue on which the boundaries of authority between the States and Commonwealth were tested related to tax, with the High Court becoming the arena for argument. The gloves came off, the lawyers were primed, and the fight over money began.

The first tests came in 1904 in Peterwald v Bartley where the High Court examined whether the Constitution prohibited the States from imposing excise duty. This was followed the same year with D’Emden v Pedder, in which the power of the States to impose taxes on Commonwealth activities was rejected.

In 1908, in response to the Constitutional requirement that any surplus tax revenues in the first decade of Federation be returned to the States, the Commonwealth enacted legislation to pay these surpluses into a trust account thereby avoiding payment to the States. One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.

In 1910, the Constitutional obligation that not less than 75 per cent of the Commonwealth’s customs and excise revenue be distributed to the States came to an end. While the arrangement was mandated for only the first decade of Federation, the Commonwealth terminated the arrangement as soon as it was legally able to do so, much to the ire of the States.

In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.”

Commonwealth government activity and bureaucracy then began to grow rapidly, fed by its growing tax harvest. The years leading up to World War 1 (1910-1914) saw increases in Commonwealth control of the economy and in social services. In 1915, following the entry of Australia into the war, the Commonwealth introduced income tax which co-existed with income tax applied by the States.

Over the next few decades, both in the High Court and through legislation, the Commonwealth and States battled for territory in a number of areas including tax, defence and welfare services. So extreme was the discontent with the way the federation was heading that some States, most notably Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, contemplated secession. In 1933 a referendum was held in Western Australia.

At the time there was a Great Depression and every State was struggling. Some believed the problems were a result of Federal government policies and actions, particularly in respect of tariffs imposed to protect the manufacturing and sugar industries.

Join Mailing List

The result of the WA referendum sent shock waves through the rest of Australia with 68% of West Australians voting in favour of secession. This was about the same number who had voted to join the Federation only 33 years earlier. The desire of West Australians to separate from the Federation was not fulfilled as the British Imperial Parliament refused to act, claiming that such an action could only be taken with the consent of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

No Headspace Evidence

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

26 August 2024

0

Is there a pandemic of mental illness among young people? Is almost one in two young women affected by mental illness?

In an opinion article in The Australian, Patrick McGorry, a celebrated psychiatrist, 2010 Australian of the Year and recipient of an Order of Australia Award for his services to youth mental health, claimed this was so.

McGorry quoted a paper in The Lancet Psychiatry, of which he is lead author, to argue that mental ill health in young people (defined as 12 to 25) is a silent public health crisis threatening the lives and futures of a whole generation.

He says youth mental health has been steadily declining over the past two decades, and suffered a major deterioration driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the measures taken to contain it, and its aftermath. In addition, he says intergenerational wealth inequality, student debt, insecure work, unaffordable housing, climate change, and social media have contributed.

The prevalence of mental illness is highest among 18-24 year olds and decreases with age

It has now “entered a dangerous phase”, he says, with a 50 per cent increase in “diagnosable mental health conditions among 16–25 year-olds since 2007” He believes governments have a responsibility to “wind back harmful policy settings and regulate powerful private forces.”

This will take time, he admits, and suggests a more immediate solution is to “reimagine and strengthen” the youth mental health program he pioneered known as headspace, “buttressed by a new specialised, multidisciplinary platform of community health care”.

This is obviously a campaign for additional public funding of his pet project, a classic case of special pleading. There are hundreds like it, ranging from childhood cancer to aged care. Libertarians tend to dismiss special pleading out of hand, on the basis that it is simply a call for increased government intervention using taxpayers’ money.

But most people are not libertarian, and there are legitimate questions: is the situation as McGorry describes? If so, is it any business of the government, and are his solutions appropriate?

There is something inherently dubious about a claim that almost half of all young women are suffering from mental ill health. It is certainly not my experience. While it is true that the Covid measures were both painful and unnecessary, is the current generation more mentally fragile than the generations that experienced world wars or the threat of nuclear war? And why should fear of climate change be causing more mental ill health than Ehrlich’s predictions of an overpopulation catastrophe?

As for the other factors nominated by McGorry, when has it ever been different? Indeed, the only new element in his list is social media. While it is true that being abused and insulted by strangers online is new, it seems a stretch to suggest it is causing a lot more mental ill health.

What’s needed is evidence relevant to McGorry’s claims: an objective definition of “diagnosable mental health condition”, plus data on the number of cases.

His article in The Australian and the Lancet paper had neither. Furthermore, despite the paper being a review of multiple sources, it did not cite any data that substantiated the claims.

One source it listed is an Australian study, the National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing, undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2020-2022. It reported that 42.9% of people aged 16–85 years had experienced a mental disorder at some time in their life. However, it is entirely based on what respondents told interviewers face to face.

Moreover, its definition of mental disorder includes not only illnesses such as depression, psychosis and eating disorders, but also anxiety and substance abuse. In other words, if respondents indicated they felt anxious, or had overdone the substances, it was likely to be classified as mental illness.

Youth mental health has been steadily declining over the past two decades, and suffered a major deterioration driven by the COVID-19 pandemic

Current understanding of mental illness is roughly where our understanding of infectious diseases was a century and a half ago – the causes are not known, and there are no cures. In many cases it cannot even be objectively defined. Almost everyone experiences anxiety in their life, but obviously not everyone characterises it as mental illness.

Current therapy involves talking about it (technically known as psychotherapy) and medication. These can be helpful, just as measures to reduce a fever helped with infections prior to the invention of antibiotics, but most cases recover irrespective. This is shown by the fact that the prevalence of mental illness is highest among 18-24 year olds and decreases with age.

Join Mailing List

Indeed, perhaps the best treatment for most so-called mental illness among young people is time. Like pimples and adolescence, they grow out of it. Puberty blues is not merely the name of a movie.

What is abundantly clear is that the picture painted by McGorry cannot be substantiated. His long-term solutions are progressive claptrap, while he offers no evidence to show that his headspace project is making a difference and deserves additional government funding. Indeed, if there was such evidence it would probably attract philanthropic support.

If there is a sound argument for the government involving itself in youth mental health, McGorry does not offer one. It is not just libertarians who should be sceptical.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

Windfall?

By

Max Payne

-

21 August 2024

0

The Guardian recently said the quiet part out loud – the Coalition’s pivot towards nuclear energy is scaring away the big money that is backing renewables.

That’s right, the mere fact that the Federal Opposition (who aren’t fancied to win the next election mind you) has proposed nuclear energy for Australia is enough to put investors off backing renewable projects. And yes, we are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors.

While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables.

We are constantly told that Australia is ripe for renewable energy – be it solar, wind or hydro. But the truth of the matter is that without unequivocal bi-partisan legislative support, private capital is unwilling to back projects even against the prospect of competition. That should tell you everything you need to know about the reality of the economics of renewables.

The Investor Group on Climate Change reported that ‘more than one’ major investor had decided to hold off on future investment decisions in Australia. General sentiment was that investors would prefer to back projects in jurisdictions with bi-partisan political support for a renewables-led transition to net-zero.

What is clear from these developments is that investing in renewable technology is not a vote of confidence in how the projects stack up. Rather, it’s simply an attempt to bet on government-backed guarantees, and once that guarantee is potentially threatened the investors flee.

We are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors.

To play devil’s advocate, nuclear technology may potentially suffer from similar issues. Due to the high upfront costs and long lead times of nuclear energy projects, even strong advocates of the technology freely admit that significant public funding would be needed to get projects off the ground and to induce private investment. It is unclear how competitive nuclear energy might be in the new energy market as well – would investors expect legislative guarantees to ensure returns?

Join Mailing List

What is clear though, is that the threat of (or lack of) government intervention in the energy marketplace is destroying investor confidence. Be it renewables, potentially nuclear, or the ridiculous net-zero targets that are annihilating investment confidence in coal and gas, the sources that actually do the heavy lifting in the energy market.

While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables. They aren’t betting on the tech, or on a technologically robust transition to net-zero. They are betting on a government guarantee to ensure their returns.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Welcome to Borroloola Land

By

Gary Johns

-

16 August 2024

0

Every failure in Aboriginal affairs creates an opportunity to offer a shiny new bauble to public servants and the journalistic cheer squad. Last weekend, in light of the failure of the Voice referendum, there were three baubles – naming an Indigenous state, renewable self-determination, and a new economic development plan.

The cost of the baubles is to put off the day of reckoning for the children in hundreds of remote communities in northern Australia who fail to learn to read, write and speak English well enough to get a job. Until they do, nothing good will happen. Any plan that begins without these needs fulfilled is doomed.

Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, is from Borroloola in Arnhem land, south of the site of the Garma festival. That small community has three preschool centres: one run by a charity, one by an Aboriginal corporation, and another by the education department, competing for a handful of children. And yet, too many children still fail to move through sufficient years of school. Perhaps Senator McCarthy could explain how she made it when others could not.

Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers

Bernard Salt, the demographer, suggested that one of the Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name. Perhaps he was inspired by Naarm, an Aboriginal state in miniature. I recently travelled into that city, formerly known as Melbourne, on the Skybus and was regaled by the welcome and acknowledgment and sovereignty-never-ceded meme. My fellow travellers were Asian and Indian, all with earpieces and mobile devices, blissfully unaware of the Victorian disease of hating progress – welcome to the state of grunge.

If not Victoria, how about granting the Northern Territory statehood and naming it Borroloola land?

One big man would get all the money and hand it out in envelopes in order of family preferment, the big man’s family first and so on. It sounds perfect, very post-colonial, and very Papua New Guinea.

When he arrived at the Garma festival, the Prime Minister was undoubtedly busting to announce his brilliant initiative. Having disappointed the great and the good at Garma last time with a resounding loss in the 2023 referendum, he combined two precious icons of the left: saving the world with renewables, and Aboriginal collectivisation.

The Prime Minister’s renewables plan is for solar panel and wind turbine-led ‘self determination’. Gas would be better; the Northern Territory is floating on it, but that seems to disturb the green spirits. Imagine shiny rows of solar panels on ‘country’ and turbines on ‘sea’ as far as the eye can see. I guess Albo had to bung something in the speech.

However, for the sake of his adoring audience and faithful journalists, here is what it takes to make a solar panel. Manufacturing is really about silicon production. Most of the energy required to make solar panels is consumed during silicon production, purification, and wafering. Silicon is produced from high-purity quartz, which is exceedingly rare. It has to be chemically reduced.

Solar panels can only be produced with coal, oil, gas and hardwood. Coal is required as a reducing agent for making silicon and as a source of heat and electricity for the industrial process required to manufacture solar panels. These processes need a continuous supply of electricity, which renewables cannot provide.

Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name

The Prime Minister might also like to brief the First Minister of Borroloola land that the vast array of renewables must be decommissioned and disposed of. Fortunately, there is plenty of space in Arnhem Land for solar panel dumps. Wind turbines at sea can just be left to join the underwater songlines. But the average lifespan of the newest utility-scale solar panels is a fraction of the 25 years marketed. It is more like 15 years. Older solar panels used to ‘live’ longer but newer ones are optimised for the lowest raw materials and energy use so that after about 10 years, serious failures occur. Renewables are not renewable.

Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers even though every skerrick of land outside the major settlements is owned or controlled by Aboriginal interests under various Land Acts or related agreements. To this ‘vast terrestrial estate’ and the Prime Minister’s renewables power delusion may be added Australian National University’s Professor Peter Yu’s dream of economic empowerment.

Let me explain the Peter Yu economic development plan. There is no economics. The ‘plan’ is based on human rights rent-seeking. It recommends public servants be indoctrinated in the ways of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It promotes ‘cultural mapping’, presumably writing what Aborigines have carried in their heads for thousands of years. The reason is simple: to monetise that ‘knowledge’.

Join Mailing List

They plan to get their hands on ‘sea and water interests’ by extending the native title regime to get a bigger slice of what others produce. They recommend the same with ‘intellectual property’. They recommend ratifying the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. The upshot would be that if access is sought to genetic resources on Aboriginal land, which is almost the entire state of Borroloola land, the terms of access would be negotiated with the big men. Any benefits from the subsequent use go to the community ‘according to the mutually agreed terms’ – rent-seeking.

These wonderous rent-seeking developments in Borroloola land come wrapped in a nice bow with treaties supervised by, according to Peter Yu, the Makarrata Commission. McCarthy succeeded without these baubles. She should tell the children.

Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research

This article was first published in The Spectator.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Gary Johns

Dr Gary Johns served as former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Special Minister of State & Vice-President of the Executive Council in the Keating Labor Government. A philosophical rethink saw him accept a series of appointments in the service of economic rationalism, including Senior Fellow at the IPA and Assoc. Commissioner at the Productivity Commission. He recently served as Commissioner of
the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission.

A Nation of Takers

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

14 August 2024

1

One of the many inequities of Australia’s welfare system is the exclusion of family homes from the means test. Recipients of age or disability pensions can own houses worth millions of dollars while remaining eligible for pensions funded by the taxes of people who cannot afford to buy a house at all.

In private, many politicians agree that excluding the family home leads to unfair consequences. However, neither side of politics is willing to change it. There are simply too many Australians who insist they are entitled to a pension.

It is much the same with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). It is widely known to be extensively rorted, with scheme providers charging participants several times what they charge non-participants for the same service. It is also well known that many people on the scheme are only mildly disabled, if at all. And yet, even as the cost threatens to bankrupt the country, even minor reforms prompt screams of protest.

Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries

Also threatening the national budget is the cost of childcare. It is no longer sufficient to keep small children happy while their parents are at work; it is now early education. Advocates have created a narrative that children who remain home with their mothers are somehow deprived. Childcare is rapidly becoming yet another entitlement to be funded by the government.

There was a time when Australians liked to think of themselves as self-reliant and quick to help each other, while receiving welfare was an embarrassment and an indication of failure.

This has been replaced by a culture of entitlement in which there is absolutely no compunction about receiving money from the government. Many people insist they have a right to a pension simply because they have paid taxes, despite that never having been the situation in Australia. Even those who have never paid tax (apart from GST), or who frittered their savings away on gambling and ‘substance abuse’, demand it.

Some of this thinking is attributable to the fact that a proportion of immigrants originate from countries which have contributory pension schemes. They assume it is no different in Australia. But a far bigger factor is the entitlement mentality. If someone else can get a pension, I should also get it. If someone else is receiving benefits via the NDIS, it’s only fair that I obtain them too. In fact, if there is money being handed out for anything, I’m entitled to it.

There is no longer any disgrace in receiving government benefits. Indeed, a thriving industry of accountants and Financial Planners specialises in rearranging their client’s affairs to meet eligibility requirements for government benefits, especially pensions and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.

There is even intergenerational welfare, with extended families living on welfare their entire lives. This is particularly the case with certain indigenous communities, while “Lebanese back” is apparently sufficient to qualify for a disability support pension.

Some admit that ‘government money’ originates with taxpayers, but it makes little difference. The sense of entitlement defies guilt, facts and reason, hence the reluctance of politicians to make changes for fear of losing votes. Even worse, many politicians use taxpayers’ money to buy votes.

The sense of entitlement owes it origins to the growth of the welfare state over the last half century, together with the rise in taxation that accompanied it. Although Australia has had an age pension for more than a century, disability assistance, childcare subsidies, unemployment benefits, medical benefits and many other handouts and subsidies are far more recent.

It has led to the perception of an all-pervasive government with unlimited resources. Moreover, if you go about it the right way, money can be extracted from it.

Also a factor is the level of income tax. Getting something back from the government to compensate for the amount of tax paid makes sense. Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries, on average taking 25% of earnings. Plenty of people see little benefit for themselves.

Join Mailing List

Obviously, this situation is unsustainable in the long term. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Australia is already living beyond its means, with budget deficits year after year. It is also actively discouraging industries that support the economy – think coal exports, gas exports, sheep exports – while increasing energy costs. It obviously cannot last.

What the country needs is a government that encourages self-reliance rather than dependence on the state. Unfortunately, there is no sign of that.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

Olympic Dam’s Gold Medal Performance

By

Bob Day

-

7 August 2024

0

It is exactly 50 years since Western Mining first discovered the massive gold, silver, copper and uranium ore body at the aptly-named Olympic Dam in South Australia. A golden anniversary indeed!

But discovering the ore was just the beginning.

The fight to allow uranium mining at Olympic Dam was brutal.

The ruling Labor Party, under then Premier Don Dunstan, was vehemently opposed to uranium mining and particularly opposed to uranium mining at Olympic Dam.

One of the key opponents of Olympic Dam, calling it a ‘a mirage in the desert’, was one Mike Rann, an anti-uranium campaigner from New Zealand who had come to South Australia to work for Dunstan. Rann eventually became Premier of South Australia in 2002.

The Liberal Party, led by David Tonkin and his deputy Roger Goldsworthy, won the next election and in 1980 set about implementing their proposed ‘Olympic Dam Indenture Agreement’, building both the mine and nearby township of Roxby Downs.

Its final passage, through the SA parliament’s Upper House in 1982, came down to a single vote – Labor’s Norm Foster. A former wharf worker, Foster had sat on the select committee into Olympic Dam and did not agree with Labor’s position that uranium mining was an environmental or ethical scourge.

On the day before the final vote on the project Foster resigned from the Labor Party and, the following day, crossed the floor of parliament to give his vote to the Tonkin government thereby clearing the way for the new mine.

For years following his actions, Foster was vilified by the ALP. However, his role in establishing one of South Australia’s most successful projects (and biggest earners!) was later acknowledged by the Labor Party and his membership restored.

Fast forward to 2024, and Australia is experiencing a similar political challenge closely related to uranium mining – nuclear energy.

The case for nuclear power has been well argued, but there are more than just economic and energy reliability reasons for embracing nuclear power. There could also be significant strategic benefits.

First, if there’s one thing we learned from the pandemic, it’s the importance of self-reliance.

Australia has for too long been dependent on overseas supply chains – fuel and energy being no exception.

Australia’s future energy needs are currently being assessed against three criteria – reliability, affordability, and emissions intensity.

Unfortunately, the laws of physics and economics do not allow all three. Two out of three yes, three out of three no.

As emissions intensity has pretty much been mandated, this leaves only reliability and affordability to choose from. Clearly, reliability has to win.

No form of renewable energy generation yet invented or discovered is reliable enough to meet Australia’s base-load demand.

Nuclear power is both reliable and emissions-free.

It is, however, expensive to build. Again, two out of three.

In addition, there is a fourth aspect worthy of consideration – regional security.

South Korea, Japan, India and Pakistan all have nuclear power. Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh and the Philippines are looking to develop it.

All have, or will have, spent nuclear fuel.

As Australia engages more with Asia, we bring a unique perspective and relationship devoid of the centuries-old enmities and history that exists between some of these countries.

We could be the Switzerland of the South.

Australia could establish an Asia-Pacific office for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). We could host conferences and bring the world’s best nuclear minds here.

We could bring together expertise on the ways in which other nations are storing their spent nuclear fuel. We could, as the 2015 SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission heard, store that fuel in South Australia, and not have it stored within the borders of nations with fractious relations and/or unstable geology.

Join Mailing List

“The International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) could establish an Asia-Pacific office in Australia. We could host conferences and bring the world’s best nuclear minds here.”

The countries whose spent fuel was stored here would have an interest in our security.

And as well as the multi-billion-dollar economic benefits – abolishing Stamp Duty, Payroll Tax, Occupational Licencing charges and many other taxes, charges and levies – with the latest technology we may even be able to extract more recycled power from the spent fuel in the future.

The more we engage with the nuclear question, the more positive the opportunities arise.

But first we must remove the regulatory obstacles and legislated bans blocking Australia’s economic and energy independence.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

More Political Competition

By

Dimitri Burshtein

-

5 August 2024

0

According to Treasurer Jim Chalmers, increasing competition among supermarket giants will help deliver lower grocery prices: “If it is more competitive, more transparent and people are getting a fair go, better outcomes will be seen at the supermarket checkout“.

The ACCC also notes that competition encourages innovation.

But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes: the former through lower prices and better quality, and the latter through lower taxes and better services.

And just as those in the commercial sector prefer less competition, so too do the players in the political sector; the dominant political parties frequently colluding to modify electoral laws to defend their incumbency.

The Albanese government, while pursuing a business competition reform agenda, is also surreptitiously running an electoral reform agenda which will have the opposite effect, reducing political competition.

Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”

In his 1776 magnum opus The Wealth of Nations, the father of economics Adam Smith wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

This quote is often used to describe the potential for anti-competitive behaviour within business. However, with politics now more of a trade than a calling, Smith’s description equally applies to our elected class—a group that regularly meets, often for merriment, in a well-appointed building, to conspire against the Australian public.

While Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh pursue new competition law amendments claimed to “make our economy more productive, more dynamic, and more competitive”, Special Minister of State Don Farrell is developing plans to make it more difficult for small parties and independent candidates to compete in the political marketplace. Farrell even recently stated that “the Westminster system provides for a two-party operation.” A duopoly that is.

Recently also South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas proposed to ban electoral donations. Were such a reform implemented, it would further privilege and embed the major parties by making it exceptionally difficult for new parties to emerge. Raised barriers to entry lead to reduced competition.

Political parties are exempted from many important laws including privacy and the proposed mis- and dis- information laws. This makes their perpetual assault on political competition and concentration of political power even more nefarious.

At a time of declining support for the major parties as measured by first preference voting and polling, the major parties continue to work together to maintain their political duopoly.

Although the latest electoral proposals are being driven by a Labor Government, the Coalition also has dirty hands. In 2021, the Coalition government passed laws, with Labor’s support, to shorten pre-polling periods and force the deregistration of some minor parties. As part of this the major parties confiscated the words “liberal” and “labor” from the political lexicon, perpetually vesting these terms in themselves.

Even Gough Whitlam’s grand dream of fixed four-year electoral terms has received bipartisan support with both John Howard and Peter Dutton offering endorsement. Extended terms transfer power from the people to the elected with no recourse, such as binding citizen-initiated referenda (as occur in Switzerland) or recall elections (as occur in the US).

It was not always thus. Over recent years, our neo-professional political class has increasingly and incrementally colluded to raise the barriers to entry for alternative parties and candidates. This has contributed to a homogenization of personnel and policy, making the differences between the average Labor and Coalition candidate barely discernible to the average voter.

For all the talk of diversity, this homogenization has led to much reduced experiential, cognitive and policy differentiation among politicians. Many members of our parliaments, irrespective of party, gender, race, sexual preference or religion, follow similar educational and pre-parliamentary career paths. While elected governments may change, there is a consistent trajectory of permanent government expansion and price rises through ever higher taxes.

Since the turn of the millennium, it has been bipartisan policy and practice to increase spending, taxes, and the volume of regulations to ever greater levels. The assaults on civil liberties and the crowding out of civil society similarly continue unabated.

But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes

It is not just a reduction of competition at the political level. There has been a long-term de-federalisation project to aggregate power in Canberra; a manifestation of the French “disease” described by Alexis de Tocqueville as the tendency to concentrate authority in central government; something Tocqueville believed to be detrimental to political and social health.

Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”, a term coined by US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Death duties in Australia were abolished not through some fiat from Canberra but because of competition between the states and territories.

However, today some 81 percent of total tax revenue is collected by the Commonwealth, leading to policy centralisation and standardisation. Matters constitutionally the provenance of the states, such as health and education, are now increasingly directed out of Canberra; fidelity to the intent of the Australian constitution and of tax and policy competition be damned.

Join Mailing List

Just recently, the United States celebrated 248 years of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, it included this famous sentence: “… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.

Just as politics is downstream from culture, policy is downstream from politics. It’s time to change the way politics is done in Australia.

Dimitri Burshtein

Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.

Carpet Call: The Imperfect Gift of Religious Freedom

By

Bob Day

-

29 July 2024

0

John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols) is a clever guy.

As Robert McCall (aka Denzel Washington) says in the movie Equalizer 2 to Miles, a troubled teenager: ‘It takes talent to make money, Miles, but it takes brains to keep it’.

Regardless of one’s taste in music, there’s no doubting John Lydon had talent – and brains.

‘Imperfection is at the heart of life’, Lydon once said. ‘Imperfection is the greatest gift of all.’

‘Arabic rug makers will make their work perfect except for one tiny stitch, because nothing is perfect in the eyes of God. Only God is perfect. I think that is magnificently intelligent’.

Before the 2022 federal election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to overhaul religious protection laws in Australia.

Under existing law, when hiring teachers or workers, faith-based organisations are able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity via an exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) now says that exemption should be scrapped. No legislation has yet been introduced.

Not content to wait for the Federal Government to act, activists have shifted to the old ‘State by State’ stalking horse approach – find the most amenable State, introduce the law there and then get other States to adopt it one by one. Once a few States have adopted the new law, the Federal Government is then pressured into doing the same. It’s a tried-and-tested model of creeping change.

Former SA Greens Senator and now Greens SA Upper House member Robert Simms is proposing to introduce legislation into the SA Parliament next month which would remove all exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

There are some things people will not be dictated to or lectured about. One of those is their faith or their morals – particularly what they teach their children. They will certainly not be brow-beaten or cowed into submission by being called bigots or homophobes.

The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those. It is about discrimination against religious people. The Left may call for tolerance but what they really want is for everyone to agree with and endorse – even celebrate – their view of the world. They are not interested in debate or argument; they simply want the legislative power of the state to force everyone to comply.

If being free means anything, it means citizens having the right to ensure that the religious and moral education of their children conforms with their own convictions – as outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory.

It means having freedom of conscience, and the freedom to believe and practice the core tenets and values of a person’s faith. It is the state’s role to protect those rights.

There’s no doubt that the Left is out to undermine our freedoms. They’re coming for our churches, our schools, our faith-based organisations, our farms, our mines, our cars and, most of all, our children. They’re also coming for our old people with their euthanasia packs, for our about-to-be-born babies with their grotesque abortion laws, and they’re coming to indoctrinate our primary school children. They’re also coming for Christmas Day and Australia Day and Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. These people mean business.

People and faith-based organisations – schools, hospitals, aged care providers and charities – should not have to rely on exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to function in accordance with their faith.

The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those.

They should, by right, have the freedom to select people as they see fit.

Political parties grant that right to themselves because they believe, quite rightly, that the political allegiance of a job applicant matters.

In environmental groups, views about climate change are relevant; in women’s shelters, gender is very important.

Saying you can only become a member of a chess club if you play chess is not discriminating against people who don’t play chess!

In ethnic clubs and institutions, ethnicity is sensible and practical.

We accept all these differences.

And in faith-based organisations, faith matters.

Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational. After all, no-one is forced to work for a faith-based organisation or send their children to a faith-based school where all the staff follow that particular faith.

Expressions of faith by a person or faith-based organisations must be declared lawful. Statutory exemptions are totally inadequate. Exemptions granted can just as easily be withdrawn – as is now being proposed.

Join Mailing List

The right to religious freedom must be treated as a pre-eminent right and be recognised and protected. Human Rights Commissions should have no role to play.

A Commonwealth law, by reference to its Objects clauses, must recognise religious freedom as pre-eminent and override all state and territory anti-discrimination laws.

To paraphrase John Lydon, while such a law may be imperfect, it would be a magnificent gift.

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

Out of Proportion

By

Max Payne

-

24 July 2024

0

Recent elections in both the UK and France highlight major flaws in their electoral systems, with lessons for Australia.

Compare the pair:

UK Labour (2024 UK election)

National vote share: 33.8%
Seats won (% of chamber): 63.38

Australian Labor Party (2022 Australian Federal election)

National vote share (2pp): 52.13%
Seats won (% of chamber): 51

How can an electoral system be considered fair when one party (Labour) can take 34% of the national vote and win a ‘landslide’ election, while another (Reform) can take almost 15% and go home with 0.8% of the seats (5 out of 650)? It’s a similar story in France, where National Rally comfortably won the popular vote but will walk away with less seats than Macron’s centrists and the NPF.

Political candidates and parties receive public electoral funding in Australia on a per-vote basis.

It highlights the importance of two key pillars of Australia’s electoral system, but also points to a couple of weaknesses.

I believe the UK election highlighted the fact that first past the post voting is neither fair nor representative. In an election dominated by an almost universal will to unseat the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats often campaigned on prior results or current polling to indicate that voters should vote ‘tactically’ to ensure the Tories lost.

On the other hand, Nigel Farage’s Reform Party did not encourage such a practice, instead seeking to simply gain votes at everyone’s expense. As a result, the right-wing vote was regularly ‘split’ and either Labour or the Lib Dems were able to take the highest vote share.

Apart from the national vote being wildly out of proportion to the composition of Parliament, it is unfortunate that parties should gain votes tactically. It is regrettable that voters, rather than choose their preferred party/candidate, feel compelled to vote for the one they feel is most likely to defeat an incumbent they dislike. There’s no way to know how many votes for each party represent a genuine first preference for them.

The secondary issue here is the lack of a vehicle for proportional representation. If the UK had a second (democratically elected) house of parliament that was elected via proportional representation, its make-up would more closely resemble the national vote share, at the same time negating the need for any tactical voting.

To bring us back to Australia, although preferential voting in the House of Representatives mostly renders tactical voting unnecessary, there are exceptions. The two-party preferred (2pp) system can influence voters under certain conditions to change their first preference in order to ensure a supposedly more viable candidate is not eliminated early – this occurred in ‘Teal’ seats at the 2022 Federal Election.

UK election highlighted the fact that first past the post voting is neither fair nor representative.

This issue is compounded by the fact that political candidates and parties receive public electoral funding in Australia on a per-vote basis. This practice should ultimately end, not only for the aforementioned factors that influence voters, but due to the ongoing advantage it gives larger political players.

Join Mailing List

The other meaningful change that I’d make to Australia’s electoral system would be to abolish any districting within our state upper houses. By creating geographic segments within the overall electorate, the vote quota needed to gain a seat increases – again locking out smaller players and denying their voters representation. In my home state of Victoria, new legislation (similar to recent reforms in WA) could remove our upper house regions, creating a state-wide proportional race for the Legislative Council.

So don’t knock preferential voting: it allows for the most genuine expression of voter intention, and proportional representation ensures even the small players take their rightful place in the chambers. The alternatives are not fit for purpose.

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Childcare – Why should you pay for it?

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

19 July 2024

0

Starting before they are born, our governments spend a lot of money on children.

The Commonwealth budget for education alone is $67 billion, and in NSW $24 billion. Add the other states and territories, plus health care, and as the saying goes, pretty soon you’re talking real money.

While our society obviously values children highly, it is rare that anyone questions why so much of their cost is socialised. Having children is, after all, a choice. Other lifestyle choices do not attract such taxpayer generosity.

Among the taxpayers who provide the funds are many who do not have children themselves. Some are yet to start a family, while others have chosen not to have them. But there are also those who, for various reasons, would very much like to become parents but cannot.

A strong case is always necessary to justify spending other people’s money, but a particularly convincing case is required to justify compelling those who cannot have children to pay for other people’s children. It’s like obliging paraplegics to pay for the running shoes of the able bodied.

The government thinks there is a strong case for childcare. It wants women to return to the workforce as soon as possible, so they resume paying tax and contributing to government revenue. With state and federal governments all addicted to spending more than they collect, they have a strong incentive to increase taxpayer numbers.

The government also argues that the less time women are out of the workforce, the more they retain their work skills. This is presented as a benefit to the women, as women who return to work more quickly typically earn higher incomes. However, they also pay more tax.

For the mothers of the children, the case is not so clear. Some women are obviously career oriented and anxious to return to the workforce as soon as possible. However, there are many who would prefer to care for their children themselves, especially while they are small, rather than entrust them to strangers in childcare facilities. Motherhood is a powerful instinct, and most jobs are rarely more engaging than raising a child.

The government also argues that the less time women are out of the workforce.

The key reason most do not remain at home is economic: single income families with children typically struggle to pay a mortgage or rent plus general living expenses, vehicle expenses and the rest.

The underlying cause of this is government policies, particularly high income taxes, excise on essentials such as fuel, and the regulation and taxes that lead to expensive housing. Remove these and it would be a lot easier to live on one income.

From the point of view of the children, the case for childcare is even less compelling. Mothers have been caring for their children for thousands of years and have not recently become incompetent.

But we are told that it is no longer sufficient to simply keep children safe, happy and entertained while their parents are at work; the children must now be educated by qualified early childhood educators. It is now known as early childhood education and care (ECEC).

Moreover, whereas childcare workers were once just sensible, caring people, most with children or grandchildren of their own, they must now hold post-school – and sometimes even university-level – qualifications. Mothers who have successfully raised four children of their own cannot become childcare workers unless they have obtained the appropriate qualification, while those who have a qualification but no prior childminding experience are fine.

There has also been a ratcheting up of regulation of the physical environment, the programs and routines offered, plus the ratio of staff to children in childcare centres.

For the most part this has been driven by middle-class parental guilt. That is, parents seeking to justify the decision to place their children in childcare are demanding standards that allow them to believe their offspring are receiving a better start in life than if they stayed at home. It makes them feel better about leaving the kids with someone else.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to show that these standards are enhancing children’s outcomes. This was conceded in the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Childcare and Early Childhood Learning. The evidence indicates that the only children who benefit from ECEC are from dysfunctional households, such as those where substance abuse is an issue.

Furthermore, the ramped-up regulation and credentialism have made childcare seriously expensive. Even moderately well-paid parents baulk when the cost is almost as much as they can earn by going to work. For the poorest parents, especially single mothers who have a strong need to return to work, it is simply out of reach.

A strong case is always necessary to justify spending other people’s money,

Childcare advocates, especially those with a pecuniary interest, are seeking to convince the government to implement a universal ECEC system, based on recognising early childhood education as a fundamental need. Naturally they claim this should be provided at minimal cost to parents, arguing it would give children the support they need to thrive into adulthood, while parents, particularly women, would be better able to balance work and care responsibilities.

This is a profoundly elitist view, based on the assumption that virtually all women prefer to return to work, and that virtually all children benefit from early childcare education. As previously discussed, neither is true. Moreover, the cost of such a system, tens of billions of dollars, would be borne by taxpayers.

What is never considered is changing the incentives so mothers do not feel so pressured to return to work. If income taxes were significantly reduced by, for example, allowing single income households to split their income between working and non-working parents, the pressure would ease. If the cost of childcare was tax deductible, it would help. If fuel excise plus GST did not take over half the cost of fuel, households would have more money for other purposes. If housing was not so heavily taxed and regulated by local, state and federal governments, there would be more houses at affordable prices.

Join Mailing List

And if childcare was less regulated, with only those opting for early childhood education paying for it, the cost of ordinary childcare to mothers who genuinely need it would be more affordable.

As it stands, ECEC is a taxpayer-funded elite middle-class racket. Rather than hit taxpayers for ever increasing subsidies, the sector needs to be substantially deregulated. Middle and upper-middle class families who expect gold-plated, diamond-encrusted childcare – with its university educated workers and low staff ratios – should pay for it themselves.

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

The Coming Populist Revolt

By

Gary Johns

-

17 July 2024

0

Populism occurs when the masses revolt against the elites’ view of the world. Elite opinion does not often deal directly with popular opinion, that is, with the people who have to pay for elite opinion. When elites get it wrong, the masses revolt through the ballot; the Voice referendum being a good example. The question is, when is the next chance?

Currently, the elite consensus on issues like net zero, immigration and identity politics is so far removed from the reality of the masses that it is no wonder they are pushing back. The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

International

Net zero is a preposterous notion. The world population is eight billion people. By 2050, it could be 10 billion people, a 25 per cent increase. These people will need energy. World energy consumption is 600 BTUs. By 2050, it could be 900 BTUs, a 50 per cent increase: more people, higher living standards, more energy. Electricity generation will rise mainly in the Asia-Pacific among developing nations. Renewables do not generally feature in developing countries’ energy mixes anywhere near developed nations’ proportions.

Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia.

Of 144 nations tracked for net zero, only 26 have placed in law their commitment to net zero by 2050 (or sooner). For example, the Maldives has pledged net zero by 2030 but it has no plan or accountability mechanism; it is pure hot air. Even Goody Two-Shoes Finland leaves out aviation and shipping and has plans but no mechanism for carbon removal. The US (2050), Russia (2060), China (2060), India (2070) and Brazil (2050) have a ‘policy document’, but nothing in law.

Australia has a plan written in law that is sure to kill the nation’s wealth. Industrial and economic mayhem, loss of reliable energy and higher energy prices will reduce living standards. Minister Bowen’s deployment targets are logistically impossible in the time frame.

Kenneth Schultz estimates a total cost of $1.4 trillion for the Coalition’s renewables-nuclear option. He estimates the cost for Labor’s renewables-battery option at $4.4 trillion, nine times the federal government’s total annual revenue.

National

Migration in Europe and Australia is dangerous at levels that challenge national unity. Numbers count. If one million Palestinians settled in Australia in a short period, for example, the result would undermine Australian society. Palestinians would settle in a few suburbs and recreate a Palestinian society, i.e. one that recreates the hatred extant in Gaza and the West Bank.

Values also count. Australia would do well to distinguish migrants by the nature of their observance, which is apparent in the laws on marriage, succession, or rape in marriage among our key Islamic migrant source countries: Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. A striking feature of those laws is that they distinguish the application of the law by religion. Religion first; the rule of law second. The question is how to distinguish this at an individual level. Classing people by source country is too crude and unfair, but not to distinguish people would be foolhardy. Why should Australia invite those unlikely to integrate or, worse, become an enemy?

Those who appreciate the benefits of the nation-state would support Prime Minister John Howard’s view that, ‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.’ Howard and the Australian electorate recognised that some people are not welcome as they are unlikely to fit in. In the long term, Australia will be much more Indian and Chinese. Of the three million permanent migrants who arrived in Australia since 2000, almost 450,000 were from India, and nearly 350,000 were from China. The assumption of integration must be reinforced.

The easy assumptions of integration post-World War II no longer hold. Since 2022, the Netherlands has required a substantial investment from a person applying for permanent residence before that privilege is granted. The civic integration requirements are set out in the Civic Integration Act 2021. The point of the Netherlands law is that applicants must be sufficiently integrated before they become permanent.

The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

Personal

Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia. They are free to sing the praises of Palestine. Homosexuals are free to marry and raise children. But the trans lobby wants to abolish gender, which is dangerous to the mental health of trans people. Sex must be understood in evolutionary terms. There must be sperm and eggs for reproduction. Two women do not create a child, and two men do not create a child. They may care for them, and we wish them well. The proposition that sex is not binary, that it is socially determined, is dangerous, especially to those who find that they are not at ease with their sex and want to reassign their sex to suit their ‘gender’.

Anyone should be free to express themselves as male or female. But when sex is detached from reproduction, there are consequences. As Zachary Elliott argues in Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth, ‘If we abandon sex as an important category in our society, how can we conduct safe and effective medical research and treatment; fight sex-based injustices; record accurate crime statistics; maintain fair, safe, and competitive sports categories; and implement equal opportunities for both sexes?’

There is a claim that almost two per cent of the population is intersex, neither male nor female. The numbers consist almost entirely of those who suffer developmental disorders, such as late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia. People with these conditions account for nearly all the males or females who do not appear to be one or the other. The disorders occur in nature and do not result in good health. They are not socially determined.

Join Mailing List

Populism in the service of correcting the madness of net zero, overplayed migration and undermined sexual identity are ground zero for the populist fightback. The masses await the right leader and the right policies. Populism? More please!

Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research

This article was first published in The Spectator.

Gary Johns

Dr Gary Johns served as former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Special Minister of State & Vice-President of the Executive Council in the Keating Labor Government. A philosophical rethink saw him accept a series of appointments in the service of economic rationalism, including Senior Fellow at the IPA and Assoc. Commissioner at the Productivity Commission. He recently served as Commissioner of
the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission.

Can libertarianism become a brand in Australia?

By

Jonathan Cole

-

15 July 2024

0

Dean Russell, a staff member at The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), was the first to propose that America’s classical liberals and individualists rebrand themselves as “libertarians.” In an article published by FEE in 1955, Russell wrote: “Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our use the good and honourable word ‘libertarian.’”

That good and honourable term was actually coined, or at least first used in print, by William Belsham in 1789. At that time, and until its political repurposing by Russell, it denoted a distinct philosophical school in the context of debates about free will. The opponents of philosophical libertarians then were necessitarians.

The context for Russell’s proposal was the perversion of the term “liberal” in the American political context at the hands of big government New Deal interventionists. This development led to the rather awkward, and unusual, situation of political opponents using exactly the same language to define themselves. The libertarian rebrand was, if nothing else, an admission of defeat: the term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals who identified with the tradition of nineteenth century liberalism and the principles of the American revolution. Yet, it proved to be wildly successful and is now in wide usage by America’s liberty lovers in all their diversity and eccentricity. Indeed, there now exists a robust “libertarian” ecosystem in America, replete with think tanks, academics, journalists, magazines, personalities, the odd celebrity and a political party to boot.

The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia

However, this linguistic turn, which proved so successful in the American context, has struggled to find relevance and application in other contexts like Australia. Here, “liberal” has stubbornly retained its nineteenth century brand connotations, if not its genuine ideological content. Thanks to the dominance of the Liberal Party as the right-hand pole in Australia’s bipolar political contest, the term “liberal” continues to evoke in the minds of many political consumers something right of centre, as amorphous, incoherent and ill-defined as that may be. This brand phenomenon has served as a bulwark against the kind of leftward semantic evolution that the term “liberal” underwent in early twentieth century America.

Moreover, the most ambitious among those who now embrace the term “conservative” to describe their political identity still find the Liberal Party of Australia to be the most conducive vehicle for political influence, notwithstanding pressures and temptations from Australia’s motley collection of right-wing populist minor parties. As such, Australia’s Liberal Party boasts an influential conservative wing, described routinely in left-friendly media outlets as the “hard right” or “far right.” This association of the term “conservative” with “liberal,” let alone “hard right” with “liberal,” is an association that simply does not exist in the American political market. It is a peculiar distinctive of the Australian political landscape, a quirk, as it were. It does, however, provide yet further explanation for why the term “liberal” has resisted its American descent into the semantics of liberal progressivism, at least in the minds of the public, and through them the political vernacular of Australia

The term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals

The fact that Australia’s most successful libertarian party was founded under the name Liberal Democrats in 2001 and only changed its name to the Libertarian party in 2023 speaks volumes about the fortunes of the term “liberal” in Australia (there were legal reasons to change the name). It speaks, on the one hand, to the classical liberal connotations of the term in Australia of 2001, the golden age of Howard’s Broad Church, with its putative synthesis of Millian liberalism and Burkean conservativism. Its name change, on the other hand, in an era in which so-called “moderate” liberals in the Liberal Party stand for woke-lite social policy and a slightly less interventionist economic policy than the Australian Labor Party, signals the final severance of the conjunction “classical” and “liberal in the Australian context, more than 200 years after it arrived in the Australian continent with European settlement, and 68 years after a libertarian rebrand in America.

The Liberal Party is now constituted by incompatible liberal progressives and conservatives, neither of whom show any real interest in advancing the classical liberal cause. While an uneasy truce prevails following the sectarian civil war of the immediate past, they now inhabit a rather unhappy marriage of convenience. They sleep in separate bedrooms, but stay together for the sake of the kids, in this case the chance at electoral success. Meanwhile, Australia’s classical liberals have deserted the Liberal Party and thrown in their lot with Australia’s radical liberals to embrace, albeit with some consternation and anxiety, the label “libertarian.”

Join Mailing List

The challenge confronting Australia’s nascent libertarian movement, now that it has finally parted ways with the term “liberal,” is to galvanise Australia’s small but passionate band of liberty lovers around a term that is foreign to the Australian political lexicon. More challenging still, there is the task of cultivating a libertarian constituency that prizes and prioritises individual freedom, property rights, unhampered markets, limited government and peaceful international relations in a country whose founding mythos and national identity are not centred around the concept of liberty, as they are in America. The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia, are different species of the genus “liberalism,” each with their own distinct origins, political histories and intellectual development. All political ideologies face a temptation in the Australian context to simply ape and regurgitate the loud, exciting and flamboyant political ideas and innovations that inevitably flow downstream from America to Australia. This is a particular temptation for Australia’s right-wing heirs of the liberal tradition who have recently chosen to embrace the language of the much more highly developed and institutionalised ecosystem in America. If libertarianism is to have any future at all in Australia, it will need to take inspiration from the best that American libertarianism has to offer and adapt, refine and develop it for the unique socio-political environment of Australia.

Jonathan Cole

Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”

Smoke ‘Em If You Got ‘Em

By

James Hol

-

12 July 2024

0

For those of us who still occasionally like to check in on what the mainstream media is doing, there has been a topic that has got chins wagging and jowls flapping lately: “the tobacco wars”.

While the mainstream media, in typical fashion, has sensationalised the story, it is true that black and grey market tobacco is abundant in the community.

BLACK, WHITE AND GREY

As a (recently quit) smoker, I see it everywhere. My smoker friends brag about the newest place they discovered, with even cheaper prices, while they pull a cigarette out of their fully branded pack. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I saw a drab-brown (plain packaging) pack of cigarettes. And I wouldn’t be much of a libertarian if I didn’t confess that I haven’t bought a pack of cigarettes through a shop compelled to display a “retail tobacco merchant license” in well over a year.

The obvious appeal of black and grey market tobacco is the near-two-thirds savings. I can buy a 20-pack of Marlboro Reds for under $20, while an authorised tobacco merchant is selling the same pack for over $50 (which I had to look up because it has been that long). And as more shopfronts pop up, the price is pushed down – a testament to the free market.

Anybody serious about removing the illicit tobacco market

Even your poorest friends can afford to smoke chop-chop, illegally grown roll-your-own tobacco, at 50c per gram – a sixth of the price compared to roll-your-own tobacco in the authorised market.

ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR

Despite the fact that, I would guess, most smokers are paying less for cigarettes than they have in over a decade, there are serious concerns that accompany a rising illicit market for an addictive product. Bikies and organised crime groups are starting to muscle in on the market, aggressively extorting tobacco merchants (as opposed to the more passive extortion of tobacco tax) and violently vandalising competitors.

Stories of tobacco shops being vandalised and torched are becoming a near-weekly occurrence. And while I have little sympathy for organised criminals, it is not only criminals being affected: legitimate tobacco merchants are in their crosshairs and innocent victims are inevitably caught in the blaze. So week-in and week-out, the mainstream media trots out some new “expert” on the matter who declares another hair-brained measure will solve this problem once and for all.

One of the more popular new measures being touted is to implement a licensing system to regulate tobacco merchants, similar to booze. The one problem with that is it already exists and has done precisely nothing to stem the flow of illicit tobacco. In South Australia, where I live, we have a had a tobacco merchant licensing system for as long as I have been a smoker (15 years) and illegal tobacco – and the organised crime that comes with it – is thriving.

Even your poorest friends can afford to smoke chop-chop, illegally grown roll-your-own tobacco

STATING THE OBVIOUS

At the risk of sounding like another idiot who has the solution for this problem once and for all, there is actually an incredibly obvious solution to this problem: lower the price of cigarettes. There is only one way for those “evil”, “scary” big tobacco companies to sell their products at a loss and for merchants to make pennies on the dollar: abolish (or at least significantly reduce) tobacco tax. Well over half the price of the average pack of cigarettes or pouch of roll-your-own tobacco goes to the government in tobacco excise alone. Tobacco, like petrol, is also double-dipped on tax with an additional 10 per cent of GST.

So while even someone with a cursory understanding of economics knows the only way to combat this problem is to compete on price – especially in a market where almost all forms of non-price competition have been outlawed – the obvious remains unspoken. To even suggest we use the only realistic solution to combat the illicit tobacco market, while also removing the most regressive tax in Australian history, is complete heresy.

UP IN SMOKE

Instead, we’ll pile on more regulations, evaporating the few legitimate tobacco merchants left, and “crackdown” on illicit tobacco, as governments continuously claim to do for no avail. We have known for a long time now that prohibition never works, and now we know that a surreptitious prohibition, via ever-increasing prices, achieves the same result.

Join Mailing List

Anybody serious about removing the illicit tobacco market, preventing organised crime from gaining a foothold in another industry and legitimately saving the lives of those caught in the collateral damage, knows the answer to this problem. Now it’s time to say it out loud.

James Hol

While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.

Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?

By

Lushington D Brady

-

10 July 2024

0

Does Australia need a Bill of Rights? After all, Australia is, it surprises many to learn, the only Western democracy with neither a constitutional nor legislated Bill of Rights. Various attempts over the years to legislate one have failed.

The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992, when the High Court ruled that the Constitution carried an implied right to free speech — in political matters only. As the Chief Justice observed:

To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential: it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments.

If that sounds like a reach, later High Court rulings found that it was. When a public servant who had been sacked for criticising the government on Twitter appealed the sacking on the grounds of such an implied right to political speech, she lost. The court ruled that there is no personal right to free speech, but a restriction on legislative power, which “extends only so far as is necessary to preserve and protect the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution”.

The Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act”

If anyone still doubted that Australians’ basic rights are not protected from government overreach, the last five years should have put a brutal end to such illusions.

But Canada has a Bill of Rights, and so does New Zealand, and yet their governments were no less draconian in crushing basic rights, from informed consent, to free assembly, to free speech.

So it looks like a Bill of Rights is worth precisely shit when the government boot comes down.

Or is it?

For all its faults, the United States’ Bill of Rights is holding up reasonably well against sustained assault by the state and its corporate attack dogs.

The difference lies in how a Bill of Rights is framed: to whit, which view of freedom is at its heart.

There are, in essence, two basic conceptual frameworks of freedom, with very different outcomes. These are positive liberty and negative liberty. At first blush, “positive liberty” may seem like the preferred option. It’s “positive”, after all!

In fact, positive liberty is the stomping ground of collectivist ideologies which are almost invariably associated with the worst shackles placed on individual freedom. That’s because positive liberty is better understood as “freedom to”.

That is, the freedom to act only within the constraints set down by law and society. Anti-discrimination laws are an example of positive freedom: citizens are free to act only within the bounds established by the laws enacted by the state. You are free to say only this and not that. You are only as free as the state decides to let you be. You can choose any colour, so long as it’s black.

Negative liberty is very different. Negative liberty is the “freedom from”. Freedom from constraint. Negative liberty establishes what citizens can tell the state it is not allowed to do. It is the type of freedom associated with classical liberalism and libertarianism. The US First Amendment is a negative liberty: Congress shall make no law… The Second Amendment is in the same vein: the peoples’ right shall not be infringed.

The other great difference between the USA’s, and NZ’s and Canada’s, Bills of Rights is that the United States’ is Constitutional; NZ’s and Canada’s are legislative.

A Constitutional law is the absolute bedrock law of the land. No matter what the government of the day may legislate, it must conform to the Constitution.

Legislation can be overturned by a simple vote in parliament. Or, like NZ’s, it can be restricted such that it cannot override any other legislation. Unlike the US Supreme Court, a NZ court cannot strike down or override any act of parliament with reference to the Bill of Rights. Which makes it a moot point as to why it exists at all.

The only way to get a Constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia would be by referendum. Good luck with that. The Australian Constitution was framed such that amending it is extremely difficult: a proposed amendment must secure not only a national majority of voters, but a majority of voters in a majority of states as well. Australians have, by and large, chosen to validate that high hurdle: of 45 referendums since Federation, only eight have ever been passed.

No referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support (and few indeed of those that had bipartisan support). Given that a legislated Bill of Rights has never made it past parliament, the chances of it passing referendum seem almost nil.

A major reason that a Bill of Rights has never passed parliament, let alone been proposed at referendum, is the suspicion voiced by former prime minister John Howard that such a Bill would transfer power from elected representatives to unelected judges and bureaucrats. It’s not hard to see the wisdom of his observation: consider, after all, just how much power health bureaucrats seized during the pandemic.

The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992

Even the High Court’s “implied right to free speech” decision could be seen as just the sort of judicial overreach Howard warns against. As the US Supreme Court did in 1973 with Roe vs. Wade, the Australian High Court took it on itself to invent a potentially far-reaching decision out of Constitutional thin air. More recent High Court decisions, which affectively affirm the role of magic — a supposed Aboriginal “spiritual connection to the land” — in law show that such unelected judges are the last people to whom we should trust our rights.

As it happens, the Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act” — and it’s even worse than you might think.

As should surprise no-one, given its origin in a left-wing government, it’s mired, waist-deep, in a mindset of positive liberty. That is, it’s all about what the state will allow Australians to do — not what Australians can tell the state what it cannot do.

For instance, freedom of religious belief is only allowed at the discretion of a judge. A judge can restrict religious freedom any time he or she considers it “reasonable” and “justified”. Religious freedom may be restricted in order to “protect public safety, order, health, morals or the rights of others”.

Who wants to take bets on how politically-appointed judges will interpret that one?

Freedom of speech gets even shorter shrift. Speech may be restricted — again, at a judge’s discretion — “in order to respect the rights and reputations of others or to protect national security, public order or public heath”. Ask Zoe Buhler, the Victorian mum arrested, pregnant, in her pyjamas, and crying, in front of her children, simply for posting the details of an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook, how that one’s likely to play out.

Perhaps the most alarming aspects of the proposed Human Rights Act is that it would include a mechanism that would enable everyone to sue for monetary compensation whenever they decided that their rights had been breached. Again, we only need to look at how aggrieved activists, most notably the “rainbow” lobby, have weaponised the existing “human rights” infrastructure to threaten critics and impose a chilly pall of silence on matters of essential public debate.

Join Mailing List

While it may be bad enough that Australia lacks any formal Bill of Rights, the threat of an ill-intentioned, badly framed one is infinitely worse.

It all comes down, in the end, to what Tony Abbott so famously asked during Australia’s last referendum campaign: do you really trust politicians?

Anyone who still does, clearly spent the last five years either in a deep coma, or developing a slavish taste for boot leather.

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

Slaying the dragon of censorship.

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

8 July 2024

0

Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

This is the question the ancient Greek historian, Plutarch, asked in relation to the actions of the newly formed triumvirate of Octavian (soon to be Rome’s first emperor, Augustus), Antony, and Lepidus as they turned on their Roman countrymen in their quest for power in the final stages of the fall of the Roman Republic in 43 BC.

It is a reasonable question to be asked of anyone aiming to assume leadership over their fellow citizens, no matter the period in history. That we have enough warnings of the traps which men fall into, should be uppermost in our minds when it comes to seeing our democracies as fair and reasonable.

At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

The most prescient warning, articulated in what I consider the best advice when setting up government, was penned by the Roman historian, Livy.

“The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”

To the question of power, I argue that it is even more pertinent today in our modern liberal democracy, because we were led to believe that modernity has ushered in a more humane, decent, and enlightened way to conduct our lives.

Recent events, however, prove otherwise.

Much has been written about the powers sought by Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, to silence Australians as if we were kindergarten children who cry out for guidance at every turn in the playground.

By now we ought to be used to unfettered power being sought and wielded by senior bureaucrats; the recent four years of mandates and scare tactics being a prime example. But we should never get used to our political representatives further bolstering those powers without consulting the people first.

It is frightening to consider what might lay before us here in Australia, with the recent announcement by opposition leader, Peter Dutton, that the Liberal Party in government would introduce a ban on social media for children under 16 years of age.

This is the mainstream party that apparently espouses the values of individual liberty.

Dutton says that facial recognition to determine somebody’s age is “appropriate.” That, therefore, would leave anyone over 16 needing to comply with this ultimatum if they want to have a social media presence.

No doubt the government will call it “choice.” We will be told it is all in the name of safety; in this case, keeping children safe online. Nobody disputes the gold standard of being able to keep children safe from harm, but to punish law-abiding citizens by extinguishing their individual right to express themselves and associate with others in a peaceful way, is wrong.

Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate compared to the punishment dished out in the ancient world.

As the Roman Republic lay dying in the late first century BC, Cicero offended Marc Antony in several of his speeches, declaring Antony an enemy of the state.

For his efforts of expressing views to save his beloved Republic from a would-be tyrant in Antony, Cicero had his head and hands cut off, the latter pinned to the rostra in the forum. It was said to be a reminder of what happens to those who disagree with the ruling elite of the day but it was, for Antony, a statement of revenge upon the man who consistently delivered powerful invectives against his character.

At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

But the words of Cicero are still as meaningful today as they were when he warned his fellow senators that “servitude is the worst of all evils.”

Join Mailing List

It is with a degree of risk that we stand up publicly and declare his warnings today, but to do so with the eloquence of a man who is considered by many to have been Rome’s greatest politician, would be sweet indeed:

“To be slaves to libertines, bullies, foul profligates, gamblers, and drunkards, that is the ultimate in misery joined with the ultimate in dishonour.”

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

UAE Facilitating Australian Crime?

By

Damon Hayhow

-

5 July 2024

0

A recent article in the Age (https://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-drug-smuggling-suspects-right-at-home-as-dubai-makes-world-s-worst-welcome-20240514-p5jdg7.html) argues that authorities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are immoral for not preventing Australia’s most revered mega criminals from visiting and buying property there. According to the Age, we should all be outraged that the UAE is not doing the job Australian law enforcement is failing to do.

But apparently it is no failure of Australian law enforcement that they knew Australian gangsters were trafficking huge quantities of illegal narcotics into Australia (not from the UAE). The Australian authorities were able to quantify and track it all, but they did not care to stop it.

It is also no failure of Australian law enforcement that all those illicit drugs were trafficked throughout the country and distributed to, ultimately, tens of thousands of Australian customers in hundreds of thousands of illegal transactions, all of which were able to be quantified, but not stopped. Australian law enforcement apparently knew all about the millions of dollars collected inside Australia, who collected it and where it was kept, and were able to document it all in great detail and share it with journalists.

Everybody knows what is going on, including Australian law enforcement. And that’s just fine.

But apparently it is UAE law enforcement that failed to…?

Apparently it is also no failure of Australian law enforcement that they knew the names and faces of these gangsters, knew the “outlaw bikie gangs” to which they belonged, knew where they were, knew what they did, and knew they were all engaged in “organised crime”. But apparently it is UAE law enforcement that needs to answer for not…?

Apparently, the UAE is outrageously immoral because it welcomes valid Australian-passport-holders to meet and talk with one another. It is inferred that, without the UAE, these gangsters would have nowhere to plan their nefarious activities. The article does not explain exactly how members of Australian crime gangs can form gangs, or engage in organised crime, in Australia, without ever meeting inside Australia. Nor does it explain how or why Australian border force lets known drug-smuggling, outlaw bikie gang members jump on planes and leave Australia for the UAE, with an Australian-government issued passport? Presumably, that’s the fault of the UAE too?

All of this does beg the question: if the UAE is full of despicable, violent, armed robbers from Australia, why is the UAE so safe? Why are there so few armed robberies in the UAE? Why are there so few outlaw bikie gangs in the UAE? Is it too hot to ride bikes or handle guns? Or is Australian law enforcement missing a step or two from the ‘Idiots Guide to Law Enforcement’ handbook?

It also seems strange how, in Melbourne, for example, regular people often talk about a night club or restaurant as being owned by a particular well-known criminal in a similar manner to Californians discussing which movie star owns which Hollywood Hills mansion. Somehow, in Australia, it is not just acceptable to buy luxury property with the proceeds of crime, there is also a celebrity status attached. On the other hand, buying property in Dubai is crossing a line.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are immoral for not preventing Australia’s most revered mega criminals from visiting and buying property there.

Similarly, massive money laundering takes place in plain sight in Australia. Customers of beauty salons and fitness centres, for example, often know the criminal bikie gang that funded the multi-million dollar fit-out of their salon or gym. Everybody knows what is going on, including Australian law enforcement. And that’s just fine.

Strangely, in Dubai you will never hear of a building or restaurant being owned by a drug dealing, outlaw bikie criminal. A Sheik perhaps, or a politician or oligarch. But even someone who made their fortune as a violent criminal in Australia is not referred to as the “criminal bikie who owns (X) Restaurant” in Dubai. That’s mostly because, if that armed-robbing, criminal bikie from Australia tried any of their violent thuggery in Dubai, they know it would not end as positively or comfortably as it seems to in Australia.

Join Mailing List

Which all begs the question: is it really fair for Australia to accuse the UAE of facilitating criminality, when all of that criminality is actually taking place in Australia, in full knowledge and view of Australian law enforcement, which does nothing to stop the criminals doing the crimes or leaving with all their proceeds of crime?

Should the UAE automatically treat all Australians like violent criminals, seeing as the UAE cannot trust the Australian authorities to do anything about criminality inside Australia? Or at some point is someone going to ask what the hell the Australian authorities are doing that they treat all of us like criminals, except the people who actually are?

Damon Hayhow

Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.

Freedom, Moral Norms and the State

By

Jonathan Cole

-

1 July 2024

0

Are moral norms compatible with individual freedoms? The answer should be an obvious “yes”, yet in Western liberal democracies like Australia there appears to be growing doubt, confusion and uncertainty. A society that permits individual freedoms necessarily results in moral pluralism. Moral pluralism, in turn, manifests in the existence of diverse moral norms, which is to say moral speech and practices that not only diverge, but conflict. Add migration and a policy of multiculturalism to individual freedoms, and a society characterised by a high degree of normative moral pluralism is assured. This is precisely what has occurred in Australia.

Until recently, this kind of moral diversity (cloaked in the language of cultural diversity) was a cause for celebration, at least by Australia’s urbane, educated elite. Today, that same elite increasingly regards moral diversity as something threatening and harmful. Individuals and groups that find moral criticism, which is to say moral diversity, confronting, challenging and offensive, now demand protection from the “harmful” moral speech and practices of others. That is, they demand the state involve itself in matters of moral conflict amongst citizens.

The clamour for state intervention in the arbitration, policing and implementation of moral norms is particularly evident in the culture war. Progressive and conservative protagonists in this putative “war” appear to agree on at least one thing: moral differences are political problems that ultimately can only be resolved via the “social apparatus of coercion and compulsion,” to use Ludwig von Mises’s description of the state.

To treat the state as the arbiter of the conflicting moral beliefs found amongst its citizens is to turn moral difference into political conflict.

Once the state is deemed to be the appropriate apparatus for arbitrating moral disputes between citizens, it becomes a political prize worth fighting for among those engaged in moral dispute precisely for the fact that it promises to place immense coercive powers in the hands of its victor. In this way the state becomes a tool for implementing a unitary moral vision through the prohibition and suppression of alternative moral norms deemed unpalatable.

If gaining control of the social apparatus that is the state proves unattainable, its organs can always be lobbied and pressured to further the culture warrior’s moral agenda through legislation, litigation, appointments and funding decisions. Failing that, those seeking to vanquish their moral enemies can employ what John Stuart Mill termed “social tyranny” to hound, harass, troll and ultimately cancel moral heretics.

The tragedy of the culture wars is how little is at stake in the issues at the centre of the conflict versus how much is at stake in the statist aims and ambitions of the warring parties. Instead of enlisting the state and its courts to sue a Christian baker who refuses to bake an LGBTQ-themed cake for a same-sex couple, the couple could simply procure their desired cake from another business and move on with their lives.

Similarly, instead of hyperventilating about drag queen story hour in cities thousands of miles away from their home and clamouring for the state to intervene to ban them, offended conservatives could simply exercise their freedom to not attend such events and, again, move on with their lives. In fact, there is nothing to prevent either party from publicly expressing their respective displeasure at the other with as much vim and vigour as they see fit. There is wide scope for spleens to be vented in a free society.

But increasingly, people seem to be incapable of living comfortably in a society containing individuals who adhere to moral norms that clash or conflict with their own, particularly the young people we have managed to transform into nervous wrecks, in no small part because we do not instil in them the resilience that is required to live in the midst of pluralism, along with the inevitable conflict and criticism that comes with the territory. What’s worse, growing numbers seem to be affronted by the very idea that society would even permit individuals the freedom to articulate and practice moral norms they deem to be objectionable.

The problem, of course, as stated earlier, is that individual freedom unavoidably leads to moral pluralism, which guarantees that free citizens will have to tolerate moral difference, divergence and sometimes offense if they genuinely want to live in a free world. The alternative is moral authoritarianism, cloaked in the language of social justice, natural law or Biblical virtue.

This brings us to libertarianism. Libertarianism has its own normative moral vision just like any other ideology. What distinguishes it, however, is that its moral vision is limited and aims specifically at fostering pluralism, not mitigating or eliminating it. “The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom,” Murray Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty, “that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.”

Moral pluralism, in turn, manifests in the existence of diverse moral norms, which is to say moral speech and practices that not only diverge, but conflict.

While more can be, and has been, said (and debated) about this central axiom, one encounters consensus among libertarians that the nonaggression principle is at the epicentre of libertarian moral norms. The limiting principle of nonaggression does two things in relation to morality. Firstly, it limits moral freedom to acts and practices that do not constitute aggression against other individuals. Secondly, it rules out any effort to impose, prohibit or suppress moral speech, acts or practices by using either violence or coercion, provided the speech, act or practice in question itself observes the nonaggression principle.

Note that the libertarian nonaggression principle does not necessitate moral neutrality, agnosticism or relativism on the part of citizens. Well-defined and articulate moral norms—entire moral codes, for that matter—can be held and adhered to with as much passion and dogmatism as each citizen feels compelled to. They must simply respect the right of others to dissent, and then commit to not using violence or coercion to impose their moral dogma on others. Advocating, propagating, arguing, debating, persuading, cajoling, urging, pleading: none of these activities constitute violations of the nonaggression principle.

Moral relativism is possible within a libertarian moral order. However, it is not demanded by it. Moral norms are compatible with the exercise of individual freedoms within the governing principle of nonaggression. The state, on the other hand, ought to adopt a disposition of neutrality and agnosticism in relation to moral questions and disputes that do not involve violations of the nonaggression principle. The moral role of the state is to protect citizens from aggression (this function is performed by protective associations in the private law society of anarcho-capitalism). The definition and boundaries of nonaggression are necessarily questions that the state must form a view about, for obvious reasons. What pronouns someone uses, what books children can read at school and what people are allowed to say publicly about the institution of marriage are not.

Join Mailing List

To treat the state as the arbiter of the conflicting moral beliefs found amongst its citizens is to turn moral difference into political conflict. This is both unnecessary and undesirable. And it is libertarians who should be sounding the alarm. All other political ideologies operate according to normative moral systems that are to be implemented for the common good, for the sake of divine injunction, to comply with the natural law or to bring into being some promised utopia. The liberation moral vision, in contrast, is designed to foster a free society that respects and protects moral diversity. A society that can tolerate diverse and even conflicting moral norms can afford to limit the scope of the state. A society that cannot tolerate moral diversity needs a large, powerful, interventionist state to sort out all its moral differences.

Jonathan Cole

Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”

The New Coalition?

By

Max Payne

-

27 June 2024

1

While falling well short on some key issues, it’s been heartening at least to see the Federal Coalition leading the discourse and taking some risks on genuine reform.

Left in ruins after being swept from office in 2022, many commentators questioned the viability of the Liberal party. But within two years they have surged back into relevance, and with a flavour less antithetical to libertarians.

It began early in 2023 when the National Party declared its stance on the Voice referendum, and Dutton duly followed, despite some resistance within the Liberals. This crucial first step allowed Australians to see that Dutton’s Liberals were delineated from Labor, and despite healthy early polling for the ‘yes’ case, Dutton’s gamble paid off handsomely and the Albanese honeymoon ended abruptly.

The Liberal state divisions are much slower on the uptake, as evidenced by their staunch refusal to adopt Dutton’s nuclear proposal.

Then, whispers on vaping prohibition, super for housing, an overhaul of immigration, and of course the big one: nuclear power. Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey was even floating the idea of income splitting between household partners! Recognising his lack of personability and charisma, Dutton has opted to take a series of policy reforms to the next election with an eye to vastly expanding the Coalition’s electoral map as its traditional base shrinks.

Lo and behold, they have already taken the lead in several recent national polls and, incredibly, Dutton overtook Albanese as preferred PM in the latest Resolve poll – something I thought I would never see. It may be that in time Dutton will again lose control of the narrative; Australians are typically sceptical of reform agendas from opposition (see Bill Shorten, 2019), but there’s some encouragement for libertarians here.

It appears the unfolding political realignment is presenting the Liberals with an opportunity to reinvent themselves as the party of working Australians. The ‘teal wave’ of 2022, that also saw blue ribbon seats such as Higgins and Ryan fall to Labor and the Greens, was a blessing in disguise. Many of the nagging progressive moderates of the party were flushed out of metropolitan strongholds, leaving Dutton with no choice but to devise a new path to victory. Thus, faced with poor prospects with young voters and the opportunity to re-home the politically jaded working class, Dutton is unveiling his new coalition.

As libertarians, we still have important work to do. Firstly, the Coalition maintains terrible policy in areas such as online safety, while their shadow cabinet currently boasts the leftovers of a government that completely failed to effectively manage the budget for a decade.

The National Party declared its stance on the Voice referendum

Secondly, the Liberal state divisions are much slower on the uptake, as evidenced by their staunch refusal to adopt Dutton’s nuclear proposal. Metropolitan centres still dominate their electoral prospects and the old risk averse attitude still prevails: in Queensland for example, LNP leader David Crisafulli is paralysed, terrified of losing an unlosable state election, while in Victoria John Pesutto and his inner city moderates still control the party.

Undoubtably, libertarians still have a major opportunity to shape public policy. While it’s encouraging to see the Coalition adopt a reform agenda with some sensible policy that promotes free choice and prosperity, they are still a long way from their classical liberal roots. At the state level, libertarians have a unique opportunity to help set the agenda and give voice to the aspirational working class. Imagine, for a moment, if the Liberal Party had spoken up on behalf of those campaigning against the excesses of Covid mania and mandates. Imagine also if they had meekly embraced bipartisanship on the Voice.

Join Mailing List

It is worth reflecting on the positive change we see in the Liberal Party. They are perhaps the most powerful vessel for libertarian policies, having proven under Dutton that they can take on the left and win. It’s indicative of our political influence in action. However, we must be merciless when they stray back towards populist authoritarianism.

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Facing China with a Third Path: The Libertarian Road

By

Warren Wang

-

25 June 2024

1

Chinese Premier Li Qiang has just concluded a four-day visit to Australia, marking the highest-level visit in seven years and widely seen as a full restoration of Sino-Australian relations. Over the past few decades, Sino-Australian relations have experienced ups and downs, primarily reflecting two distinct paths: the friendly approach of the Labor Party and the adversarial stance of the Liberal Party.

The Labor Party’s Friendly Approach

The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China, often fostering closer ties and cooperation. This affinity can be attributed to ideological and historical reasons. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating, for instance, is infamously known for his pro-China stance, often criticising Western countries for their adversarial policies towards China. Kevin Rudd, another former Labor Prime Minister, who can speak Mandarin, worked tirelessly to strengthen Sino-Australian ties during his tenure and beyond. Additionally, Victoria’s ex-Premier Dan Andrews bypassed the federal government to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative at the state level, highlighting the depth of this alignment.

China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports

This historical closeness is not just about political manoeuvring but is rooted in ideological similarities. Both parties emphasise social welfare, state intervention in the economy, and a collectivist approach to governance. These shared values have facilitated a more collaborative relationship between the Australian Labor Party and the Chinese Communist Party. Notably, several former Labor politicians have been implicated in scandals involving Chinese influence, reinforcing the perception of an inherent closeness between the two.

The Liberal Party’s Adversarial Stance

In contrast, the Liberal Party has often taken a more adversarial stance towards China. Under the leadership of Scott Morrison, Sino-Australian relations reached their lowest point, characterised by trade sanctions and diplomatic tensions. The Liberal government’s pushback against Chinese influence in Australian politics, its criticism of China’s human rights record, and its calls for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19 exacerbated tensions.

The economic consequences of this adversarial stance were significant. China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports, including wine, coal, and barley, causing substantial economic harm, while Australia imposed anti-dumping duties. This “enemy road” approach could be described as “killing a thousand enemies at the cost of eight hundred of our own.” While it aimed to curb Chinese influence, it also inflicted self-damage, undermining Australia’s economic interests and causing strain on key industries.

The Third Path: A Principle-Based Approach

While the first path seems shameless, the second path is also mindless. A third path, rooted in libertarian principles, might be more sensible and offer a principled and pragmatic alternative. This path advocates for free trade as an essential component of a free economy, emphasising mutual benefit rather than using trade as a political weapon.

The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China

Libertarianism, influenced by the Austrian School of Economics, champions free markets, minimal government intervention, and individual liberty. As Mises put it, “The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war,” while free trade, on the other hand, makes for peace. Rothbard argued in his Ethics of Liberty, “Economic sanctions are coercive measures that violate the principles of a free society. They harm innocent people and are ineffective in bringing about political change.”

What’s more effective, in my opinion, is those unfree countries’ own policies. Authoritarian countries have often died because of themselves rather than external sanctions.

Recent years, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, have highlighted the vulnerabilities of non-free economies, China in particular, which suffered due to restrictive economic and political policies. China’s growing centralised economic policies, ridiculously restrictive lockdown policies, anti-capitalism attitude, especially in the real estate market, and growing hostile international policies against a variety of countries, including Australia, have brought huge miseries which haven’t been seen for over three decades to the Chinese people.

Join Mailing List

In conclusion, while the Labor Party’s approach may appear overly accommodating and the Liberal Party’s stance overly confrontational, a libertarian path offers a balanced and principled alternative, which advocates for maintaining principled economic policies that prioritise free trade, not as a means of leverage but as a foundation for mutual benefit and economic growth. By embracing and always standing firmly on free trade, Australia can foster a relationship with China that is in the best interest of Australian businesses and the Australian people, while not compromising our independent sovereignty, democratic liberty, and economic freedom.

Warren Wang

Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.

The Best Lack All Conviction

By

Lushington D Brady

-

21 June 2024

0

Anti-Semitism is on the march because no-one in authority will stand up to it.

It’s common for historians to portray the Sturmabteilung, the SA or “Brownshirts” as they were known, as a motley crew of rowdy young thugs looking to brawl. The reality, as detailed in Daniel Siemens’ Stormtroopers: A New History of Hitler’s Brownshirts, was far more concerning. In fact, the paramilitaries who propelled the fledgling Nazi party to absolute power were a million-member organization whose ranks included a disproportionately large group of university students and middle-class professionals (doctors, for example, were grossly over-represented in the Nazi membership).

In fact, the Nazis own propaganda lauded the “Workers of the Head and the Fist”. To that end, in 1926 the Nazis founded the National Socialist German Student League. The league was to foster ideological training at universities and to implement paramilitary training, and the ideal Nazi student was intended to be a man or woman of action, not an idle thinker.

The passage of the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” on April 7, 1933, was the student Brownshirts’ license to put their training into action. Jews were quickly and violently driven from German universities, whether as students or academics. “Paramilitary student groups often interrupted lectures, provoked skirmishes, and physically intimidated Jewish students.” [W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”]

Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism.

In 1934, the Nazi Student League took over the Student Union.

Is all of this sounding grimly familiar yet?

Highly organised, ideologically-motivated and, above all, viciously anti-Semitic student organisations are taking over university campuses once again. Jewish students and professors are verbally and physically assaulted. And campus authorities are either openly complicit, or spinelessly hopeless.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

If anyone is in doubt about the absolute moral swamp that Australia’s universities have become, as the vicious herd mentality of student activism reaches a dangerous pitch not seen in the West since the 1930s, consider what our million-dollar-a-year vice-chancellors are doing.

Worse than nothing.

Consider the “brave”, “forthright”, “line in the sand” statement by Western Sydney University chancellor Jennifer Westacott. In just 844 words, Westacott mentioned “anti-Semitism” five times and “Islamophobia/Islam” three times. The same double act runs through her anecdotes: 58 words, two sentences about visiting the Holocaust Museum; 67 words, three sentences dedicated to lauding Muslim “asylum seekers”.

Remember, this was supposed to be a forthright condemnation of campus anti-Semitism.

Instead, every time, it was “anti-Semitism and…” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or any form of abhorrent discrimination.” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, hate speech or intimidation.” “growing division and creeping anti-Semitism.” “hate speech and anti-Semitism.” “anti-Semitism and hate speech.”

One is left with the overwhelming impression that the crisis on university isn’t about anti-Semitism at all.

Why does an opinion piece posing as a beacon of moral clarity on campus anti-Semitism need to repeatedly add, “…and Islamophobia”? Is there an anti-Muslim camp on a single university in Australia, let alone the world? Are campuses hosting activists celebrating the murder of Muslims, and promising to visit future terror attacks on Muslims? Are Muslim students being attacked daily, physically and verbally?

We know perfectly well that the answer to all of those is, “no”.

So why the moral equivalence?

And this is the best statement that any chancellor or vice-chancellor has yet made.

Everywhere we look to campus authorities for moral clarity, there is, at best, mealy-mouthed moral equivalence.

Jane Hansen, the chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Australia’s highest-ranked university, refuses to even acknowledge an anti-Semitism crisis. Instead, it’s the same gutless waffle about “many different forms of racism”. Worse, Hansen claims that even questioning supine university leaders is merely “looking for division”.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Ditto University of Sydney chancellor, Belinda Hutchinson.

This isn’t a “line in the sand”, it’s dragging a rotting jellyfish along the low-tide line, hoping the sharks won’t bite too hard.

I’ve often wondered what it must have been like for the average German, seeing your country slide, inch by inexorable inch, into anti-Semitic tyranny. I’m finding out in the worst possible way.

After all, even at its peak (curiously, perhaps, in the last year of WWII), only 12% of Germans were Nazi Party members. In the crucial years of the early 1930s, only 1% of Germans were members. Even among card-carrying Nazis, anti-Semitism was of little to no concern.

Academic Peter Merkl wrote an exhaustive study of the history of hundreds of foundational Nazis. He found that 33.3 per cent of them showed no interest in anti-Semitism, 14.3 per cent expressed “mild verbal clichés” regarding Jews, 19.1 per cent displayed “moderate” disdain for Jewish cultural influence in Germany, while only 12.9 per cent advocated “violent countermeasures” against Jews.

Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism. In the years leading up to the crucial elections that finally propelled the Nazis to the point where they could seize power (even in 1932, the Nazis never won a majority; Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933, not democratically elected), even Hitler toned down the anti-Semitic rhetoric. By 1930, he “seldom spoke explicitly of Jews,” says historian Ian Kershaw.

The gambit, tragically, worked: of the thousands of Jews who fled Germany in 1933, 16,000 returned in 1934.

Join Mailing List

That’s how nations slide into murderous tyranny: one step at a time. Every outrage becomes anodyne, and the outrages escalate. One year, student activists are driving Jews from campus; four years later, Jewish businesses, synagogues and houses are trashed in an orgy of violence.

And it’s far from over. We all know what happened over the next decade.

Right now, we’re just at the “students trying to kick Jews off campus” stage. Where we go next depends in large part on the nation’s leadership.

Which, from academia to the floors of parliaments, is almost completely missing in action — or worse.

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

None So Intolerant as the Tolerant

By

Gary Johns

-

19 June 2024

0

The Victorian Bar – you remember them – was a big advocate for the Yes side in the referendum. Fifty-seven per cent of the Victorian Bar considered the constitutional amendment ‘sound, appropriate, and compatible with Australia’s system of representative and responsible government’. Such ignorance could only come from a highly woke and politicised Bar. Fortunately, Victorians voted 54 per cent the other way.

The Victorian Bar is also a big advocate of human rights, but not so much against the former premier Victorian Dan Andrew’s world-record lockdown sans medical advice. Then there is their championing of social justice, a term that should never pass the lips of any self-respecting lawyer. There is no law in social justice.

The Victorian Bar is also big into diversity. Indeed, no less than the Equality and Diversity Committee of the Victorian Bar held a panel discussion on 30 May 2024 titled ‘Cultural Diversity in the Profession: Where to from Here?’

The event was to ‘revolve around a panel discussion between Victorian barristers and judicial officers from diverse backgrounds, reflecting on the need for the legal profession to reflect the cultural diversity of the broader Victorian community, as well as celebrating the achievements of solicitors, barristers and judicial officers in Victoria’.

Walking out on a person who holds a different view is not big or clever. It’s just highly intolerant and disrespectful behaviour.

The fact that the Bar feels the need to reflect cultural diversity was their first mistake. The second, evidently, was to invite a Zionist. The Honourable Andrew Strum, of Egyptian and Belgian heritage, was born in Melbourne. Did I mention he is also a devout Jew? During the discussion, he said he was a privileged and proud Zionist. He was privileged to have parents who supported him and is proud to support Israel as the homeland of Jews.

The remarks, may I remind the readers, were made during a discussion of cultural diversity but were too much for at least three attendees who walked out. More than that, one of the walkouts, ‘Melanie’, posted the following on LinkedIn: ‘I walked out of this event after panellist Justice Strum declared himself a proud and privileged Zionist and then unabashedly began vomiting the false narrative that Judaism and Zionism are inextricably linked.’

Melanie declared that she was not alone in her walkout. ‘All I can say is, shame on the Victorian Bar for this disgraceful, underhanded attack on those of us in the profession who are on the right side of history.’ Mmmm, where have I heard the right-side-of-history argument before? I remember! The claptrap was fed to the electors at the Voice referendum by no less than the Prime Minister.

Ah, the certainty of youth (judging from her photo on LinkedIn). Indeed, ‘Kali’, similarly youthful, posted, ‘I couldn’t agree more. It was shocking to have a proud racist [at] such an event’ and young ‘Asif’ chipped in, ‘Well done… very disappointing and ironic considering the nature of the “intended” topics of discussion.’

What irony, Melanie, Kali and Asif, do you understand what Zionism is? It’s not the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the invention of the Russian Tsar’s secret police; all-powerful Jewish tentacles do not entangle the world. A Jewish homeland has a proud history; perhaps Palestinians one day may be able to achieve the same.

Fifty-seven per cent of the Victorian Bar considered the constitutional amendment ‘sound, appropriate, and compatible with Australia’s system of representative and responsible government’.

More mature voices also posted. Daniel Myers wrote, ‘I recommend that you learn some more history about this complex topic. If (as is your right) you continue to disagree or hold strong views, at least have the courtesy and understanding to accept that your perspective is not the only such perspective. Many, many people hold opposite beliefs just as sincerely as you. Walking out on a person who holds a different view is not big or clever. It’s just highly intolerant and disrespectful behaviour.’

This reminds me of an excellent recent explanation of Zionism by the young actor Noah Tishby. Her book, Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth, is so well written and accessible that our young intolerants may be able to cope. Tishby was born in Israel, and her grandmother was a Russian Jew who escaped the Bolsheviks, landing in Jaffa in 1925. Her grandmother was an avid Zionist. From her grandmother, she gleaned this understanding: ‘Zionism is a merging of liberal values and cultural Jewishness; in simple words, it is a national liberation movement. Zionism was never about having an exclusively Jewish state.’

She writes, ‘I thought Zionism was pretty self-evident, and I had no idea that anti-Zionism had become a thing. I didn’t even realise that antisemitism was still a thing!’ Indeed it is, Noah, right there in the heart of the Victorian Bar, or, at least, some of its attendees.

Tishby recalls a time in her youth, not so long ago, when she was holidaying in Greece and met a young German. All went well until she remarked that she was Israeli. She described a ‘cold, indecipherable look appeared on his face’. Assuming he was uncomfortable with their nation’s and people’s history, she indicated, as the young do, that it all happened long ago.

Join Mailing List

‘The young German said, “Well, we actually don’t know if it really happened. There are a lot of books that say that it didn’t.” To be clear, the “it” he was talking about was the Holocaust. But that wasn’t all! As my jaw dropped open, he continued, “and even if it did happen, your country took all the money we gave you and used it for your wars”.’

I am not suggesting that our young attendees at the Victorian Bar event are so ignorant, and bravo to the Bar for inviting Strum, but that such hatred and ignorance, nay intolerance, exists among the profession is a reminder that the fight for tolerance is never over.

This article was first published in The Spectator.

Gary Johns

Dr Gary Johns served as former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Special Minister of State & Vice-President of the Executive Council in the Keating Labor Government. A philosophical rethink saw him accept a series of appointments in the service of economic rationalism, including Senior Fellow at the IPA and Assoc. Commissioner at the Productivity Commission. He recently served as Commissioner of
the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission.

The Myth of Speed

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

17 June 2024

8

We are constantly told that Australia has a huge road toll. Every holiday break and long weekend there are reports of how many people were killed, amid inferences that this is a major and growing tragedy.

Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding. There is a never-ending campaign, complete with gory advertisements warning of lifelong injuries, telling us to slow down. The message never varies – below the speed limit is safe, above the limit is not. Indeed, we are told that even 1km/hr above the speed limit increases the likelihood of serious injury and death. Vacuous journalists blame speed for almost every accident they cover.

And should we fail to heed the message there are speed cameras, aerial monitoring, highway patrols and double demerit periods to remind us.

In reality, driving on Australian roads is safer than it has been for over fifty years. Road fatalities, both absolute and relative to the population, have been steadily falling. Whereas in 1970 there were 3,798 road fatalities, equal to 30.4 fatalities per 100,000 people, in 2022 there were just 1,194 fatalities, a rate of 4.6 per 100,000.

Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads

Most of the decline occurred prior to 2000 following the introduction of seat belts, improved road design, vehicle safety upgrades such as disc brakes and impact resistance, and limits on drink-driving.

But it has continued up to the present time: in the decade to 2012 the rate of deaths relative to population decreased by an annual average of 4.2%. In the ten years to 2022 it fell by an annual average of 1.9%.

The bottom line is, Australia’s road toll is a fraction of what it once was and continues to fall. Fewer people die in road accidents than from the flu or Covid. And yet, rather than celebrate this success, government perpetuates the fiction that things are bad and getting worse. Moreover, despite quite minor changes to speed limits over the period (slight increase on highways and slight reduction in the suburbs), it insists that excessive speed is the primary culprit.

All this while most of Europe, which has overall higher speed limits than Australia, has lower road death rates. That includes Germany, where there are no speed limits on major autobahns.

Responsibility for this myth lies with the National Road Safety Strategy, prepared every few years by transport and infrastructure bureaucrats from the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. For many years it has led a crusade with the broad aim of significantly reducing road trauma, resulting ultimately in zero deaths and serious injuries (which it defines as anyone admitted to hospital, irrespective of seriousness or the length of stay), by 2050.

It argues speed is a key element in all crashes, and that this necessitates lower speed limits and additional enforcement. State governments, which collect tens of millions in speeding fines, dutifully go along with it.

Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding.

While very high speeds can obviously lead to more serious accidents, the data shows that deaths occur at any speed. Indeed, achieving zero deaths and injuries from road accidents is only feasible if everyone walks (even then, some would die of heart attacks). That would clearly be unacceptable to the community, which implicitly accepts a certain level of deaths and injuries as the price of convenient travel.

The elevation of speed limits to icon status is both dishonest and absurd. Those responsible for setting limits, road safety experts and traffic engineers in the public service, are determining the trade-off between convenient travel times and the road toll for the entire community. If speed is truly the demon we are led to believe, they are essentially deciding how many people should die.

If this all sounds familiar, with memories of recent events during the Covid epidemic, that is not surprising. The gross overstating of a public health risk; a determination to mitigate that risk without regard for economic or social consequences; an assumption that the public are not competent to make their own decisions about bearing that risk. It’s all the same.

Join Mailing List

As with Covid, it amounts to a classic case of gross bureaucratic overreach. It is the public, not bureaucrats, who ought to determine the trade-off between travel convenience and the road toll. (There is even an internationally recognised method of achieving this, known as the 85th percentile formula.) It is the public, not public health bureaucrats, who should decide whether the road toll warrants greater priority than other causes of death and disease.

Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads, but a risk-free society is not a rational public health objective. Road users are not sinful children and should not be viewed as a source of government revenue, and public health bureaucrats should not be allowed to play God.

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

What “Decolonisation” Really Looks Like

By

Lushington D Brady

-

14 June 2024

0

“Decolonisation” is the left’s One Big Idea. Hamas is showing us what it looks like in practice.

Greens deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi issued a rather telling tweet in response to the October 7 pogrom. When PM Anthony Albanese finally stirred himself to respond with a declaration of sympathy for Israel, Faruqi responded, “One colonial government supporting another, what a disgrace”.

Faruqi clearly regards both Australia and Israel as “colonisers”, confirming yet again Natasha Hausdorff’s observation that “pro-Palestine” idiots are too often “desperately ignorant, yet highly opinionated”. After all, how does the Pakistani-born Muslim Faruqi imagine that the Jews, whose indigenous heritage in Israel stretches back at least 7,000 years, are “colonisers”? And what does she have to say about the Palestinian Arabs whose ancestors violently displaced the Jewish indigenes after the Islamic empire conquered the region?

Well, no-one ever said that the green-left is the world’s brain’s trust.

But the second, and more alarming, implication of Faruqi’s gibbering is shown by her incessant screeching of “Free Palestine”. Free from what? Her Twitter feed makes clear she means “colonisers”.

“De-colonisation” has become one of the great monomanias of the Western left. Much of it fuelled, of course, by the descendants of the formerly colonised who’ve had unrestricted admission to the great institutions of the West, but can’t help but notice that even after more than half a century of being freed of the colonisers, their homelands are still mostly kleptocratic shitholes run by brutal nepotistic thugs.

Far from being inspired by the dreaming spires to reach for similar greatness, the third world troglodytes’ only impulse is to smash it all. All in the name of “decolonising”, of course.

If you really want to get a glimpse of “de-colonisation” in full swing, take a look at the smoking, blood-spattered ruins of Kfar Aza, and the piles of corpses at the Supernova festival grounds.

Jews cannot suffer racism, the narrative goes, because they are regarded as “white” and “privileged”.

Don’t believe me? Ask the leftist supporters of Hamas’ atrocities.

Somali-American “writer” Najma Sharif, who hooted in response to the beheaded babies and burned-alive grandmothers of Kfar Aza, “What did y’all think decolonization meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays? Losers. ‘Not like this’ Then like what. Show us LOL.”

Sharif is no fringe nutcase — she’s right at the epicentre of cultural clout in racially-reckoned America. She writes for TeenVogue and Instyle. Her tweet garnered 100,000 Likes, including from Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah.

The Democratic Socialists of America cheered Hamas’ slaughter at a New York rally. Leftism-central Jacobin lauded Hamas as “the violent face of Palestinian resistance” — with heavy approval loaded on the “violent part”.

Because violence is part and parcel of the “decolonisation” narrative.

It began with the “intellectual”, Frantz Fanon. Given the very best educational opportunities in France by the “colonisers”, Fanon chose to return their generosity with undying hate. In particular, he celebrated and endorsed anti-white violence, coining the favourite leftist phrase “by any means necessary”.

Today’s “de-colonisers” share Fanon’s taste for anti-white violence. A TV “documentary” on Toussaint’s slave rebellion in Haiti re-enacts the rape and brutal murders of white women with the sort of relish that D. W. Griffith exploited in The Birth of a Nation. Quentin Tarantino cucks himself shamelessly with an orgy of white slaughter in Django Unchained, like Homer Simpson hooting that his fellow whites are “so lame”.

The toxicity of the “de-colonisation” ideology is now clear, following October 7. An inverted version of the Nazis’ racial hierarchy collides with a historically nonsensical mix of Marxist theory, Soviet propaganda, and traditional anti-Semitism, thrown into the hateful blender of identity politics. What emerges is a dull-witted, violent leftist dogma of “oppressed” and “oppressors”. The argument is that it is almost impossible for the “oppressed” to be themselves racist, just as it is impossible for an “oppressor” to be the subject of racism.

This leftist analysis, with its hierarchy of oppressed identities and intimidating jargon, a clue to its lack of factual rigor, has in many parts of the academy and media replaced traditional leftist values, including internationalist standards of decency and respect for human life and the safety of innocent civilians. When this clumsy analysis collides with the realities of the Middle East, it loses all touch with historical facts.

Jews cannot suffer racism, the narrative goes, because they are regarded as “white” and “privileged”. They cannot be victims, no matter how many and how brutally they are actually victimised. In a modern version of Himmler’s “filing card” mentality, where Jews enroute to mass slaughter were reduced to mere numbers tattooed on arms, left-wing intellectuals have shamelessly debated whether 40 babies were dismembered or some smaller number merely had their throats cut or were burned alive. The same people who refuse to drink cow’s milk because of animal cruelty regard a baby’s murder and mutilation as somehow an acceptable act of “by any means necessary” revolution — just so long as they weren’t beheaded. Or at least, not too many.

“De-colonisation” has become one of the great monomanias of the Western left. Much of it fuelled, of course, by the descendants of the formerly colonised

I mean, it’s not as if the left don’t have standards.

The irony is that Israel was once the poster-child of the left. The worst atrocities were committed at Kibbutz Kfar Aza; the hundreds of concert-goers were massacred near Kibbutz Be’eri. These are communes that once represented an ideal for many Western progressives, a victory for communalism over capitalism, miniature socialised, green utopias. It was as much a received orthodoxy for the Left in the 1950s and 60s as “de-colonisation” is today.

What went wrong for the Jews, vis-a-vis the left?

Quite simply, the Jews won. Nothing gets a “de-colonisation” fanatic’s back up quite like somebody else’s success. Frantz Fanon ignored the long history of Africans conquering and enslaving each other, if not wiping each other out enmasse. It was when white folks did it that he got resentful. Edward Said, another “de-colonisation” intellectual poster-boy, studiously ignored Islam’s brutal record of genocidal conquest and enslavement, but the British empire really got his nose out of joint.

When Israel proved Adolf Hitler so wrong and became a testament to Jewish ability, as far as the left were concerned, it had joined the ranks of “oppressors”.

The left who endlessly squawk about “oppression of Palestinians” are as choosy as ever. They say nothing, for instance, about the brutal persecution of Palestinian refugees by their “brother” Arabs in Syria or Lebanon. They ignore the fact that Muslim Egypt has, and still does, steadfastly locked out neighbouring Palestinians.

The left said nothing when more than a million Muslims were slaughtered on the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. There were no open letters from lecturers about the half a million Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein in the decade after. On the contrary, left-wing “progressives” staged some of the largest marches in history, determined to keep him in power.

But all that was, after all, a series of dog-fights between tribes of mutual brown losers. Without a handy skin-colour chart to tell them who the oppressed and oppressors were, the left simply dumped it all into the too-hard basket.

Join Mailing List

The Jews, though? Oh, that’s easy for a leftist. They’re oppressors, all the way. No wonder pumpkin-headed leftist poison-pinup Greta Thunberg strategically positioned a toy octopus in her “pro-Palestine” photo-op. The octopus is the age-old anti-Semitic metaphor: the Joos, with their tentacles controlling the world.

The Joos run everything, after all. So they’re the ultimate “oppressors”. Now, they’re being decolonised as bloodily as a leftist could ever hope for.

So, take note of the piles of corpses in Kfar Azar and Be’eri. That’s what’s coming for the rest of the West — just ask Hamas, who are adamant that eradicating the Jews is just the start of the “global intifada”.

What did y’all think “decolonisation” really meant, anyway?

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

Reassessing Australian Judges’ Role in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal (Part 2)

By

Ted Hui

-

12 June 2024

0

Introduction
In the previous part, I discussed the historical background and recent political developments in Hong Kong that have raised concerns about the role of Australian judges in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. This part will examine specific cases involving Australian judges to assess their contributions and the extent to which they have challenged the infringement of human rights in their judgments.

Judgments by Australian Justices
In the case of HKSAR v. Chow Hang Tung [2024] HKCFA 2, the appellant, Chow Hang Tung, a human rights lawyer, was convicted for inciting others to participate in an unauthorised assembly. This charge stemmed from her attempt to challenge the legality of a police prohibition on a public assembly intended to commemorate the anniversary of the June 4th massacre.

Despite her efforts to appeal the prohibition, her conviction represents a significant setback for freedom of assembly in Hong Kong. Justice Gleeson’s role in this case was minimal yet consequential. He concurred with the judgment that upheld Chow’s conviction, rejecting Chow’s point of view, and agreeing with the majority’s decision that found Chow’s collateral and constitutional challenges to be without merit. Notably, Justice Gleeson did not offer any commentary, not even as obiter dictum, in support of Hong Kong’s freedom of assembly. This contributed to the affirmation of her conviction, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals seeking to exercise their right to assembly in Hong Kong’s increasingly constrained legal landscape.

The continued service of Australian judges in a Hong Kong court system increasingly manipulated to repress dissent under authoritarian rules

In the case of HKSAR v. Choy Yuk Ling [2023] HKCFA 12, the appellant, Choy Yuk Ling, a journalist, sought to uncover collusion between the Hong Kong police and criminal mobs in suppressing the civil rights of Hong Kongers through her investigative journalism. Despite the noble intentions behind her news report, she was punished with a minor offence by the police for allegedly making false statements in her application for vehicle registration details, leading to a costly 30-month legal battle that escalated from the lowest courts to the Court of Final Appeal. Ultimately, Choy achieved a rare victory in court, with her convictions being quashed. However, Justice Gummow’s contribution to the judgment was minimal, merely uttering seven words, “I agree with the judgment of J. Fok.” His lack of criticism, among other judges, towards the prosecution’s approach or the retaliatory actions of the Hong Kong Police is notable, as it suggests a silent endorsement of the status quo, leaving the broader implications of Choy’s case and the state of press freedom in Hong Kong unaddressed.

In the case of HKSAR v. Mak Wing Wa [2023] HKCFA 19, Mak Wing Wa was convicted of taking part in an unlawful assembly during a massive protest by Hong Kongers for freedom in 2019. The incident involved a large crowd gathering at Wong Tai Sin Square, with some individuals, including Mak, shining torches and laser pointers at police officers. The Court of Final Appeal held that Mak had participated in the unlawful assembly with intent, as he was aware of the prohibited conduct of others and joined in by using a torch against the police.

The conviction and sentence were restored by the Court of Final Appeal. In this case, Justice Keane’s contribution to the judgment was minimal, as he simply concurred with the judgment of Mr. Justice Lam PJ. Furthermore, he chose to endorse the conviction without addressing the broader context of the peaceful protests or offering any sympathy towards the powerless protesters, who wielded nothing more than torches and laser pens against a violent crackdown by the police.

A journalist, sought to uncover collusion between the Hong Kong police and criminal mobs in suppressing the civil rights of Hong Kongers

In the case HKSAR v. Chan Chun Kit [2022] HKCFA 15, also known as the Zip Ties case, the appellant, Chan Chun Kit, was initially convicted for possessing 48 pieces of 6-inch plastic cable ties, deemed to be an instrument fit for unlawful purposes under section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance. This case is emblematic of the police crackdown on the 2019 mass protests for freedom in Hong Kong, where many young protesters commonly carried plastic cable ties to construct barricades as a defence against police tear gas and rubber bullets.

Unexpectedly, The Court of Final Appeal overturned the conviction, ruling that the plastic cable ties did not fall within the scope of section 17. In this case, Justice Gleeson’s contribution to the judgment was minimal, as he merely concurred with other judges who focused on the technicalities of the law, without addressing the broader issue of the police’s abuse of power and arbitrary arrests of peaceful protesters. Furthermore, he did not challenge the prosecution’s reasoning, failing to question why plastic cable ties could be considered unlawful in the first place.

Conclusion
The approach of the three Australian judges in the above cases has been minimalist, focusing primarily on technicalities without addressing the broader context of the law being used as a tool for political repression. There has been no demonstration that their presence has helped maintain the independence of Hong Kong’s courts from political interference by the regime. Consequently, their involvement has failed to show any meaningful infusion of Western liberal or democratic values into the increasingly authoritarian environment in Hong Kong. It is important to note that these cases represent only minor political offences; more serious charges under the NSL, such as conspiracy to subvert state power and collusion with foreign elements, are entirely beyond the purview of Australian judges.

Join Mailing List

The continued service of Australian judges in a Hong Kong court system increasingly manipulated to repress dissent under authoritarian rules not only threatens the integrity of the Australian legal profession but also risks diminishing Australia’s standing within the international common law community. The departure of British judges from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, due to their stance against endorsing an administration that strays from core values of political freedom and freedom of expression, underscores the growing international unease with the judicial environment in the region.

This stark contrast between the British judges’ principled exit and the ongoing presence of Australian judges in the same system could significantly erode trust in the Australian judiciary, potentially transforming these distinguished legal figures into a source of national embarrassment. Given these circumstances, it is crucial for the Australian legal community to critically reassess its involvement

Ted Hui

Ted Hui is a solicitor at RSA Law and former Member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council)

Reassessing Australian Judges’ Role in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal (Part 1)

By

Ted Hui

-

10 June 2024

0

Historical Background
As an Australian legal practitioner with Hong Kong roots, I am compelled to address a critical issue: the participation of retired Australian judges in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal.

Historically, overseas judges were included in Hong Kong’s judiciary to uphold judicial independence under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle established during the 1997 handover of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty. This allowed non-permanent judges from common law jurisdictions, including Australia, to serve on Hong Kong’s highest judicial body.

While some argue that the presence of overseas judges in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal could help curb the erosion of civil liberties

Currently, four Australian judges serve in Hong Kong: The Honourable Justices Patrick Keane, Robert French, William Gummow, and James Allsop. They are invited to participate in hearings as needed, and their compensation is calculated on a pro-rata basis based on the monthly salary of a permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal, currently approximately AUD $68,473. In recent years, two Australian judges have left: The Honourable Justice Murray Gleeson retired citing age in 2024, and Justice James Spigelman resigned following the enactment of the controversial National Security Law in Hong Kong 2020.

Recent developments in Hong Kong’s political landscape raise concerns about the continued viability and appropriateness of this arrangement. In this article, I argue that Australian judges should withdraw from serving in Hong Kong’s top court to preserve the integrity of the Australian legal profession and to avoid legitimising a system increasingly in direct conflict with judicial independence and human rights principles.

The Authoritarian Rules
The Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL) 2020 and the recently passed Article 23 legislation on national security (Art. 23) have significantly altered the landscape of human rights and the common law tradition in Hong Kong. The NSL empowers the Chief Executive of Hong Kong to handpick judges for political cases, undermining judicial independence, a cornerstone of the common law system.

Australian judges should withdraw from serving in Hong Kong’s top court to preserve the integrity of the Australian legal profession

Additionally, the NSL reverses the presumption of innocence in political cases, requiring the accused to prove they will not endanger national security to obtain bail. This has led to years of prolonged pre-trial detention for many high-profile Hong Kong dissidents. The NSL also permits the prosecution to request, and the court to allow, the elimination of juries in political cases, even those with potential life sentences, deviating from another fundamental common law tradition.

The draconian Art. 23 further erodes legal protections, allowing for detention of up to 16 days without access to a lawyer. It also grants the police authority to deny the use of specific lawyers or law firms for the accused. These developments represent a significant departure from established common law principles and raise serious concerns about the future of human rights and judicial independence in Hong Kong.

Join Mailing List

While some argue that the presence of overseas judges in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal could help curb the erosion of civil liberties, their role is quite inadequate, or even irrelevant. The main reason for concern is that the Chief Executive has the power to exclude overseas judges from hearing political cases in the first place. In non-NSL cases involving civil and political rights presided over by Australian judges, their role has not significantly challenged the status quo or made substantial contributions to upholding human rights.

I will provide examples of these in the second part of this article.

Ted Hui

Ted Hui is a solicitor at RSA Law and former Member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council)

Why You Should Oppose the Government’s Attempt to Censor the Sydney Church Stabbing Video

By

Jess Colby

-

5 June 2024

0

If you have been following the issue of freedom of expression in Australia, you will be aware of the efforts of the government to censor the Sydney church stabbing video on X (but not mainstream media websites) via a court order. The court order has since been overturned although what will happen next is still uncertain.

It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders. X is currently willing to comply with that, but the Australian government also wants to restrict what the whole world can see.

Below I will offer some reasons why you should oppose the censorship efforts of the Australian government, including both within Australia and globally.

Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect

One reason given by the Australian government for its current censorship efforts is that the video in question is considered to be indecent, confronting and violent. The problem with censoring videos on this basis is that it sets a dangerous precedent that would enable the government to censor a wide range of media; it is a slippery slope. Whether a video is considered indecent, confronting or violent is subjective and a matter of individual interpretation.

Regardless, even if a video is ‘indecent’, ‘confronting’ or ‘violent’, that is not sufficient reason to tell someone they cannot watch it. That decision should be up to the individual, not the government.

In any case, contrary to what may be portrayed by the mainstream media and government, government censorship is not about protecting the public but instead gives the government cover to selectively censor things it finds embarrassing or doesn’t want the public to know about or talk about.

Many confronting and violent videos are in fact matters of public interest; a prominent example being the Afghan Files, which were a collection of videos that depict war crimes committed by the Australian Army in Afghanistan. When these videos were publicly reported, the Australian government attempted to censor them and even raided Australian media organisations. The only difference was that they used the ‘justification’ of national security rather than public decency.

When considering any sort of law or government policy, it is always important to consider how such a law or policy might be misused by a stupid person or weaponised by an evil person. From my perspective, I consider the government to be a rather stupid and evil organisation.

It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders.

An issue of major concern which is often subject to censorship is footage of police shootings. These videos often depict police brutality and misconduct and are an important matter of public interest. If the Australian government can establish that it is acceptable to censor videos on the basis of being confronting and depicting violence, footage of police shootings will be at high risk of government censorship.

‘Confronting’ and ‘violent’ videos can be a primary source of information. They allow people to know exactly what happened, as cameras don’t lie. Censoring such videos forces people to rely on secondary sources of information such as the mainstream media and government, both of which are often biased and leave out critical details without allowing the public to verify their information.

Preventing the spread of extremism is also used to justify the censorship of the Sydney church stabbing. However, censoring the video does not address the root causes of Islamic extremism within segments of Muslim community, or prevent people from knowing about the incident.

Join Mailing List

Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect and brought more attention than if it had just been allowed to fade into obscurity.

As for wider implications, if the Australian government has the power to censor the internet globally, other governments around the world will inevitably seek to do the same. This includes repressive nations that already have a strong desire to censor the World Wide Web such as China, Russia and many more.

Opposing the recent censorship efforts of the Australian government isn’t just important for protecting freedom of expression and information in Australia, but it is also important for the entire world.

Jess Colby

Jessica Colby is a young libertarian advocate who has been passionate about political issues from an early age. She became involved in the Libertarian Party shortly after turning 18 and is now Treasurer of the South Australian branch.

Hate income tax? You shouldn’t

By

Duncan Spender

-

31 May 2024

3

Some taxes are more damaging than others. But when working out which taxes are more damaging than others, you should not judge a tax by its name.

The impacts of income tax and GST can be much the same, because income tax and GST largely tax the same thing.

So a special hatred for the idea of income tax relative to GST is unjustified.

Let me explain with a simplified scenario.

First, imagine a country with five citizens and no government.

One of the citizens, ‘the entrepreneur’, establishes a business by borrowing money from one of the other citizens, ‘the capitalist’. In the first year the entrepreneur pays the capitalist $100,000 in interest.

The business imports 500,000 raw inputs at $1 each, and employs three citizens at a salary of $100,000 each.

The business produces 1,000,000 products and sells half of them to foreigners and the other half to the five citizens of the country, all at $1 each. So the business makes $1,000,000.

The business pays $100,000 of dividends to the entrepreneur.

Australia’s income tax and GST do not have identical impacts on purchasing power and do not have identical discouragement effects.

A scenario with no government

	Receives	Pays
Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur	$100,000 of dividends	$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 2 – the capitalist	$100,000 of interest	$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 3 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 4 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 5 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 100,000 products
The rest of the world	$500,000 for 500,000 inputs	$500,000 for 500,000 products

Now imagine instead that this scenario includes a government. The government demands enough money to buy 100,000 products. And for now, let us assume that this taxation does not discourage the citizens from producing as much as they would in the absence of government.

The government could get the money it demands via a 20 per cent income tax on the salaries, interest, and dividend received by the citizens. In year 1 this would leave the five citizens with $400,000 instead of $500,000 in their pockets, and with the capacity to buy only 400,000 rather than 500,000 of the business’s products. The government would have $100,000 and the capacity to buy 100,000 of the business’s products.

A scenario with income tax

	Receives	Pays
Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur	$80,000 of after-tax dividends	$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 2 – the capitalist	$80,000 of after-tax interest	$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 3 – an employee	$80,000 of after-tax salary	$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 4 – an employee	$80,000 of after-tax salary	$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 5 – an employee	$80,000 of after-tax salary	$80,000 for 80,000 products
The rest of the world	$500,000 for raw inputs	$500,000 for 500,000 products
Government	$100,000 in tax	$100,000 for 100,000 products

Alternatively, the government could get enough money to buy 100,000 products via a 25 per cent GST.

The foreign supplier of 500,000 raw inputs would charge the business $625,000, send $125,000 of GST to the government, and, just like in the scenario without government, would end up with $500,000.

The business would continue to sell half of its products to foreigners for $500,000, at $1 each, given that no GST applies to exports.

The business would sell the other half of its products domestically for $625,000, at $1.25 each. The business would pay $125,000 of GST on these domestic sales, but would claim a $125,000 input tax credit, so overall the business would send nothing to the government.

The government’s overall receipts from both the business and the foreign supplier of raw inputs would be $125,000, enough to buy 100,000 products.

The business would continue to provide $500,000 as salaries, interest, and dividends to the five citizens, but this $500,000 would now only be enough to buy 400,000 products.

The impacts of income tax and GST can be much the same, because income tax and GST largely tax the same thing.

A scenario with GST

	Receives	Pays
Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur	$100,000 of dividends	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 2 – the capitalist	$100,000 of interest	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 3 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 4 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 5 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
The rest of the world	$500,000 for inputs	$500,000 for 500,000 products at $1
Government	$125,000 in tax	$125,000 for 100,000 products

Under these income tax and GST scenarios, the dollar outcomes differ but the real outcomes are identical.

In the income tax scenario, each citizen receives $80,000 that enables the purchase of 80,000 products.

Regardless of which tax is imposed, foreigners are unaffected, and the purchasing power of each of the citizens is hurt to the same degree.

The reason for this is as follows. In the GST scenario, the tax base is the difference between the business’s domestic receipts and its outlays on imported raw inputs. Yet this tax base is also the money the business pays to the citizenry as income. So the tax base for GST is also the tax base for income tax.

Because the citizens’ purchasing power is hurt to the same degree under both scenarios, the discouragement effect of tax would be the same in both scenarios. Contrary to popular belief, there is no great difference in the discouragement effect of income tax compared to the discouragement effect of GST.

Join Mailing List

Now, in the real world, Australia’s income tax and GST do not have identical impacts on purchasing power and do not have identical discouragement effects.

This is partly because of inherently different impacts on savings, that I will discuss in a later article.

But the main reason why our income tax and GST have different impacts is that they each have odd exemptions, and our income tax has various rates unlike the flat-rate GST.

In other words, a broad-based, single rate income tax would have much the same impact as a broad-based, single rate GST.

So the special hatred many feel for the concept of income tax seems unwarranted.

Duncan Spender

Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.

Victoria: Back in the Basket Again

By

Lushington D Brady

-

24 May 2024

1

Reproduced with permission from The BFD

https://thebfd.co.nz/2024/05/09/victoria-back-in-the-basket-again/

I grew up in Victoria (don’t judge me, it wasn’t always the way it’s become), and lived through the dark days of the early 90s. Back then, it seemed that hardly a week went by without another economic calamity: the Pyramid building society collapse, the Tricontinental bank collapse, the State Bank of Victoria collapse, and the Victorian Economic Development Corporation collapse.

Not to mention the collapse of the Victorian branch of the National Safety Council of Australia under a cloud of embezzlement. The state’s credit rating plunged from a gold-standard AAA to an embarrassing AA+.

Fun times.

Well, to spin the old Chinese curse, Victorians are living in fun times again. The most indebted state in Australia, and diving deeper into the red for the foreseeable future. Once again, all at the hands of a Labor government.

It’s clearly not as if there’s no room for cleaning out the bureaucracy in Victoria.

The state’s credit rating is now a dire AA, and under threat of plunging further — which makes even paying off debt more expensive.

Over the four financial years covered by the budget, the annual interest required to service Victoria’s debt will jump from $6.3 billion to $9.3 billion. This is a serious chunk of change and, as a statistical quirk, the fastest-growing expenditure item listed on the government’s cash flow statement.

Victoria’s net debt – the total amount we owe – is forecast to pass $187.8 billion by July 2028 on the way to an unknown, distant peak. It is unfair to characterise it as a mountain because, at this point, there is no downward slope discernible to Treasury officials.

“As a proportion of gross state product, Victoria’s net debt is going to be higher than it was at the end of the Cain/Kirner years,” says economist Saul Eslake. “If I was a Victorian taxpayer, I would be worried about that.

“Certainly outside of Victoria, everyone thinks Victoria is a basket case.”

Astonishingly, Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas claims the debt has “stabilised”.

In the six months since Pallas published his last update of Victoria’s finances, the bottom line has gone backwards by $2 billion.

In the mid-year budget review tabled in December, the cash deficit for 2023-24 – the total revenue raised by the government less everything it spends – was forecast to be $13.1 billion. On Tuesday, that figure was revised to $15.2 billion. The Age

So very stable.

Over the four financial years covered by the budget, the annual interest required to service Victoria’s debt will jump from $6.3 billion to $9.3 billion.

Remember when Dan Andrews promised 4000 ICU beds? Yeah, neither does he. In fact, Victoria’s health system — traditionally a Labor strength — is in for a major trimming-down. Although, in a rare departure for any government, let alone Labor, it seems as though it’s bureaucratic fat that’s getting cut.

A leaked document, seen by this masthead, reveals one of the options is mergers – or “consolidations” – which would mean many existing health services would lose their own chief executive and local boards and have them replaced by an advisory board.

It’s clearly not as if there’s no room for cleaning out the bureaucracy in Victoria. The state has 76 health services, compared with 17 in more populous NSW, 16 in Queensland, 10 in SA, five in WA, and just three in Tasmania. Even New Zealand only has 20 district health boards.

But that’s not how it’s going to be spun by vested interests. Labor risks getting on the wrong side of the powerful hospital unions. Already, the complaints are starting.

It doesn’t look as though the budget is buying Victorian Labor any love at all.

Join Mailing List

Treasurer Tim Pallas said his 10th budget would help families, but the only sweetener was payments of $400 per child from next year for the families of students in Victorian public schools and concession cardholders at non-government schools. The Age

In fact, if The Age’s vox pop is anything to go by, not many “key stakeholders”, as the jargon goes, are particularly happy.

Certainly not young families, commuters, or small business owners.

In 92, it took the mongrel of Jeff Kennett and Alan Stockdale to fix the Victorian basket case.

Who’s going to save Australia’s Wokest State from itself, this time?

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

Mind Your Language

By

Bob Day

-

22 May 2024

1

Everyone knows a suit is comprised of a jacket and a pair of pants. Two jackets are not a suit. Neither can two pairs of pants be called a suit.

This was an argument I often made during the marriage debate. Marriage, I argued, was the joining of a man and woman in a special relationship.

If two men or two women wished to be joined together then they can call it something else, but not marriage; not a suit.

This idea of insisting that words reflect their true meaning and that things be called what they are, is not a new idea.

As long ago as 500BC, Chinese philosopher Confucius said, “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”

Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language.

As US preacher Chuck Swindoll says, ‘they adopt our vocabulary but not our dictionary.’

A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

Farmers used to drain water-logged swamp areas of their land, and no-one batted an eye.

Then swamps were renamed ‘wetlands’, and now can’t be touched.

We’ve re-named euthanasia ‘dying with dignity’; abortion is now referred to as ‘reproductive health’ or ‘planned parenthood’ or simply ‘pro-choice’.

Free speech is branded hate speech, local aboriginal tribes have become ‘First Nations’, power cuts are now called ‘load shedding’, tax increases are re-badged as ‘budget savings’ and denying one’s gender has become gender affirming.

A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

‘Safe schools’ and ‘respectful relationships’ are anything but – as evidenced by lessons in bestiality presented to 14-year-old schoolgirls in South Australia.

The Good Book says, ‘Woe to those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.’ – Isaiah 5:20.

Then there are the perpetual ‘straw man’ arguments – misrepresenting an opponent’s position in order to quickly and easily destroy their argument.

‘Trickle-down economics’ is a straw man argument. There is no such theory in economics. But opponents of free-market economics invented the term ‘trickle-down’ to suggest free-markets are all about favouring the rich and hoping some of their wealth will ‘trickle down’ to those lower on the socio-economic ladder.

Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language.

Then there’s the ubiquitous use of the term ‘flat earthers’ when no-one, anywhere throughout history thought the world was flat. Not the Egyptians, not the Phoenicians, not the ancient Greeks; no-one thought the earth was flat. They weren’t silly. By standing on high ground and watching their tall ships sail over the horizon, they knew the earth was round, they just didn’t know how big it was. Christopher Columbus left Spain and headed west for India, not to prove the world was round, but to determine its size.

Or the phrase Terra Nullius, a term used to manipulate debate on indigenous matters.

‘Australia was founded on the basis of Terra Nullius,’ is one of those myths that survives by repetition, not historical fact.

Terra Nullius is a Latin term meaning ‘land belonging to no one’.

Yet no-one ever said Australia was not occupied.

The term ‘terra nullius’ was not mentioned anywhere in Australia until 1977!

Join Mailing List

Regarding exploration and occupation, the book 18^th Century Principles of International Law stated that, “All territory not in the possession of states who are members of the family of nations and subjects of International Law must be considered as technically res nullius and therefore open to occupation”. ‘Res nullius’ – land not owned by a recognised nation, is not the same as ‘terra nullius’ – land not occupied by anyone e.g. Antarctica.

And on a similar vein, that Aborigines didn’t get the vote, or were treated as ‘flora and fauna,’ until 1967.

All false. All examples of the mutilation of language to influence political debate. US author Michael Malice writes, ‘they’re not using language to communicate, they’re using it to manipulate.’

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

AI Dystopia

By

Damon Hayhow

-

17 May 2024

0

Many voices are warning about the impending dangers of artificial intelligence (AI). They fear everything from mass unemployment to societal collapse, the destruction of humanity by ‘the singularity’, the malicious, sentient AI boogieman (boogie-robot?) from so many science fiction novels and films.

It only takes a brief play with publicly available AI tools, such as Chat GPT, to understand the fear and excitement. It is shockingly impressive. In many ways interacting with LLM (Large Language Model) based AI feels like interacting with a person; an impressively articulate person with astonishing knowledge. It truly can seem sentient.

But this AI is actually far more artificial than intelligent. In many ways, the LLM based AI’s seem to have been designed specifically to pass the Turing Test: to fool users into believing they are interacting with a real person.

What little liberty we have left in western so-called ‘democracies’ is being taken from us by corrupt, incompetent and seemingly deranged bureaucracies.

The LLM-based AI tools can be likened to a person with a photographic memory reading an entire library of books in a language that they cannot speak. When presented with a question, they can write a seemingly intelligent reply, despite having no comprehension of either the question or answer. Their answer is constructed by recognising the patterns of letters and words in the question and matching them to related patterns that they recall from the books. The reply is not reasoned or abstracted; it is not even understood. It is simply plagiarised from the combined mass of documents available.

Because of the way this AI works, replies tend to reflect the most commonly repeated consensus viewpoint, not necessarily the cogent or correct viewpoint. Also, as people use AI to generate more and more content, that content becomes the learning data that AI uses to generate future content, in a perpetually self-reinforcing loop. Isn’t there a saying about telling a lie often enough?

Obviously, not all AI solutions are LLM based. But the foundations of current AI technologies are broadly related. The most important point is that the technologies that we are currently calling AI are not progressing toward a sentient consciousness. What is being called ‘AI’ is still an application of mathematical algorithms to data. The AI ‘revolution’ has more to do with the ever increasing pool of data available, and the speed at which it can be processed, than a fundamental change to the process of computing.

Understanding conceptually how AI does its thing is vital to understanding the real threat of AI. An omniscient computer is not going to consciously decide to destroy all of us. We can all rest easy knowing that any decision to drop nuclear bombs, poison the water, cut off the food supply, switch off the power grid, or engage in any other method of genocide will continue to be the conscious decision of humans in governments.

Many voices are warning about the impending dangers of artificial intelligence (AI).

Nonetheless, there is evidence that we are headed toward an AI-driven dystopia that could be every bit as miserable and tyrannical as science fiction.

WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, describes a future of “fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds”. He is so fanatically obsessed with AI technology that he genuinely believes he will live forever in a robot body after digitising his consciousness (ie downloading his brain). Meanwhile, his lead advisor, Yuval Harari, is on record lamenting what ‘they’ will do with all the “useless people” that AI renders “worthless”?

Listening to Schwab and Harari is disturbing. But world leaders and CEOs of the world’s largest corporations seem to take them seriously. DEI, ESG, CBDCs, carbon taxes, online censorship laws, hate-speech laws, forced vaccinations, WHO treaty, etc all either came from the WEF or are being promoted by it. And, the WEF is the official strategic partner of the UN to assist with the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for “Sustainable Development”. The WEF has clout.

Join Mailing List

Western Governments, including Australia’s, are onboard with all of the WEF’s tyrannical plans. They have passed (or are passing) laws to censor our speech, detain us without charge, block or steal our bank accounts, revoke our professional licenses, “reeducate” us, prevent us travelling, lock us in our homes and force-medicate us. They are increasingly spying on us, 24/7, to police our every action and thought. And they are currently building and applying AI tools to analyse all of that collected data to automatically find anything that could be considered “dangerous” behaviour or thought to apply those laws.

What little liberty we have left in western so-called ‘democracies’ is being taken from us by corrupt, incompetent and seemingly deranged bureaucracies and ostensibly put in the virtual hands of a technology that is, in fact, unintelligent, inherently prone to error, and easily manipulated. A sentient computer might have been better. At least Skynet would realise the politicians are the problem.

Damon Hayhow

Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.

Raw Deal

By

Max Payne

-

14 May 2024

2

A local rag (The Geelong Advertiser) reported* last month that some sort of strange secretive trade was taking place in the quiet backstreets of affluent Highton. The article heavily implied that this was an illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria.

I found two things rather confronting about this story.

First, it seemed the main concern of the other residents of this quiet cul-de-sac was that once a fortnight their street attracted some extra traffic. “It was really invasive”, claimed a local resident.

The article explained that ‘customers’ were turning up to this particular house brandishing empty white buckets, then returning to their cars with a full one.

Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock.

Second, this saga represents yet another example of Australians loving a rule and hating a rule breaker – a sad inversion of how we are traditionally portrayed. We saw the same attitude during Covid when people dobbed in neighbours who held gatherings at their houses during lockdowns.

It exposes a distinctly ugly side to the modern suburban Australian – spying on their neighbours and obsessed with everyone’s business but their own. It was apparently too much to ask of a suburban neighbourhood to ignore a few extra cars on their street every second Tuesday evening.

I don’t believe it has anything to do with health and safety. It’s a twisted manifestation of tall poppy syndrome where Australians seem to believe we should all suffer together under the tyranny of useless laws and regulations.

The basis for why raw milk is banned in Victoria (until 2015 it could be sold as ‘bath milk’) is a tall tale, based largely on hearsay and a coroner’s report drawing a (weak) link between a child’s death and possible raw milk consumption. Put it this way: the same health department that shut down the Dandenong I Cook Foods business made the decision.

Illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria

Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock. Our stance on vape products is infamous internationally for how not to regulate them, alternative treatments for Covid 19 were needlessly banned in favour of novel vaccines (such as the recently discontinued AstraZeneca vaccine). Worse, the relentless pursuit by APHRA of renegade doctors who break rank and provide medical advice to the contrary of the national standard drives their valuable advice and expertise underground.

And so it is with raw milk, where in New Zealand, England, and across much of the USA and Europe, consumers can access it under the protections of a strong regulatory environment. In Australia, consumers discreetly drive to suburban distribution points at night and try not to disturb the nosy neighbours while lugging buckets back to their cars.

Join Mailing List

“In general, safety takes priority over freedom of choice” was the catch cry of a Dairy Food safety regulator in response to the Geelong incident, summing up everything wrong with the attitude of the public health system.

Australians love rules, and health departments love making them. Thus, those wishing to exercise their freedom to choose end up needlessly on the wrong side of both the law and public opinion. At least everyone else can sleep easy at night, lest they be disturbed by some extra cars on their street!
*https://www.melissa-payne.ca/trending/8ad51675cd36/

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Broken Systems and the Deteriorating Psyche of Our Nation.

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

8 May 2024

2

Australia is on life support – politicians “and” the people are both to blame.

Few people could deny that Australia is not well.

The cost of living is unacceptably high. Home ownership is a long-lost dream. Our mental health is deteriorating rapidly. We are at war with one another over almost every issue. Polite debate has disappeared from our public discourse, and in many cases, from our personal interactions.

Who is to blame? Because, hey, we must have someone or something to blame. It simply cannot be our own fault!

Mostly we blame the politicians, but we also hear a lot of talk about how broken the system is, as if the system itself is responsible.

Systems don’t break themselves, just as they don’t build themselves. They are created from human endeavour, and they collapse from the impact of human force and negligence.

The tragedy is that we do not lack examples on how to avoid disaster.

Our political systems and institutions are only as good or bad as the people who construct and manage them. While it is easy to blame the politicians – those who we elect – for the decimation of the framework that was designed to serve us all well, blame must also land on we the people for not paying more attention to how it works, and the calibre of those we send to serve us.

Most people look to Great Britain for the roots of our Westminster system, but in fact the Western world inherited the core principles of our representative democracy from the ancient Romans. Not only were they brilliant builders and engineers, but they created a political system that would endure for two thousand years.

It was comprised of three levels of government – Consuls, Senate, and the People. The Ancient Greek historian, Polybius, described it as the best form of Constitution due to its interdependence and reliance on all three elements.

“For whenever some common external threat compels the three to unite and work together, the strength which the state then develops becomes quite extraordinary.”

What a rousing endorsement this is!

While it served Rome well enough during its rise and dominance of the then known world, it deteriorated steadily from the second century BC through lack of preservation, and eventually was replaced by an Empire. Polybius cites its demise as owing to the cycle of political revolution:

“…the law of nature according to which constitutions change, are transformed, and finally revert to their original form.”

Our political systems and institutions are only as good or bad as the people who construct and manage them.

Cicero, however, places its downfall squarely on the shoulders of men.

“Thus, before our own time, the customs of our ancestors produced excellent men, and eminent men preserved our ancient customs and the institutions of their forefathers. But though the republic, when it came to us, was like a beautiful painting, whose colours, however, were already fading with age, our own time not only has neglected to freshen it by renewing the original colours, but has not even taken the trouble to preserve its configuration and, so to speak its general outlines.

For the loss of our customs is due to our lack of men, and for this great evil we must not only give an account, but must even defend ourselves in every way possible, as if we were accused of capital crime. For it is through our own faults, not by any accident, that we retain only the form of the commonwealth, but have long since lost its substance…”

Mankind envisions, and they destroy. And most often the destruction occurs dramatically fast. Cue what we are witnessing now in our own time.

It remains debatable as to whether it is intentional or a result of sheer incompetence. I argue it is a lethal combination of both.

The tragedy is that we do not lack examples on how to avoid disaster. The Roman historian, Livy, said it best:

“The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”

Join Mailing List

Democracy is a cautionary tale. I’ve presented here examples from the past by some of the finest historical minds, gifted to us in the hope we may learn from their mistakes and misfortunes.

Alas, the cycle continues. We rise, and we fall. I ponder if there will ever rise a generation who can put a spoke in the wheel of this endless ignorance. Of course, that would require a fundamental shift in the willingness to heed lessons from the past and apply only those new principles where they are truly needed.

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

Vic’s Very Naughty Boys in Blue

By

Lushington D Brady

-

6 May 2024

1

Reproduced with permission from The BFD

https://thebfd.co.nz/2024/05/02/vics-very-naughty-boys-in-blue

Why would anyone trust police in Victoria any more? Politicised, corrupt and hypocritical, VicPol’s reputation has been battered on all fronts over the past few years.

It wasn’t just the naked brutality of the Covid era, when Victoria Police rolled out assault vehicles and locked down the skies, smashed old ladies into the roads, and opened up with teargas and rubber bullets on the sacred grounds of the Shrine of Remembrance. It wasn’t just the deep-rooted corruption revealed by the Lawyer X and Red Shirts.

When the High Court ruled that the George Pell trial was perhaps the most egregious miscarriage of justice since the Chamberlain saga, VicPol were in the thick of it. Police pursued an obvious vendetta against the Cardinal, setting up a “Get Pell” squad to troll for dirt, before even a single criminal complaint had been made.

And, yes, no doubt the vast majority of VicPol employees are law-abiding — but the same could be said of priests.

As it turns out, VicPol might have been better removing the beam in their own eyes, first.

Some 78 Victoria Police officers and Protective Service Officers are facing criminal charges and traffic offences, with a disturbing number relating to serious sex offences including rape, sexual assault and indecent acts against children including possessing and producing child pornography.

Three charges of rape and five sexual assault charges against police are among 19 sex charges before the courts, in addition to a range of sex offences allegedly committed against children aged under 16.

One police officer faces a charge of incest relating to a sibling.

Casting the first stone, indeed.

Like the Church they pursued so doggedly, it seems the rozzers have more than a few skeletons they’ve been trying their darnedest to keep in their closets.

The police crime data – released by Victoria Police after a request from The Australian – cover offences allegedly committed by 68 officers on and off duty.

And, yes, the criminality goes all the way to the top.

Police pursued an obvious vendetta against the Cardinal, setting up a “Get Pell” squad to troll for dirt, before even a single criminal complaint had been made.

The 73 police officers facing charges and traffic offences include seven first constables, 20 senior constables, 26 leading senior constables, 14 sergeants, five senior sergeants and one ranked inspector or above and they face a total of about 130 charges […]

Five PSOs are facing criminal charges, with two relating to an indecent act against a child aged under 16 and one of alleged sexual penetration of a child aged under 16. Of the PSOs charged, two were general PSOs and three senior PSOs […]

Victoria Police said it was releasing the data as part of a commitment to transparency and stressed the vast majority of the force’s almost 18,000 police officers and PSOs were law-abiding, noting the data showed just 0.435 per cent of the force was facing criminal charges.

The Australian

Except, if the data has to be sought out by journalists instead of being made proactively available to the public, one might be justifiably sceptical about that “commitment to transparency”.

Join Mailing List

And, yes, no doubt the vast majority of VicPol employees are law-abiding — but the same could be said of priests. Yet, the presence of a small, but egregiously criminal, minority was sufficient to blacken the Church’s name. Not to mention attract the zealous attack dogs of Victoria Police.

When institutions show that they cannot be trusted, social harmony takes a battering. Few institutions are as critical as law enforcement — and, in Victoria at least, they’re giving citizens increasingly less reason to trust them.

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

The Tax Power

By

Adam Craig

-

3 May 2024

0

The Commissioner of Taxation has too much power.

Libertarians consider tax to be either theft or, at best, should be low and flat to cover bare necessities. It certainly shouldn’t be as complex as it is or run to thousands of pages.

Most mainstream tax reform proponents have grandiose visions that would only add complexity and likely raise the overall tax burden. Libertarians rightly oppose those ideas as they come.

However, there is an easy win that ought to be important to libertarians: we need to limit the Commissioner of Taxation’s powers. It’s not exciting work, like developing new systems, but it is significant.

First, the Commissioner has too much power to amend assessments.

Australia has a self-assessment tax system. That means we declare income and allowable deductions, which the Commissioner accepts but can then amend if he considers the taxpayer was wrong.

Libertarians can demand fairer amendment periods, a fairer burden of proof, and less funding for the Commissioner.

For individuals the Commissioner can amend an assessment within two years. For businesses, it is usually four years.

However, the relevant section of the law for income tax – leaving aside equivalent sections for other taxes – is around 3000 words– because it contains “ifs” and “buts” to protect the Commissioner.

For example, if the Commissioner makes a tax avoidance determination, he can have four years instead of two years to change an assessment. If the Commissioner believes there has been fraud or evasion, he has an unlimited amendment period. If the Commissioner believes a particular section of the tax law relating to trusts applies, he again has an unlimited amendment period.

These powers predate most of this century’s technological advances, which enable the Commissioner to work more efficiently and collect more data. Also, many amendments to the tax law in recent years have made it easier for the Commissioner to apply the law, including changes to avoidance laws favouring the Commissioner.

It must be a libertarian position to reduce amendment periods.

Second, the Commissioner does not need to prove anything in litigation. The starkest example of this rule operating unjustly is when the Commissioner has amended a taxpayer’s assessment because he believes fraud or evasion has occurred.

The Commissioner need only believe there has been fraud or evasion.

He can form this opinion about any year – 2003, for example. And if he goes back to 2003, he will likely repeat that for many subsequent years, and he will apply penalties and interest.

Most mainstream tax reform proponents have grandiose visions that would only add complexity

Suppose the matter is in the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court of Australia. The Commissioner will not need to prove the truth of his opinion. Also, it doesn’t matter if the taxpayer proves the Commissioner’s opinion was wrong. The taxpayer’s task, two decades later, is to show that its accounting was correct. Not surprisingly, most people do not have records that go back that far.

It must be a libertarian position to oppose the power to simply deem fraud, and to demand a time limit on the exercise of the fraud or evasion power. The Commissioner should have an obligation to prove fraud or evasion has occurred before the taxpayer must prove its accounts.

Third, the Commissioner is emboldened to use his amendment powers through funding. The Commissioner receives substantial funding to run the Australian Taxation Office.

Libertarians would rightly want that funding limited.

However, there is also a perpetual cycle of giving the Commissioner additional funding to use his amendment powers, particularly under the auspices of tax avoidance.

Join Mailing List

Libertarians would want that funding limited because it encourages the Commissioner to use his firmest amendment powers. It also raises questions about the management of public finances – should the Commissioner be “rewarded” with additional funding for things he should already be doing?

Libertarians can demand fairer amendment periods, a fairer burden of proof, and less funding for the Commissioner.

It would be hard to think that most taxpayers would not be libertarians regarding these issues.

Adam Craig

Adam Craig is a barrister. He had libertarian instincts as a teenager but joined the ALP as a student doing blue-collar work. After graduating he worked as a public servant, mainly at the ATO (including secondments at Treasury and Prime Minister and Cabinet). In observing the workings of government and the tax system, Adam became increasingly convinced that government had no answers and was wasteful. He left the public service for a life of independence at the Bar and has reembraced libertarianism.

The Federal Government Should Deliver a Decade of Surpluses

By

Duncan Spender

-

1 May 2024

1

A government’s balance sheet indicates whether it is engaging in intergenerational redistribution. If the government has negative net assets it is leaving future generations with more obligations than benefits. A government with positive net assets is leaving future generations with more benefits than obligations.

Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations, so should leave those decisions to individuals. This means that governments should have zero net assets; their balance sheets should be balanced.

Governments in Australia do not have balanced balance sheets. The Commonwealth has a significantly negative net asset position and each of the states and territories has a significantly positive net asset position.

When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

This is shown in Chart 1. It depicts public sector net asset positions relative to the size of the related economies. Commonwealth net assets are shown relative to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while each state or territory’s net assets are shown relative to the relevant state or territory’s Gross State Product (GSP). Each jurisdiction’s public sector includes government-owned businesses such as government-owned banks.

The Commonwealth’s negative net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with obligations in excess of benefits. In essence, the Commonwealth Government has locked in benefits for future generations, like security from the military assets it has accumulated to date, but has racked up far greater obligations, like obligations to pay back Commonwealth debts and fund the superannuation of retired Commonwealth public servants.

This decision of the Commonwealth Government to beggar the future is unlikely to represent the preference of Australians.

The Commonwealth Government’s intergenerational redistribution should stop, so as to leave intergenerational decisions to individuals. In other words, the Commonwealth Government should convert its negative net asset position to a zero net asset position. This should be done through a decade of surplus budgets (or surplus ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 2 per cent of GDP.

This could be readily achieved, for example by reducing Commonwealth Government transfers to the state and territory governments. These transfers are particularly odd given that each state and territory government is wealthier than the Commonwealth Government.

Each state and territory government’s positive net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with benefits in excess of obligations. It is teeing up more benefits for future generations, like their enjoyment of public land holdings and use of infrastructure like roads, than it is racking up future obligations, like State Government debts and funding the superannuation of retired State public servants.

While leaving future generations with benefits in excess of obligations sounds nice, this is something that individuals are perfectly capable of doing without government.

Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations

And the current generation may well be of the view that the degree of generosity to future generations shown by each of the state and territory governments is excessive. If there is a difference of opinion between a government and the individuals it represents, then it is the government that is wrong.

State and territory government intergenerational redistribution should be put to a stop by each government reducing its positive net asset position to net zero. This should be done through a decade of deficit budgets (or deficit ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 4 per cent of GDP on average.

Such deficits could be achieved by abolishing inefficient taxes like stamp duties, or by giving away assets. (Such give-aways count as losses that detract from the operating result.)

The biggest deficits should come from the wealthiest state governments, in Queensland and Victoria.

The wealth of the Victorian state government may come as a surprise. The Victorian state government has a stronger net asset position and a weaker net financial asset position than many of its counterparts (see Chart 2). It has done a lot of borrowing, which has weakened its net financial asset position, but it has done this to invest in non-financial assets. Overall this generates a positive, or at least neutral, impact on net assets.

Unfortunately for the Victorian state government, credit rating agencies tend to ignore a government’s net assets and instead focus on its net financial assets. Even more stupidly, lenders take these credit ratings into account when lending to governments. If a state or territory government wanted to defend its credit rating so as to ensure continued access to low-cost borrowing, it could still run significant deficits in line with my recommendation. It would just need to achieve these deficits by giving away non-financial assets, like land, so as to leave its net financial asset position unchanged.

Join Mailing List

When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

Duncan Spender

Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.

The Global Online Safety Regulators Network: A Global Surveillance State?

By

Jaimie Stevenson

-

29 April 2024

1

The journalist Michael Schellenberger recently discovered that there is a formal government censorship network called the “Global Online Safety Regulators Network” (GORSN). Australia’s top Internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, an American, described it at the World Economic Forum. The group includes censors from Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the UK, and Fiji.

This is a concerning development for anyone who values freedom of speech and privacy. The initiative aims to create a global coalition of regulators to combat harmful online content. However, in reality it is a veiled attempt at global censorship of the internet, aimed at circumventing the protections provided by Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

At its core, GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders. Libertarians and advocates of free expression have long warned against concentrated government control, arguing that it almost inevitably leads to abuse and suppression of dissenting voices.

The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy.

Grant outlined the significant powers that regulators within the GORSN have at their disposal. She said that GORSN members can block internet service providers (ISPs), compel content takedowns, fine individuals or platforms that host offensive content, and impose other punitive measures as deterrents. Additionally, Grant discussed a new legislative framework that allows regulators to enforce basic online safety expectations. This framework’s scope suggests that GORSN aims to exercise substantial control over the internet, raising concerns about censorship, regulatory overreach, and the broader impact on freedom of expression and privacy.

Another alarming aspect of GORSN is its potential to invade privacy on a global scale. Grant’s remark that the network had the power to compel “basic device information and account information” are a stark warning that the network could enable mass surveillance. For libertarians, privacy is a very high priority and the notion that regulators could gather personal data without appropriate oversight is a worrying development. Broad powers to compel information from tech platforms suggests that GORSN could become a mechanism for government surveillance on an international level.

Grant’s mention of social media companies increasingly collecting phone numbers and email addresses raises the spectre of a surveillance state, where governments can easily track individuals and monitor their online activities. This level of intrusion into personal privacy should be of concern to anyone who believes in the right to remain anonymous and free from unwarranted government scrutiny.

GORSN’s push for global identity requirements and restrictions on VPNs is a direct assault on digital autonomy. VPNs are essential tools for maintaining privacy and accessing information freely, especially in countries with oppressive internet regulations. Any move to limit their use would further erode individual freedoms and strengthen authoritarian regimes.

The centralised control proposed by GORSN threatens to undermine the fundamental principle of a decentralised internet where individuals can maintain their anonymity and exercise their rights without fear of government intrusion, leading to an internet that is more tightly monitored and regulated by governments with varying degrees of respect for freedom and democracy.

GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders

The sheer scope of GORSN’s power, including the ability to fine content hosts, compel takedowns, and block ISPs, is a classic case of regulatory overreach. When governments are given this level of authority, the risk of abuse is high. Such power can be used to suppress dissent, stifle criticism, and enforce a particular worldview, all under the guise of “online safety.”

From a libertarian perspective, the existence of GORSN is a troubling development that undermines the ideals of a decentralised internet. The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy. Instead of a collaborative effort to address harmful content, GORSN represents a centralised approach that risks creating a global surveillance state.

The Global Online Safety Regulators Network is a danger to internet freedom. Its focus on centralised control, coupled with its broad powers, sets a dangerous precedent for governments seeking to extend their reach into the digital world. As the network gains momentum, it is crucial that libertarians and other advocates of free speech push back against this overreach and defend the principles of a decentralised internet.

Join Mailing List

Platforms like X and Rumble have taken public stances opposing intrusive government requests for content takedowns and data collection. Chris Pavlovski, the founder of Rumble, highlighted this issue in a recent post on X, stating, “Rumble has received censorship demands from Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that infringe on everyone’s human rights. We are noticing a dramatic increase in global censorship unlike we’ve ever seen before.” Elon Musk, the owner of X, endorsed this sentiment, indicating a shared concern among tech leaders.

But it takes more than a couple of tech leaders to fight censorship. To push back against government intrusion and censorship there are several measures that individuals can undertake. Support platforms that actively resist censorship and champion free speech, use VPNs to preserve online privacy and bypass censorship. Importantly, connect through servers in countries that are not part of the GORSN. This can help avoid unwanted surveillance and ensure a greater degree of anonymity while online.

Jaimie Stevenson

Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.

Too Much Government

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

26 April 2024

0

Expectations of the role of ~~the~~ government have been rising steadily over the last decade. They rose substantially during the eastern states’ bushfires in late 2019 and early 2020, and again in response to the floods that followed in NSW and Queensland. And they reached stratospheric levels during the Covid panic.

Judged by the number of lives lost, those bushfires were far from the worst on record. Nonetheless, they were characterised as ‘unprecedented’ and prompted a chorus of demands for the Prime Minister to get involved. When it was discovered he had gone to Hawaii for a holiday with his family, he was accused of being negligent for leaving the country at such a time.

The Prime Minister did not leave the country when NSW and Queensland were hit by floods, but the opprobrium he attracted could hardly have been worse if he did. The floods were again described as unprecedented amid a chorus of claims the government should have acted sooner and done more.

The Covid schemozzle was obviously unprecedented and nobody could go anywhere. Once again, the Prime Minister and federal government were blamed – there were insufficient vaccines, the border should have been closed sooner, hotel quarantine was a failure, lockdowns were inadequate, plus a multitude of other perceived failures. All this despite the worst harm being done by state governments.

Thousands of kids were inspired to join the surf lifesavers, setting an example for the rest of the world.

Perhaps it is not surprising that many people think of the Prime Minister and the federal government when they think of ‘the government’. Federal politics tends to dominate the news, while the public’s understanding of our system of government is pretty dismal. Much of the media is pretty ignorant too, although hostility to Liberal leaders is also a factor.

But what these narratives reveal is that the expectations now placed on governments, of any kind, are higher than they have ever been. Whether it is floods, fires, droughts, earthquakes, cyclones or disease outbreaks, there is a popular and growing view that the government should not only be there to pick up the pieces, but should have anticipated the calamity and done everything possible to head it off.

By any standard this is both ridiculous and contradictory. Government is, after all, made up of politicians and public sector bureaucrats. Neither are experts at how the real world works so cannot possibly know what to do.

Most people readily acknowledge that governments are inefficient, bureaucratic and slow, yet somehow cling to the belief that next time will be different and more government will get it right.

In fact, Australia’s problem is too much government. From petty, intrusive local councils to authoritarian state governments and over-taxing, over-spending, ‘more money will fix it’ federal government, there is just too much of it.

The problem with this is obvious. The world is complex and changing – in social attitudes, world economics, geo-politics and of course technology. There is no way that politicians, public sector bureaucrats or regulators can hope to supervise or manage it. They are also often remote from the problems – how, for example, can a bureaucrat in Canberra possibly know enough to make a decision about a cyclone in Broome?

The famous economist Friedrich Hayek noted how difficult it was for people to fathom that local decision making leads to more efficient outcomes than central planning by politicians and public sector bureaucrats.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions.”

Expectations of the role of government have been rising steadily over the last decade.

There was a time, not that long ago, when Australia was a proud volunteer society. Moreover, almost everything was local.

Thousands of kids were inspired to join the surf lifesavers, setting an example for the rest of the world. Volunteer fire fighters saved whole communities. Dozens of charities, not just the Salvation Army and Red Cross, all volunteers, provided help and hope to those in need.

Indeed, prior to the emergence of the welfare state in the second half of the twentieth century, volunteer charities were involved in health care, childcare, education, unemployment and disability support. In the nineteenth century you would have been considered weird if you had predicted that most of these would end up being run by governments. These days you’d be called weird for suggesting volunteers might do them better.

Volunteers are still the first responders in many fire and flood emergencies as families, neighbours and friends rally around. Next are typically agencies such the State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service in NSW, and their equivalents in the other states. Both are still volunteer based, although increasingly under the control of full-time public servants and subject to the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy. In Victoria, the sad decline of the CFA at the hands of the unions is an example of that.

A tragic example of the harm being done to our volunteer society was seen during the Covid pandemic when many volunteers were required to be fully vaccinated. Unvaccinated volunteers were turned away and not permitted to fight fires or rescue flood victims, even when working outside where infection was rare.

Join Mailing List

Even after it became obvious that Covid vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission, the obligation to be fully vaccinated was retained. This was not only unscientific but also destructive. It seriously undermined the capacity of those organisations to help people. In NSW, RFS volunteers on the Central Coast fell by about 50% and in other areas SES volunteers left and some SES stations closed.

It also led to increasing demands for the federal government to bring in the ADF. Obviously ADF members are not volunteers, but they are also not intended to be used as emergency workers. Indeed, using the ADF for anything other than the defence of the country undermines its purpose and reduces its capabilities.

While we sometimes hear governments claiming to honour volunteers, the trend is downhill. The more red tape, bureaucratic oversight and regulation imposed, the more volunteers bail out.

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

A Digital Dark Age (part 3)

By

Bob Day

-

24 April 2024

0

‘We will continue to be your single source of truth.

Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth’.

So said former New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern.

Covid

When Covid hit in 2020, people had no reason to doubt what they were being told by their political leaders.

However, the pandemic very quickly exposed the incompetence of many in the medical and scientific establishment, with politicians and public sector bureaucrats making up rules as they went along, and ramping up censorship.

Suggestions that the virus might have come from a lab leak, or anything negative about masks or vaccines, soon became misinformation or disinformation and was immediately censored.

Politicians, public sector bureaucrats, pharmaceutical company executives, all in cahoots with one another, blatantly lied to us. The early bootleggers were amateurs compared with these people.

They were wrong on lockdowns. They were wrong on border closures. They were wrong on school closures. They were wrong on masking. They were wrong about vaccines.

Poor people were hurt the most.

Anyone, including qualified medical professionals, who said Covid vaccines were causing serious side-effects and possibly a significant number of deaths, were silenced and threatened.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has already recommended the removal of the right for Christian schools to hire staff who share their values.

Academics who had been studying lockdowns were also blacklisted. Dr Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at the US’s Stanford University, was one of them. ‘Censorship of scientific discussion led to policies like school closures,’ he said. ‘A generation of children were hurt.’

At the behest of governments, social media platforms removed any and all content which questioned the safety or efficacy of the vaccines.

In April 2021, the Coalition government had Instagram remove a post which claimed that ‘Covid-19 vaccine does not prevent Covid-19 infection or Covid-19 transmission’, a statement that clearly was accurate.

Ivermectin was prohibited from being prescribed in Australia from January 2021, by which time the vaccination rate had reached 98%. Prohibition of Ivermectin was enforced right until the very end of the vaccine roll-out.

We now know the Covid-19 vaccines were neither safe nor effective. They did not prevent infection or transmission and have been linked to blood clots, heart conditions and other ‘died suddenly’ events.

A peer-reviewed study published in January 2024, found that more deaths were caused by the mRNA vaccines than were saved by it. Other studies suggest the widespread use of ivermectin could have saved many lives.

As Thomas Sowell once said, “It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions into the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

Climate Change and Renewable Energy

Probably no other area of public debate has been more manipulated than climate change.

What started as ‘the greenhouse effect’, soon became ‘global warming’ which morphed into the now all-encompassing ‘climate change’.

To up the ante even more, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stated recently, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived”.

Global boiling obviously hasn’t yet reached the poles, as Arctic ice is currently at its greatest extent in more than 20 years.

Renowned quantum physics scholar Dr John Clauser, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics has stated, ‘I do not believe there is a climate crisis’.

More bootleggers, in the form of renewable energy merchants, have leapt on to the climate change bandwagon with unbridled zeal and are raking in billions of dollars gaming the system, raising energy prices, impoverishing consumers, destroying jobs, and fleecing taxpayers.

Indigenous matters

Toddlers and pre-schoolers in childcare centres across Australia are being taught that Australia was stolen from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Qualified medical professionals, who said Covid vaccines were causing serious side-effects and possibly a significant number of deaths, were silenced and threatened.

More than 7,000 schools and daycare centres now have formal ‘acknowledgements of country’ in place, which includes children singing or reciting that the land on which they sit belongs to Indigenous people.

At SDN (formerly Sydney Day Nursery) Children’s Services in the ACT, kindy kids are taught about ‘stolen land’ as they recite an acknowledgement of country each morning.

‘The foundation for this learning begins when the children enter the centre as infants’, the organisation says on its website.

‘Now older preschoolers participate in the daily ritual of acknowledging country to build on the explicit teaching about stolen land.’

As NSW Libertarian Party MP John Ruddick said, ‘children were being indoctrinated to feel ashamed of their country’.

The Religious Freedom Bill

There is no doubt that any ‘religious exemptions’ in the Bill will not make life less hazardous for faith-based organisations.

While certain religious groups which might comprise Labor’s voting base will be protected, other religious groups most likely will not.

As we have seen recently, clear examples of the crime of incitement to violence – perpetrated seemingly with impunity – will, undoubtedly, be given more latitude.

Join Mailing List

Christians, however, will not enjoy similar leniency.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has already recommended the removal of the right for Christian schools to hire staff who share their values.

And Christians will most certainly not be able to criticize the trans movement or ‘gender affirming’ practices.

The world now says truth is subjective – ‘my truth, your truth, their truth …’

However, the Good Book says, ‘You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.’

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

A Digital Dark Age (part 2)

By

Bob Day

-

23 April 2024

0

The only currency that matters is power – getting it and holding on to it.

Attaining power these days involves denigrating and silencing your opponents in any way possible: censoring them, branding what they say as misinformation, disinformation or malinformation, with the primary aim being to prevent them getting their message out.

As has been observed, ‘When ideas are bad, censorship will always be more attractive than debate.’

In a recent renewable energy report, Energy Infrastructure Commissioner Andrew Dyer summed up in one concise sentence why governments relish powers like the ones being proposed.

Dyer said, “Opposition is often driven by ‘misinformation’.”

That is what is called a ‘shibboleth’.

Shibboleth is a Hebrew word meaning ‘stream’. It is referred to in the Old Testament book of Judges, where Jephthah and the men of Gilead fought the Ephraimites and captured the Jordan River crossing. As people crossed the river, to distinguish who was friend from foe, they had everyone say the word ‘shibboleth’. If they couldn’t pronounce it properly, they knew they were the enemy. From this, the word shibboleth was absorbed into the English language to describe a key identifier or a dead give-away.

What we saw in the Energy Commissioner’s comment was that dead give-away.

Once this Bill is law, all the government has to do is label something ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ to have it shut down. Presto! Any opposition is eliminated.

Historically, the media has fought hard to maintain freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Internationally, ‘misinformation and disinformation’ have risen to number one on the list of top 10 risks cited by the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Risks Report 2024.

Addressing the recent WEF conference, European Union President Ursula von der Leyen said: ‘Like in all democracies, our freedom comes with risks. There will always be those who try to exploit our openness, both from inside and out. There will always be attempts to put us off track – for example, with ‘misinformation and disinformation.’

The politics of fear

Fear has always been a powerful political motivator. Fear makes people accept things they wouldn’t otherwise accept.

In the 16^th Century, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a book that would influence political strategy and tactics for the next 500 years.

Machiavelli’s book centred on the use of fear to control the masses – ‘The best course of action for a ruler to take is to instil fear in the people’, he said.

And for people to not only fear what might happen, but that they would also ‘fear the worst’.

Minister Rowland has said misinformation and disinformation pose a threat to ‘the safety and wellbeing of Australians’ and ‘to our democracy, society and economy’.

This is the politics of fear.

And the antidote to fear is knowledge – information, facts, figures. Which is why they want the power to prevent people from receiving it.

Conflating issues also plays a useful role.

As well as the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, Minister Rowland has also announced a review of the Online Safety Act, saying the government is committed to introducing a revised version of its ‘internet censorship laws’.

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) hit back:

“It is completely disingenuous for the Minister to seek to conflate the protection of Australians from predators online with the federal government’s plan to empower bureaucrats in Canberra (ACMA) with the right to determine what is truth, and to censor mainstream opinion through its ‘misinformation’ bill,” said the IPA’s John Storey.

“The federal government is cravenly using heightened concerns about current tensions in parts of our community, and the fears of parents and others about harmful online content, as a trojan horse to push forward laws that will in practice impose political censorship,” he said.

Climate Change

South Australia’s chief public health officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier, recently warned that the nation is facing a state of “permacrisis” as climate change fuels ‘back-to-back natural disasters and the emergence of new diseases’.

In her biennial report on the state of public health, Prof. Spurrier calls climate change ‘the most significant global threat to human health’, saying the planet is getting hotter and is experiencing more extreme weather events such as flooding and bushfires.

‘We need to respond to this threat today, not tomorrow or in the distant future,’ her report states. ‘These changes to the climate are caused by humans.’

Prof. Spurrier’s report says this will lead to exacerbation of chronic diseases such as heart, lung and kidney disease; damaged food crops; increased risk of food poisoning and water contamination; injuries from flooding and bushfires; and even an increase in snake bites after floods.

‘Other health impacts from climate change include poor air quality due to increased dust and pollens and the emergence of serious new communicable diseases in South Australia, such as Japanese encephalitis virus,’ she says.

Mercifully, she spared us plagues of locusts and frogs and the Murray River turning to blood.

Attaining power these days involves denigrating and silencing your opponents in any way possible

This is ‘permacrisis’ – permanent crisis – putting communities into a permanent state of climate fear.

Machiavelli would be proud.

The Voice to Parliament Referendum

When the Yes side didn’t win the Voice Referendum, they immediately blamed, you guessed it – misinformation.

Yes campaign director Dean Parkin, said the referendum result was due to ‘the single largest misinformation campaign that this country has ever seen’.

Yes campaign spokesperson Thomas Mayo blamed the ‘disgusting No campaign, a campaign that has been dishonest, that has lied to the Australian people’.

Teal MP Zali Steggell even introduced a private members’ bill with the title Stop the Lies.

Ms Steggall stated that it was clear that the information people had access to through the course of the Voice debate was ‘heavy with misleading and deceptive facts’.

Got that? ‘Misleading and deceptive facts’, the very definition of malinformation.

Governments, technology and third-party collaborators

Baptists and Bootleggers

Whenever there is money to be made, opportunities to do business with governments – that is, do the government’s bidding in exchange for special access and privileges – present themselves. Cosy relationships between businesspeople and governments are as old as regulation itself.

What can give these relationships real potency is what has been called the ‘Baptists and Bootleggers’ phenomenon. The term stems from the 1920s’ Prohibition days, when members of the US government received bribes and donations from Bootleggers – criminals and businesspeople eager to maintain a scarcity (and resulting high price) of their product (alcohol). These same Members of Congress then justified maintaining the prohibition by publicly adopting the moral cause of the Baptists.

The same applies here. A moral cause – ‘threats to the safety and wellbeing of Australians’, and financial rewards to those assisting governments in their pursuit of power.

Historically, the media has fought hard to maintain freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Join Mailing List

However, new media have no such compunction. As more and more people source their news through Google, Facebook, X, Tik Tok, Instagram and other social media platforms, these global behemoths exert more and more power and influence. And while the old press barons took free speech seriously, big tech sees no problem at all in doing the government’s bidding – provided the government maintains their ‘platform, not publisher’ status and the advertising money keeps flowing. Al Capone may have invented bootlegging, but big tech has certainly perfected it.

Tech entrepreneur and former Google insider Tristan Harris says we are in the midst of a ‘great social upheaval’. Technology, he says, is being used to attack the very foundation of what we trust. ‘We are entering a Digital Dark Age’.

Digital IDs Drivers’ licences, proof of age cards, passports, Medicare cards, birth certificates, home addresses, MyGov IDs, tax returns, credit cards and banking details, remote-controlled smart meters on our homes, digital certificates of title for our properties. Once these are all linked – as the government ads say, ‘bringing together government and industry’, the government’s control will be complete.

Tomorrow – part 3

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

A Digital Dark Age

By

Bob Day

-

22 April 2024

0

Step into my parlour, said the spider to the fly,
‘Tis the prettiest little parlour, that ever you did spy,
Oh no, no! then said the fly, to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up to your winding stair,

Can ne’er come down again.

Mary Howitt’s old poem could well be describing another web, the one that ensnares us all – the world-wide-web.

Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions. It is because of this web, that we are now in this predicament.

We have all been caught, and to quote Mary Howitt, we’re ‘ne’er coming down again’.

In January 2023, the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, announced that the Albanese Government would introduce new laws to provide the media regulator – the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – with ‘new powers to combat online misinformation and disinformation’.

The proposed new bill, the Communication Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill, would:

The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

– Enable ACMA to gather information from global tech companies and require them to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation and provide those records to ACMA.

– Enable ACMA to request industry to develop, vary and/or register a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, which ACMA could then register and enforce.

– Allow ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard, should a code of practice be deemed ineffective in combatting misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms

– Empower ACMA to regulate electoral and referendum content, but NOT the power to regulate political parties with regard to misleading and/or deceptive conduct.

– Empower the Minister to direct ACMA to conduct investigations into any matter regarding misinformation or disinformation and empower the Minister to set the terms of reference for any such investigation.

The Bill also provides for significant penalties for digital platforms or individuals that do not comply with the Bill and/or the new codes and standards the Bill creates. Penalties include:

– Imprisonment of up to 12 months for providing false or misleading information to ACMA.

– Non-attendance at an ACMA investigation hearing of up to 33 penalty units ($9,000) for each day of non-attendance.

– Non-compliance with a registered code of up to 10,000 penalty units ($2.75 mill) or 2% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

– Non-compliance with an industry standard of up to 25,000 penalty units ($6.88 mill) or 5% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

Other penalties may also apply.

The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions.

Ms Rowland said the government was committed to introducing legislation that would fine social media companies for allowing misinformation or disinformation to be broadcast on their platforms.

Misinformation is defined as ‘false information that is spread due to ignorance, or by error or mistake, without the intent to deceive’.

Disinformation is defined as ‘false information designed to deliberately mislead and influence public opinion or obscure the truth for malicious or deceptive purposes.’

“In the face of seriously harmful content that sows division, undermines support for pillars of our democracy, or disrupts public health responses, doing nothing is not an option.

“The proposal would empower the regulator to examine the systems and processes these tech giants already have in place, and develop standards should industry self-regulation measures prove insufficient in addressing the threat posed by misinformation and disinformation”.

Harsh words indeed.

In its submission to the draft bill, the Law Council of Australia warned that the proposal could have a ‘chilling effect on freedom of expression’ by allowing social media giants and the communications watchdog (ACMA) to decide what constitutes information, opinion and claims online.

Join Mailing List

And in case anyone is thinking this is solely a Labor Party contrivance, before the 2022 election the Morrison government pledged to, ‘… introduce stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online by giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers’.

To cap it all off, waiting in the wings is ‘mal-information’, defined as ‘truth which is used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country’ and ‘information that stems from the truth, but is often portrayed in a way that misleads and/or causes potential harm.’

To invoke Climate Czar and former US Presidential candidate Al Gore, malinformation might be otherwise described as ‘an inconvenient truth’.

Tomorrow: part 2.

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

Another Round of the Circus

By

Lushington D Brady

-

20 April 2024

0

Reproduced with permission from The BFD https://thebfd.co.nz/2024/04/16/another-round-of-the-circus/

Another day, another court case, and the scandal that just keeps on giving… keeps on giving.

Justice Michael Lee has handed down his verdict in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation suit against Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson — and what a curious judgement it is. On the one hand, Lee states what has been obvious from the beginning, that both Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann are “unreliable historians”. Both, as he notes, have told a great many lies.

He also hints that the case would likely not have passed the bar of a criminal trial.

Yet, for all that, he feels justified in “I just reckon”ing what happened in a senator’s office that night.

‘I’m convinced … that sexual intercourse did take place, and that took place with Mr Lehrmann on top of Ms Higgins on the couch in the minister’s office’

Yet, the only evidence for this is the assertion of a woman whom he also says “was not fully aware of her surroundings”.

The only thing that’s certain about this whole sordid affair is that the media-political class will continue to exploit it for all they can milk.

Justice Lee states that, as video and witness evidence shows, both Lehrmann and Higgins were drinking and “passionately kissing and posing for selfies taken by Ms Higgins”. Higgins also willingly accompanied Lehrmann on the fateful Uber ride, when everyone else elected to go home. He further just reckons that:

He has found it’s unlikely Brittany Higgins said “no”, and more likely she was passive during the incident.

Those of us unburdened by a prestigious legal career might be given to wonder how the learned judge feels justified in making such a crucial statement, given that he is, as he says, relying on two most unreliable people.

Still, he’s the learned judge, and I’m just a tosser with a keyboard. I guess we’ll just have to defer to his learned wisdom.

Bruce Lehrmann “told deliberate lies” when giving evidence, but is not a compulsive liar, Justice Michael Lee says.

As such, he will not accept any evidence from Mr Lehrmann unless it is corroborated by a reliable witness or a document, or amounts to an admission.

Yet he accepts Higgins’ uncorroborated evidence, despite also finding that she also lied about a great many key matters, and,

“selectively curated material” on her phone before handing it over to the AFP and “told untruths when it suited her”.

The scandal that just keeps on giving… keeps on giving

At least one of Justice Lee’s findings is indisputable:

Justice Michael Lee says the Bruce Lehrmann defamation matter has become “a proxy for broader cultural and political conflicts.”

He said responses to the judgment would vary, due to a variety of responses and attitudes to sexual assault.

“Some jump to predetermined conclusions because they are disposed to be sceptical about complaints of sexual assault, and hold stereotype beliefs about the expected behaviour of rape victims described by social scientists as rape myths,” he said.

“Others say they believe all women, surrendering their critical faculties by embracing and acting upon a slogan arising out of the #MeToo movement.

“Some have predetermined views as to the existence or otherwise of a conspiracy to suppress a rape for political purposes.”

Join Mailing List

The claims of a political conspiracy are blown out of the water.

Justice Michael Lee says any allegation of a political cover-up of the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins is “objectively short on facts”. (The Australian)

Which, if nothing else, casts a grave shadow on the Albanese government’s weaponisation of the case.

The only thing that’s certain about this whole sordid affair is that the media-political class will continue to exploit it for all they can milk. And that a woman who “told untruths when it suited her” is now at least $2.5m richer, courtesy of the same politicians who falsely peddled a “a conspiracy to suppress a rape”, for their own obvious political gain.

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

The Enhanced Games

By

Damon Hayhow

-

15 April 2024

4

Australian Olympic medalist swimmer, James Magnussen, is making news headlines again. He has publicly announced that he plans to “dope [himself] to the eyeballs” to break a swimming world record, and win $1million. The competition’s officials are giving him their full support.

James is the first high-profile athlete to officially join the proposed ‘Enhanced Games’; an international, multi-sport event with grand plans of competing against the Olympic games for eyeballs, athletes and dollars. The brainchild of another Australian, Aron D’Souza, the Enhanced Games headline point of differentiation is the eschewing of the artificial, arbitrary, performance-limiting, political interference of drug testing.

The Enhanced Games could also be called the Libertarian Games. Athletes are free to do whatever they want to achieve the maximum of their athletic potential, so long as it does not harm anyone else.

Most of the efforts of drug testing agencies is brutal harassment of intermediate level amateur athletes for irrelevant test result technicalities

Predictably, conservatives and liberals alike are screaming bloody murder at the prospects of athletes being free to choose for themselves what they want to do with their bodies to achieve what is important to them. The powerful bureaucracies engaged in sports drug-testing are also enraged.

Their first reflexive argument against the Enhanced Games is that the use of performance enhancing drugs is cheating. Cheating, by definition, means violating the rules. The Enhanced Games have no rules disallowing the use of drugs, so doping cannot be cheating.

Another argument is that it is not fair. In the Enhanced Games, all competitors will have the same access to every technology to maximise their performance; from special suits made of high tech materials to pharmaceutical products, expert advice and monitoring. The democratisation of enhancement technology means no athlete has an unfair advantage; it simply raises the overall level of competition. For an athlete to win in the Enhanced Games, the only exploitable advantages available will be God-given talent and hard work.

By contrast, drug tested sport is grossly unfair as a direct result of the drug testing. Drug testing is a political tool used to control who represents sports. Talented athletes deemed to be undesirable representatives of a sport typically face unusually frequent, surprise drug testing, and unusually frustrating accusations of procedural improprieties. Meanwhile, top athletes with the necessary political and/or financial connections are minimally tested, given warning when they will be, have access to technologies to pass tests despite using drugs, and even enjoy mysterious disappearances of positive tests.

The tests themselves are grossly ineffective. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) itself acknowledges that 44% of ostensibly “clean”, WADA-compliant Olympic athletes admit to using banned substances. In other tested sports, such as cycling, the drug use is even more widespread. The Lance Armstrong scandal highlighted how farcical and hopeless the situation is. Armstrong was doping for years, yet never failed a test. But so too were all of his competitors.

Athletes are free to do whatever they want to achieve the maximum of their athletic potential, so long as it does not harm anyone else.

Most of the efforts of drug testing agencies is brutal harassment of intermediate level amateur athletes for irrelevant test result technicalities, such as testing positive for irrelevant baking ingredients (glycerol) or non-performance-enhancing nutritional supplements.

The infamous 1988 Seoul Olympics continues to be a case study in the true corruption and politicisation of the modern anti-doping movement. Approximately 400 positive drug tests reportedly came out of the testing laboratory for the Seoul Olympics. The positive tests were passed to the Olympic bureaucracy, where they seemingly disappeared. Only 10 athletes were announced to have failed tests.

The inarticulate and undiplomatic Canadian sprinter, Ben Johnson, was the most high-profile of the failed drug tests. He won the premier Olympic event, the 100-meter sprint, and set a new world record. In second place was the handsome, intelligent, articulate, all-American, hero sprinter, Carl Lewis. Johnson failed the drug test under suspicious circumstances, and his gold medal was given to Lewis. The media then proceeded to paint Johnson as the embodiment of a dirty, rotten, drug cheat. Lewis was heralded as the stunning and brave hero of all that is good and moral, despite some questionable irregularities in some of his own tests. Johnson’s career and reputation was ruined, even though his record remained in the record books.

Join Mailing List

The anti-doping movement has completely failed to stem the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. If it has achieved anything, it has made sport less fair, less honest and less safe. Like the War on Terror and the Covid sham, the war on drugs in sport was based on lies, and has become a completely corrupt boondoggle for a handful of dishonest technocrats. It now only harms the people it ostensibly exists to protect.

It is time to throw drug testing into the dustbin of history. An Australian has come up with a solution and another Australian is the first to jump aboard. All libertarians should get behind the Enhanced Games.

Damon Hayhow

Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.

Got something to say?

Got something to say?

Got something to say?

Got something to say?

Got something to say?

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY