Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Australia

    Home Australia Page 5

    Reassessing Australian Judges’ Role in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal (Part 1)

    By
    Ted Hui
    -
    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.

    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.

    Hate income tax? You shouldn’t

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    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

    ReceivesPays
    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

    ReceivesPays
    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

    ReceivesPays
    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.

    Victoria: Back in the Basket Again

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    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?

    Mind Your Language

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    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 18th 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.’

    AI Dystopia

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    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.

    Raw Deal

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    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/

    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.

    Vic’s Very Naughty Boys in Blue

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    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.

    The Tax Power

    By
    Adam Craig
    -
    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.

    1...456Page 5 of 6
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv