Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Random

    Australia

    Home Australia

    Why You Should Oppose the Government’s Attempt to Censor the Sydney Church Stabbing Video

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    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.

    We are Family

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    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.  

    Broken Systems and the Deteriorating Psyche of Our Nation.

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    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.

    Childcare – Why should you pay for it?

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    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.

    Faulty Towers

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    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.

    Knee-Jerk Laws Are Bad Laws

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    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.

    A Nation of Takers

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    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

    Olympic Dam’s Gold Medal Performance

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    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

    I’ve got a little list

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    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.

    Whose Ethics make it Ethical

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    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

    123...6Page 1 of 6
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv