Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
In 1901, when six individual British colonies came together as a federation, it was in an environment of extensive and, at times, torrid debate. While there was widespread acceptance that the colonies could achieve together what they could not achieve alone, there was also apprehension about the extent to which the power to govern would become centralised.
The enthusiasm and sense of expectation surrounding the birth of a nation was tempered by concerns about the future autonomy of individual colonies. The smaller colonies were also apprehensive about the power and influence the larger colonies might exercise.
As a consequence, the process leading to the formation of the Australian Constitution was both painstaking and torturous.
One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.
During the first of the convention debates in 1891, Sir Samuel Griffith, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, captured the essence of concerns saying:
“We must not lose sight of the essential condition that this is to be a federation of states and not a single government of Australia. The separate states are to continue as autonomous bodies, surrendering only so much of their power as is necessary for the establishment of a general government to do for them collectively what they cannot do individually for themselves.”
In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.” It is clear, both from the Constitution and from the record of the Convention debates, that the Federal government was to have significant but well-defined powers. All powers not defined in the Constitution, known as the residual powers, were to remain the province of the States. However, the ink was barely dry on the Constitution before a growing appetite for centralised power emerged.
Foundations of Power
The powers of the Commonwealth were set out in Section 51 of the Constitution, and their scope described in 39 subsections known as a head of power. While the States retained the right to legislate on these matters as well, the Constitution provided that where any inconsistency existed between Federal and State legislation, the Federal legislation prevailed.
The powers ceded to the Federal government were very wide and included interstate trade and commerce, corporations, external affairs, taxation, defence, quarantine, currency, pensions, banking and many more.
Centralisation of Power
As one might expect, the first issue on which the boundaries of authority between the States and Commonwealth were tested related to tax, with the High Court becoming the arena for argument. The gloves came off, the lawyers were primed, and the fight over money began.
The first tests came in 1904 in Peterwald v Bartley where the High Court examined whether the Constitution prohibited the States from imposing excise duty. This was followed the same year with D’Emden v Pedder, in which the power of the States to impose taxes on Commonwealth activities was rejected.
In 1908, in response to the Constitutional requirement that any surplus tax revenues in the first decade of Federation be returned to the States, the Commonwealth enacted legislation to pay these surpluses into a trust account thereby avoiding payment to the States. One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.
In 1910, the Constitutional obligation that not less than 75 per cent of the Commonwealth’s customs and excise revenue be distributed to the States came to an end. While the arrangement was mandated for only the first decade of Federation, the Commonwealth terminated the arrangement as soon as it was legally able to do so, much to the ire of the States.
In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.”
Commonwealth government activity and bureaucracy then began to grow rapidly, fed by its growing tax harvest. The years leading up to World War 1 (1910-1914) saw increases in Commonwealth control of the economy and in social services. In 1915, following the entry of Australia into the war, the Commonwealth introduced income tax which co-existed with income tax applied by the States.
Over the next few decades, both in the High Court and through legislation, the Commonwealth and States battled for territory in a number of areas including tax, defence and welfare services. So extreme was the discontent with the way the federation was heading that some States, most notably Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, contemplated secession. In 1933 a referendum was held in Western Australia.
At the time there was a Great Depression and every State was struggling. Some believed the problems were a result of Federal government policies and actions, particularly in respect of tariffs imposed to protect the manufacturing and sugar industries.
The result of the WA referendum sent shock waves through the rest of Australia with 68% of West Australians voting in favour of secession. This was about the same number who had voted to join the Federation only 33 years earlier. The desire of West Australians to separate from the Federation was not fulfilled as the British Imperial Parliament refused to act, claiming that such an action could only be taken with the consent of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.
Got something to say?
Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.
Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
The Guardian recently said the quiet part out loud – the Coalition’s pivot towards nuclear energy is scaring away the big money that is backing renewables.
That’s right, the mere fact that the Federal Opposition (who aren’t fancied to win the next election mind you) has proposed nuclear energy for Australia is enough to put investors off backing renewable projects. And yes, we are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors.
While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables.
We are constantly told that Australia is ripe for renewable energy – be it solar, wind or hydro. But the truth of the matter is that without unequivocal bi-partisan legislative support, private capital is unwilling to back projects even against the prospect of competition. That should tell you everything you need to know about the reality of the economics of renewables.
The Investor Group on Climate Change reported that ‘more than one’ major investor had decided to hold off on future investment decisions in Australia. General sentiment was that investors would prefer to back projects in jurisdictions with bi-partisan political support for a renewables-led transition to net-zero.
What is clear from these developments is that investing in renewable technology is not a vote of confidence in how the projects stack up. Rather, it’s simply an attempt to bet on government-backed guarantees, and once that guarantee is potentially threatened the investors flee.
We are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors.
To play devil’s advocate, nuclear technology may potentially suffer from similar issues. Due to the high upfront costs and long lead times of nuclear energy projects, even strong advocates of the technology freely admit that significant public funding would be needed to get projects off the ground and to induce private investment. It is unclear how competitive nuclear energy might be in the new energy market as well – would investors expect legislative guarantees to ensure returns?
What is clear though, is that the threat of (or lack of) government intervention in the energy marketplace is destroying investor confidence. Be it renewables, potentially nuclear, or the ridiculous net-zero targets that are annihilating investment confidence in coal and gas, the sources that actually do the heavy lifting in the energy market.
While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables. They aren’t betting on the tech, or on a technologically robust transition to net-zero. They are betting on a government guarantee to ensure their returns.
Got something to say?
Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.
Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across
the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.
Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
Every failure in Aboriginal affairs creates an opportunity to offer a shiny new bauble to public servants and the journalistic cheer squad. Last weekend, in light of the failure of the Voice referendum, there were three baubles – naming an Indigenous state, renewable self-determination, and a new economic development plan.
The cost of the baubles is to put off the day of reckoning for the children in hundreds of remote communities in northern Australia who fail to learn to read, write and speak English well enough to get a job. Until they do, nothing good will happen. Any plan that begins without these needs fulfilled is doomed.
Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, is from Borroloola in Arnhem land, south of the site of the Garma festival. That small community has three preschool centres: one run by a charity, one by an Aboriginal corporation, and another by the education department, competing for a handful of children. And yet, too many children still fail to move through sufficient years of school. Perhaps Senator McCarthy could explain how she made it when others could not.
Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers
Bernard Salt, the demographer, suggested that one of the Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name. Perhaps he was inspired by Naarm, an Aboriginal state in miniature. I recently travelled into that city, formerly known as Melbourne, on the Skybus and was regaled by the welcome and acknowledgment and sovereignty-never-ceded meme. My fellow travellers were Asian and Indian, all with earpieces and mobile devices, blissfully unaware of the Victorian disease of hating progress – welcome to the state of grunge.
If not Victoria, how about granting the Northern Territory statehood and naming it Borroloola land?
One big man would get all the money and hand it out in envelopes in order of family preferment, the big man’s family first and so on. It sounds perfect, very post-colonial, and very Papua New Guinea.
When he arrived at the Garma festival, the Prime Minister was undoubtedly busting to announce his brilliant initiative. Having disappointed the great and the good at Garma last time with a resounding loss in the 2023 referendum, he combined two precious icons of the left: saving the world with renewables, and Aboriginal collectivisation.
The Prime Minister’s renewables plan is for solar panel and wind turbine-led ‘self determination’. Gas would be better; the Northern Territory is floating on it, but that seems to disturb the green spirits. Imagine shiny rows of solar panels on ‘country’ and turbines on ‘sea’ as far as the eye can see. I guess Albo had to bung something in the speech.
However, for the sake of his adoring audience and faithful journalists, here is what it takes to make a solar panel. Manufacturing is really about silicon production. Most of the energy required to make solar panels is consumed during silicon production, purification, and wafering. Silicon is produced from high-purity quartz, which is exceedingly rare. It has to be chemically reduced.
Solar panels can only be produced with coal, oil, gas and hardwood. Coal is required as a reducing agent for making silicon and as a source of heat and electricity for the industrial process required to manufacture solar panels. These processes need a continuous supply of electricity, which renewables cannot provide.
Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name
The Prime Minister might also like to brief the First Minister of Borroloola land that the vast array of renewables must be decommissioned and disposed of. Fortunately, there is plenty of space in Arnhem Land for solar panel dumps. Wind turbines at sea can just be left to join the underwater songlines. But the average lifespan of the newest utility-scale solar panels is a fraction of the 25 years marketed. It is more like 15 years. Older solar panels used to ‘live’ longer but newer ones are optimised for the lowest raw materials and energy use so that after about 10 years, serious failures occur. Renewables are not renewable.
Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers even though every skerrick of land outside the major settlements is owned or controlled by Aboriginal interests under various Land Acts or related agreements. To this ‘vast terrestrial estate’ and the Prime Minister’s renewables power delusion may be added Australian National University’s Professor Peter Yu’s dream of economic empowerment.
Let me explain the Peter Yu economic development plan. There is no economics. The ‘plan’ is based on human rights rent-seeking. It recommends public servants be indoctrinated in the ways of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It promotes ‘cultural mapping’, presumably writing what Aborigines have carried in their heads for thousands of years. The reason is simple: to monetise that ‘knowledge’.
They plan to get their hands on ‘sea and water interests’ by extending the native title regime to get a bigger slice of what others produce. They recommend the same with ‘intellectual property’. They recommend ratifying the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. The upshot would be that if access is sought to genetic resources on Aboriginal land, which is almost the entire state of Borroloola land, the terms of access would be negotiated with the big men. Any benefits from the subsequent use go to the community ‘according to the mutually agreed terms’ – rent-seeking.
These wonderous rent-seeking developments in Borroloola land come wrapped in a nice bow with treaties supervised by, according to Peter Yu, the Makarrata Commission. McCarthy succeeded without these baubles. She should tell the children.
Dr Gary Johns served as former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Special Minister of State & Vice-President of the Executive Council in the Keating Labor Government. A philosophical rethink saw him accept a series of appointments in the service of economic rationalism, including Senior Fellow at the IPA and Assoc. Commissioner at the Productivity Commission. He recently served as Commissioner of
the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission.
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.
Obviously, this situation is unsustainable in the long term. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
Australia is already living beyond its means, with budget deficits year after year. It is also actively discouraging industries that support the economy – think coal exports, gas exports, sheep exports – while increasing energy costs. It obviously cannot last.
What the country needs is a government that encourages self-reliance rather than dependence on the state. Unfortunately, there is no sign of that.
Got something to say?
Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.
Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across
the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.
Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
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.
“The International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) could establish an Asia-Pacific office in Australia. We could host conferences and bring the world’s best nuclear minds here.”
The countries whose spent fuel was stored here would have an interest in our security.
And as well as the multi-billion-dollar economic benefits – abolishing Stamp Duty, Payroll Tax, Occupational Licencing charges and many other taxes, charges and levies – with the latest technology we may even be able to extract more recycled power from the spent fuel in the future.
The more we engage with the nuclear question, the more positive the opportunities arise.
But first we must remove the regulatory obstacles and legislated bans blocking Australia’s economic and energy independence.
Got something to say?
Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.
Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across
the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.
Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
In light of recent scandals surrounding the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), it is time to consider a more fundamental issue: the very existence of unions in modern society. Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect. From a libertarian perspective, unions disrupt voluntary employer-employee relationships, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. The existence of unions like the CFMEU is contrary to the principles of a free market and individual autonomy.
Libertarian economists and thinkers have extensively argued that unions are inherently coercive institutions that distort labour markets and undermine individual freedom. Essentially, unions are a political organisation rather than an economic organisation, aiming at controlling the labour market with coercive and political means, rather than through voluntary exchange and cooperation.
Distortion of Labour Markets
Fundamentally, unions disrupt the natural balance between employers and employees. Unions often demand higher wages and better working conditions than what the market can sustainably provide, which inevitably leads to inefficiencies and can drive businesses to reduce their workforce. As Murray Rothbard once stated, “unions cannot determine wage rates without putting companies out of business and causing unemployment.” The adversarial relationships unions create between employers and employees often lead to strikes, reduced productivity, and a hostile work environment. Employers are forced to comply with union demands or face the threat of collective action, which is economically damaging.
Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous.
Infringement on Individual Liberty
Unions impose collective bargaining agreements on all workers, regardless of individual preferences. This coercive nature undermines the voluntary nature of employment contracts. One of the most fundamental arguments against unions is that they violate the very basic principle of freedom of association, as well as the freedom not to associate. In a free market, employment terms are negotiated based on mutual benefit. Employers offer wages and conditions that reflect the value of the work, and employees accept jobs that meet their needs and preferences. This voluntary exchange is the cornerstone of a free and prosperous society.
Perpetuation of Corruption and Inefficiency
The CFMEU scandal is just another recent prime example of how unions can become corrupt and self-serving. Instead of protecting workers, the CFMEU has been involved in criminal activities, kickback schemes, and internal conflicts that harm the very people they are supposed to help. This corruption is not an isolated incident but a symptom of the broader problem with unions. With power comes corruption. It is no surprise that unions become corrupt over time as that is part of their nature.
The Case for Abolishing Unions
Given all the fundamental problems with unions, the natural conclusion is that we should abolish them entirely. Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous. Without unions, employers and employees would engage in direct negotiations, fostering a more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship. Without unions, businesses would operate more efficiently, leading to greater innovation, job creation, and economic growth.
Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect.
Furthermore, the abolition of unions would protect individual freedoms. Workers would and should have the freedom to negotiate their terms of employment based on their unique needs and circumstances, without being forced into collective agreements that may not serve their interests. This would lead to a more diverse and dynamic labour market, where individuals are free to pursue opportunities that best align with their skills and personal situations.
Moreover, many industries with either very weak or nominal unions, such as hospitality, IT, and the gig economy, flourish due to less intervention from unions, resulting in a freer labour market. For example, the tech industry has seen tremendous growth and innovation partly because it is less burdened by union constraints, allowing for more flexible and dynamic employment practices. The gig economy, encompassing platforms like Uber, demonstrates how flexible work arrangements can be managed without the involvement or interference of unions. This, I believe, represents the future of employment, where every individual acts as their own boss, making the existence of unions unnecessary. These examples highlight how a freer labour market can lead to industry growth and innovation, benefiting both employers and employees.
In summary, unions like the CFMEU should have no place in a modern, free-market economy. They distort labour markets, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. From a libertarian perspective, the abolition of unions would lead to a more prosperous, fair, and free society. By allowing voluntary employer-employee relationships to flourish, we can create a more dynamic and innovative economy that benefits everyone.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
In my last article I argued that a flat and broad-based income tax is much the same as a broad-based GST, so we have little reason to hate the concept of income tax more than the concept of GST. I argued this by setting out an imaginary scenario with five citizens, one business, and no government.
But there is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better. I will argue this by adding an additional year to the imaginary scenario, and by honing in on three of the citizens – the three employees.
Year 1
In year 1 each employee earns a salary of $100,000, enough to buy 100,000 products at $1 each.
One employee is short-sighted and borrows $100,000 from another employee, who we will call the long-sighted employee. So in year 1 the short-sighted employee buys 200,000 products while the long-sighted employee buys nothing.
Year 1 with no government
Citizen…
receives…
and pays…
The short-sighted employee
$100,000 of salary, plus $100,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee
$200,000 for 200,000 products
The long-sighted employee
$100,000 of salary, less $100,000 lent to the short-sighted employee
Nothing for no products
The take-it-as-it-comes employee
$100,000 of salary
$100,000 for 100,000 products
To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent.
Year 2
In year 2 each salary is $104,030, but this amount now buys only 101,000 products because the product price has risen from $1 to $1.03.
The salary of the short-sighted employee is transferred to the long-sighted employee to pay off the previous year’s debt. As such, the long-sighted employee buys 202,000 products in year 2, while the short-sighted employee buys nothing.
Year 2 with no government
Citizen…
receives…
and pays…
The short-sighted employee
$104,030 of salary, less $104,030 paid to the long-sighted employee
Nothing for no products
The long-sighted employee
$104,030 of salary, plus $104,030 paid by the short-sighted employee
$208,060 for 202,000 products
The take-it-as-it-comes employee
$104,030 of salary
$104,030 for 101,000 products
Bring Out The Government
Now imagine instead a scenario where there is a government, and let us assume the government’s taxation does not discourage the citizens from producing as much as in the absence of government.
In year 1 the government demands enough money from the three employees to buy 60,000 products. The government could get the money via a 20 per cent income tax on the salaries of the employees.
Year 1 with income tax
Citizen…
receives…
and pays…
The short-sighted employee
$80,000 of after-tax salary, and $80,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee
$160,000 for 160,000 products
The long-sighted employee
$80,000 of after-tax salary, less $80,000 lent to the short-sighted employee
Nothing for no products
The take-it-as-it-comes employee
$80,000 of after-tax salary
$80,000 for 80,000 products
Government
$60,000 in tax
$60,000 for 60,000 products
In year 2, the government ups its demand, and now seeks enough money from the three employees to buy 60,600 products.
If the government gets the money via income tax, it ends up taking more from savers compared to the amount taken from borrowers, and compared to the amount taken from those who neither save nor borrow.
Consider the long-sighted employee, who lent $80,000 to the short-sighted employee in year 1, and who receives $83,452 from the short-sighted employee in year 2.
Year 2 with income tax
Citizen…
receives…
and pays…
The short-sighted employee
$83,452 of after-tax salary, less $83,452 paid to the long-sighted employee
Nothing for no products
The long-sighted employee
$83,452 of after-tax salary, plus $83,452 paid by the short-sighted employee, less $683 of tax on interest
$166,221 for 161,379 products
The take-it-as-it-comes employee
$83,452 of after-tax salary
$83,452 for 81,021 products
Government
$62,418 in tax
$62,418 for 60,600 products
The pre-tax income of the long-sighted employee in year 2 is $104,030 of salary plus $3,452 of interest, summing to $107,482. So the long-sighted employee has higher pre-tax income than the other employees, simply because of a deal struck between peers.
There is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better.
To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent. The rate is lower than in year 1 because the government has dreamt up more income to tax than just salary income.
The long-sighted employee pays more tax in year 2 than any other citizen ($21,261 compared to $20,578). The long-sighted employee ends up purchasing less than double what the take-it-as-it comes employee purchases, despite the long-sighted employee having gone without all purchases in year 1.
This intrusion into the deal struck between the long-sighted employee and the short-sighted employee is how income tax punishes saving.
Even if the long-sighted and short-sighted employees respond to the imposition of income tax by negotiating a change in the interest payment involved in their arrangement, this would just mean they share the punishment of deal-making meted out by income tax, a punishment that the take-it-as-it-comes employee avoids.
As income tax penalises deal-making between savers and borrowers, while GST does not, income is inherently inferior to GST.
Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.
Chinese Premier Li Qiang has just concluded a four-day visit to Australia, marking the highest-level visit in seven years and widely seen as a full restoration of Sino-Australian relations. Over the past few decades, Sino-Australian relations have experienced ups and downs, primarily reflecting two distinct paths: the friendly approach of the Labor Party and the adversarial stance of the Liberal Party.
The Labor Party’s Friendly Approach
The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China, often fostering closer ties and cooperation. This affinity can be attributed to ideological and historical reasons. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating, for instance, is infamously known for his pro-China stance, often criticising Western countries for their adversarial policies towards China. Kevin Rudd, another former Labor Prime Minister, who can speak Mandarin, worked tirelessly to strengthen Sino-Australian ties during his tenure and beyond. Additionally, Victoria’s ex-Premier Dan Andrews bypassed the federal government to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative at the state level, highlighting the depth of this alignment.
China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports
This historical closeness is not just about political manoeuvring but is rooted in ideological similarities. Both parties emphasise social welfare, state intervention in the economy, and a collectivist approach to governance. These shared values have facilitated a more collaborative relationship between the Australian Labor Party and the Chinese Communist Party. Notably, several former Labor politicians have been implicated in scandals involving Chinese influence, reinforcing the perception of an inherent closeness between the two.
The Liberal Party’s Adversarial Stance
In contrast, the Liberal Party has often taken a more adversarial stance towards China. Under the leadership of Scott Morrison, Sino-Australian relations reached their lowest point, characterised by trade sanctions and diplomatic tensions. The Liberal government’s pushback against Chinese influence in Australian politics, its criticism of China’s human rights record, and its calls for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19 exacerbated tensions.
The economic consequences of this adversarial stance were significant. China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports, including wine, coal, and barley, causing substantial economic harm, while Australia imposed anti-dumping duties. This “enemy road” approach could be described as “killing a thousand enemies at the cost of eight hundred of our own.” While it aimed to curb Chinese influence, it also inflicted self-damage, undermining Australia’s economic interests and causing strain on key industries.
The Third Path: A Principle-Based Approach
While the first path seems shameless, the second path is also mindless. A third path, rooted in libertarian principles, might be more sensible and offer a principled and pragmatic alternative. This path advocates for free trade as an essential component of a free economy, emphasising mutual benefit rather than using trade as a political weapon.
The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China
Libertarianism, influenced by the Austrian School of Economics, champions free markets, minimal government intervention, and individual liberty. As Mises put it, “The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war,” while free trade, on the other hand, makes for peace. Rothbard argued in his Ethics of Liberty, “Economic sanctions are coercive measures that violate the principles of a free society. They harm innocent people and are ineffective in bringing about political change.”
What’s more effective, in my opinion, is those unfree countries’ own policies. Authoritarian countries have often died because of themselves rather than external sanctions.
Recent years, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, have highlighted the vulnerabilities of non-free economies, China in particular, which suffered due to restrictive economic and political policies. China’s growing centralised economic policies, ridiculously restrictive lockdown policies, anti-capitalism attitude, especially in the real estate market, and growing hostile international policies against a variety of countries, including Australia, have brought huge miseries which haven’t been seen for over three decades to the Chinese people.
In conclusion, while the Labor Party’s approach may appear overly accommodating and the Liberal Party’s stance overly confrontational, a libertarian path offers a balanced and principled alternative, which advocates for maintaining principled economic policies that prioritise free trade, not as a means of leverage but as a foundation for mutual benefit and economic growth. By embracing and always standing firmly on free trade, Australia can foster a relationship with China that is in the best interest of Australian businesses and the Australian people, while not compromising our independent sovereignty, democratic liberty, and economic freedom.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
Anti-Semitism is on the march because no-one in authority will stand up to it.
It’s common for historians to portray the Sturmabteilung, the SA or “Brownshirts” as they were known, as a motley crew of rowdy young thugs looking to brawl. The reality, as detailed in Daniel Siemens’ Stormtroopers: A New History of Hitler’s Brownshirts, was far more concerning. In fact, the paramilitaries who propelled the fledgling Nazi party to absolute power were a million-member organization whose ranks included a disproportionately large group of university students and middle-class professionals (doctors, for example, were grossly over-represented in the Nazi membership).
In fact, the Nazis own propaganda lauded the “Workers of the Head and the Fist”. To that end, in 1926 the Nazis founded the National Socialist German Student League. The league was to foster ideological training at universities and to implement paramilitary training, and the ideal Nazi student was intended to be a man or woman of action, not an idle thinker.
The passage of the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” on April 7, 1933, was the student Brownshirts’ license to put their training into action. Jews were quickly and violently driven from German universities, whether as students or academics. “Paramilitary student groups often interrupted lectures, provoked skirmishes, and physically intimidated Jewish students.” [W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”]
Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism.
In 1934, the Nazi Student League took over the Student Union.
Is all of this sounding grimly familiar yet?
Highly organised, ideologically-motivated and, above all, viciously anti-Semitic student organisations are taking over university campuses once again. Jewish students and professors are verbally and physically assaulted. And campus authorities are either openly complicit, or spinelessly hopeless.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
If anyone is in doubt about the absolute moral swamp that Australia’s universities have become, as the vicious herd mentality of student activism reaches a dangerous pitch not seen in the West since the 1930s, consider what our million-dollar-a-year vice-chancellors are doing.
Worse than nothing.
Consider the “brave”, “forthright”, “line in the sand” statement by Western Sydney University chancellor Jennifer Westacott. In just 844 words, Westacott mentioned “anti-Semitism” five times and “Islamophobia/Islam” three times. The same double act runs through her anecdotes: 58 words, two sentences about visiting the Holocaust Museum; 67 words, three sentences dedicated to lauding Muslim “asylum seekers”.
Remember, this was supposed to be a forthright condemnation of campus anti-Semitism.
Instead, every time, it was “anti-Semitism and…” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or any form of abhorrent discrimination.” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, hate speech or intimidation.” “growing division and creeping anti-Semitism.” “hate speech and anti-Semitism.” “anti-Semitism and hate speech.”
One is left with the overwhelming impression that the crisis on university isn’t about anti-Semitism at all.
Why does an opinion piece posing as a beacon of moral clarity on campus anti-Semitism need to repeatedly add, “…and Islamophobia”? Is there an anti-Muslim camp on a single university in Australia, let alone the world? Are campuses hosting activists celebrating the murder of Muslims, and promising to visit future terror attacks on Muslims? Are Muslim students being attacked daily, physically and verbally?
We know perfectly well that the answer to all of those is, “no”.
So why the moral equivalence?
And this is the best statement that any chancellor or vice-chancellor has yet made.
Everywhere we look to campus authorities for moral clarity, there is, at best, mealy-mouthed moral equivalence.
Jane Hansen, the chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Australia’s highest-ranked university, refuses to even acknowledge an anti-Semitism crisis. Instead, it’s the same gutless waffle about “many different forms of racism”. Worse, Hansen claims that even questioning supine university leaders is merely “looking for division”.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Ditto University of Sydney chancellor, Belinda Hutchinson.
This isn’t a “line in the sand”, it’s dragging a rotting jellyfish along the low-tide line, hoping the sharks won’t bite too hard.
I’ve often wondered what it must have been like for the average German, seeing your country slide, inch by inexorable inch, into anti-Semitic tyranny. I’m finding out in the worst possible way.
After all, even at its peak (curiously, perhaps, in the last year of WWII), only 12% of Germans were Nazi Party members. In the crucial years of the early 1930s, only 1% of Germans were members. Even among card-carrying Nazis, anti-Semitism was of little to no concern.
Academic Peter Merkl wrote an exhaustive study of the history of hundreds of foundational Nazis. He found that 33.3 per cent of them showed no interest in anti-Semitism, 14.3 per cent expressed “mild verbal clichés” regarding Jews, 19.1 per cent displayed “moderate” disdain for Jewish cultural influence in Germany, while only 12.9 per cent advocated “violent countermeasures” against Jews.
Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism. In the years leading up to the crucial elections that finally propelled the Nazis to the point where they could seize power (even in 1932, the Nazis never won a majority; Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933, not democratically elected), even Hitler toned down the anti-Semitic rhetoric. By 1930, he “seldom spoke explicitly of Jews,” says historian Ian Kershaw.
The gambit, tragically, worked: of the thousands of Jews who fled Germany in 1933, 16,000 returned in 1934.
That’s how nations slide into murderous tyranny: one step at a time. Every outrage becomes anodyne, and the outrages escalate. One year, student activists are driving Jews from campus; four years later, Jewish businesses, synagogues and houses are trashed in an orgy of violence.
And it’s far from over. We all know what happened over the next decade.
Right now, we’re just at the “students trying to kick Jews off campus” stage. Where we go next depends in large part on the nation’s leadership.
Which, from academia to the floors of parliaments, is almost completely missing in action — or worse.
Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.
I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.
My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.
Some taxes are more damaging than others. But when working out which taxes are more damaging than others, you should not judge a tax by its name.
The impacts of income tax and GST can be much the same, because income tax and GST largely tax the same thing.
So a special hatred for the idea of income tax relative to GST is unjustified.
Let me explain with a simplified scenario.
First, imagine a country with five citizens and no government.
One of the citizens, ‘the entrepreneur’, establishes a business by borrowing money from one of the other citizens, ‘the capitalist’. In the first year the entrepreneur pays the capitalist $100,000 in interest.
The business imports 500,000 raw inputs at $1 each, and employs three citizens at a salary of $100,000 each.
The business produces 1,000,000 products and sells half of them to foreigners and the other half to the five citizens of the country, all at $1 each. So the business makes $1,000,000.
The business pays $100,000 of dividends to the entrepreneur.
Australia’s income tax and GST do not have identical impacts on purchasing power and do not have identical discouragement effects.
A scenario with no government
Receives
Pays
Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur
$100,000 of dividends
$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 2 – the capitalist
$100,000 of interest
$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 3 – an employee
$100,000 of salary
$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 4 – an employee
$100,000 of salary
$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 5 – an employee
$100,000 of salary
$100,000 for 100,000 products
The rest of the world
$500,000 for 500,000 inputs
$500,000 for 500,000 products
Now imagine instead that this scenario includes a government. The government demands enough money to buy 100,000 products. And for now, let us assume that this taxation does not discourage the citizens from producing as much as they would in the absence of government.
The government could get the money it demands via a 20 per cent income tax on the salaries, interest, and dividend received by the citizens. In year 1 this would leave the five citizens with $400,000 instead of $500,000 in their pockets, and with the capacity to buy only 400,000 rather than 500,000 of the business’s products. The government would have $100,000 and the capacity to buy 100,000 of the business’s products.
A scenario with income tax
Receives
Pays
Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur
$80,000 of after-tax dividends
$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 2 – the capitalist
$80,000 of after-tax interest
$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 3 – an employee
$80,000 of after-tax salary
$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 4 – an employee
$80,000 of after-tax salary
$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 5 – an employee
$80,000 of after-tax salary
$80,000 for 80,000 products
The rest of the world
$500,000 for raw inputs
$500,000 for 500,000 products
Government
$100,000 in tax
$100,000 for 100,000 products
Alternatively, the government could get enough money to buy 100,000 products via a 25 per cent GST.
The foreign supplier of 500,000 raw inputs would charge the business $625,000, send $125,000 of GST to the government, and, just like in the scenario without government, would end up with $500,000.
The business would continue to sell half of its products to foreigners for $500,000, at $1 each, given that no GST applies to exports.
The business would sell the other half of its products domestically for $625,000, at $1.25 each. The business would pay $125,000 of GST on these domestic sales, but would claim a $125,000 input tax credit, so overall the business would send nothing to the government.
The government’s overall receipts from both the business and the foreign supplier of raw inputs would be $125,000, enough to buy 100,000 products.
The business would continue to provide $500,000 as salaries, interest, and dividends to the five citizens, but this $500,000 would now only be enough to buy 400,000 products.
The impacts of income tax and GST can be much the same, because income tax and GST largely tax the same thing.
A scenario with GST
Receives
Pays
Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur
$100,000 of dividends
$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 2 – the capitalist
$100,000 of interest
$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 3 – an employee
$100,000 of salary
$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 4 – an employee
$100,000 of salary
$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 5 – an employee
$100,000 of salary
$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
The rest of the world
$500,000 for inputs
$500,000 for 500,000 products at $1
Government
$125,000 in tax
$125,000 for 100,000 products
Under these income tax and GST scenarios, the dollar outcomes differ but the real outcomes are identical.
In the income tax scenario, each citizen receives $80,000 that enables the purchase of 80,000 products.
Regardless of which tax is imposed, foreigners are unaffected, and the purchasing power of each of the citizens is hurt to the same degree.
The reason for this is as follows. In the GST scenario, the tax base is the difference between the business’s domestic receipts and its outlays on imported raw inputs. Yet this tax base is also the money the business pays to the citizenry as income. So the tax base for GST is also the tax base for income tax.
Because the citizens’ purchasing power is hurt to the same degree under both scenarios, the discouragement effect of tax would be the same in both scenarios. Contrary to popular belief, there is no great difference in the discouragement effect of income tax compared to the discouragement effect of GST.
Now, in the real world, Australia’s income tax and GST do not have identical impacts on purchasing power and do not have identical discouragement effects.
This is partly because of inherently different impacts on savings, that I will discuss in a later article.
But the main reason why our income tax and GST have different impacts is that they each have odd exemptions, and our income tax has various rates unlike the flat-rate GST.
In other words, a broad-based, single rate income tax would have much the same impact as a broad-based, single rate GST.
So the special hatred many feel for the concept of income tax seems unwarranted.
Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.
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.
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?
Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.
I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.
My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.
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!
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.’
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
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.
Western Governments, including Australia’s, are onboard with all of the WEF’s tyrannical plans. They have passed (or are passing) laws to censor our speech, detain us without charge, block or steal our bank accounts, revoke our professional licenses, “reeducate” us, prevent us travelling, lock us in our homes and force-medicate us. They are increasingly spying on us, 24/7, to police our every action and thought. And they are currently building and applying AI tools to analyse all of that collected data to automatically find anything that could be considered “dangerous” behaviour or thought to apply those laws.
What little liberty we have left in western so-called ‘democracies’ is being taken from us by corrupt, incompetent and seemingly deranged bureaucracies and ostensibly put in the virtual hands of a technology that is, in fact, unintelligent, inherently prone to error, and easily manipulated. A sentient computer might have been better. At least Skynet would realise the politicians are the problem.
Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.
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.”
Democracy is a cautionary tale. I’ve presented here examples from the past by some of the finest historical minds, gifted to us in the hope we may learn from their mistakes and misfortunes.
Alas, the cycle continues. We rise, and we fall. I ponder if there will ever rise a generation who can put a spoke in the wheel of this endless ignorance. Of course, that would require a fundamental shift in the willingness to heed lessons from the past and apply only those new principles where they are truly needed.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
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.
Libertarians would want that funding limited because it encourages the Commissioner to use his firmest amendment powers. It also raises questions about the management of public finances – should the Commissioner be “rewarded” with additional funding for things he should already be doing?
Libertarians can demand fairer amendment periods, a fairer burden of proof, and less funding for the Commissioner.
It would be hard to think that most taxpayers would not be libertarians regarding these issues.
Adam Craig is a barrister. He had libertarian instincts as a teenager but joined the ALP as a student doing blue-collar work. After graduating he worked as a public servant, mainly at the ATO (including secondments at Treasury and Prime Minister and Cabinet). In observing the workings of government and the tax system, Adam became increasingly convinced that government had no answers and was wasteful. He left the public service for a life of independence at the Bar and has reembraced libertarianism.
A government’s balance sheet indicates whether it is engaging in intergenerational redistribution. If the government has negative net assets it is leaving future generations with more obligations than benefits. A government with positive net assets is leaving future generations with more benefits than obligations.
Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations, so should leave those decisions to individuals. This means that governments should have zero net assets; their balance sheets should be balanced.
Governments in Australia do not have balanced balance sheets. The Commonwealth has a significantly negative net asset position and each of the states and territories has a significantly positive net asset position.
When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.
This is shown in Chart 1. It depicts public sector net asset positions relative to the size of the related economies. Commonwealth net assets are shown relative to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while each state or territory’s net assets are shown relative to the relevant state or territory’s Gross State Product (GSP). Each jurisdiction’s public sector includes government-owned businesses such as government-owned banks.
The Commonwealth’s negative net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with obligations in excess of benefits. In essence, the Commonwealth Government has locked in benefits for future generations, like security from the military assets it has accumulated to date, but has racked up far greater obligations, like obligations to pay back Commonwealth debts and fund the superannuation of retired Commonwealth public servants.
This decision of the Commonwealth Government to beggar the future is unlikely to represent the preference of Australians.
The Commonwealth Government’s intergenerational redistribution should stop, so as to leave intergenerational decisions to individuals. In other words, the Commonwealth Government should convert its negative net asset position to a zero net asset position. This should be done through a decade of surplus budgets (or surplus ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 2 per cent of GDP.
This could be readily achieved, for example by reducing Commonwealth Government transfers to the state and territory governments. These transfers are particularly odd given that each state and territory government is wealthier than the Commonwealth Government.
Each state and territory government’s positive net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with benefits in excess of obligations. It is teeing up more benefits for future generations, like their enjoyment of public land holdings and use of infrastructure like roads, than it is racking up future obligations, like State Government debts and funding the superannuation of retired State public servants.
While leaving future generations with benefits in excess of obligations sounds nice, this is something that individuals are perfectly capable of doing without government.
Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations
And the current generation may well be of the view that the degree of generosity to future generations shown by each of the state and territory governments is excessive. If there is a difference of opinion between a government and the individuals it represents, then it is the government that is wrong.
State and territory government intergenerational redistribution should be put to a stop by each government reducing its positive net asset position to net zero. This should be done through a decade of deficit budgets (or deficit ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 4 per cent of GDP on average.
Such deficits could be achieved by abolishing inefficient taxes like stamp duties, or by giving away assets. (Such give-aways count as losses that detract from the operating result.)
The biggest deficits should come from the wealthiest state governments, in Queensland and Victoria.
The wealth of the Victorian state government may come as a surprise. The Victorian state government has a stronger net asset position and a weaker net financial asset position than many of its counterparts (see Chart 2). It has done a lot of borrowing, which has weakened its net financial asset position, but it has done this to invest in non-financial assets. Overall this generates a positive, or at least neutral, impact on net assets.
Unfortunately for the Victorian state government, credit rating agencies tend to ignore a government’s net assets and instead focus on its net financial assets. Even more stupidly, lenders take these credit ratings into account when lending to governments. If a state or territory government wanted to defend its credit rating so as to ensure continued access to low-cost borrowing, it could still run significant deficits in line with my recommendation. It would just need to achieve these deficits by giving away non-financial assets, like land, so as to leave its net financial asset position unchanged.
When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.
Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.
The journalist Michael Schellenberger recently discovered that there is a formal government censorship network called the “Global Online Safety Regulators Network” (GORSN). Australia’s top Internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, an American, described it at the World Economic Forum. The group includes censors from Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the UK, and Fiji.
This is a concerning development for anyone who values freedom of speech and privacy. The initiative aims to create a global coalition of regulators to combat harmful online content. However, in reality it is a veiled attempt at global censorship of the internet, aimed at circumventing the protections provided by Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).
At its core, GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders. Libertarians and advocates of free expression have long warned against concentrated government control, arguing that it almost inevitably leads to abuse and suppression of dissenting voices.
The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy.
Grant outlined the significant powers that regulators within the GORSN have at their disposal. She said that GORSN members can block internet service providers (ISPs), compel content takedowns, fine individuals or platforms that host offensive content, and impose other punitive measures as deterrents. Additionally, Grant discussed a new legislative framework that allows regulators to enforce basic online safety expectations. This framework’s scope suggests that GORSN aims to exercise substantial control over the internet, raising concerns about censorship, regulatory overreach, and the broader impact on freedom of expression and privacy.
Another alarming aspect of GORSN is its potential to invade privacy on a global scale. Grant’s remark that the network had the power to compel “basic device information and account information” are a stark warning that the network could enable mass surveillance. For libertarians, privacy is a very high priority and the notion that regulators could gather personal data without appropriate oversight is a worrying development. Broad powers to compel information from tech platforms suggests that GORSN could become a mechanism for government surveillance on an international level.
Grant’s mention of social media companies increasingly collecting phone numbers and email addresses raises the spectre of a surveillance state, where governments can easily track individuals and monitor their online activities. This level of intrusion into personal privacy should be of concern to anyone who believes in the right to remain anonymous and free from unwarranted government scrutiny.
GORSN’s push for global identity requirements and restrictions on VPNs is a direct assault on digital autonomy. VPNs are essential tools for maintaining privacy and accessing information freely, especially in countries with oppressive internet regulations. Any move to limit their use would further erode individual freedoms and strengthen authoritarian regimes.
The centralised control proposed by GORSN threatens to undermine the fundamental principle of a decentralised internet where individuals can maintain their anonymity and exercise their rights without fear of government intrusion, leading to an internet that is more tightly monitored and regulated by governments with varying degrees of respect for freedom and democracy.
GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders
The sheer scope of GORSN’s power, including the ability to fine content hosts, compel takedowns, and block ISPs, is a classic case of regulatory overreach. When governments are given this level of authority, the risk of abuse is high. Such power can be used to suppress dissent, stifle criticism, and enforce a particular worldview, all under the guise of “online safety.”
From a libertarian perspective, the existence of GORSN is a troubling development that undermines the ideals of a decentralised internet. The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy. Instead of a collaborative effort to address harmful content, GORSN represents a centralised approach that risks creating a global surveillance state.
The Global Online Safety Regulators Network is a danger to internet freedom. Its focus on centralised control, coupled with its broad powers, sets a dangerous precedent for governments seeking to extend their reach into the digital world. As the network gains momentum, it is crucial that libertarians and other advocates of free speech push back against this overreach and defend the principles of a decentralised internet.
Platforms like X and Rumble have taken public stances opposing intrusive government requests for content takedowns and data collection. Chris Pavlovski, the founder of Rumble, highlighted this issue in a recent post on X, stating, “Rumble has received censorship demands from Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that infringe on everyone’s human rights. We are noticing a dramatic increase in global censorship unlike we’ve ever seen before.” Elon Musk, the owner of X, endorsed this sentiment, indicating a shared concern among tech leaders.
But it takes more than a couple of tech leaders to fight censorship. To push back against government intrusion and censorship there are several measures that individuals can undertake. Support platforms that actively resist censorship and champion free speech, use VPNs to preserve online privacy and bypass censorship. Importantly, connect through servers in countries that are not part of the GORSN. This can help avoid unwanted surveillance and ensure a greater degree of anonymity while online.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
“By 2050, over three-quarters (155 of 204) of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time; this will increase to 97% of countries (198 of 204) by 2100.”
Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021, Lancet.
Fertility rates around the world are falling off a cliff. From 1950 to 2021, total fertility rate (TFR) more than halved from 4.84 to 2.23 globally. By 2021, over half of all countries and territories were below replacement level of two births per woman.
Prolonged fertility rates of 1.3 children per woman reduce a country’s population by half in less than 45 years. Many European countries have already reached this point. Australia’s current fertility rate is 1.63 births per woman.
The world is experiencing a real baby bust.
Robust fertility rates are essential for economic prosperity and societal stability. They ensure a continuous influx of a younger workforce, fostering economic growth through increased productivity and innovation. Moreover, higher fertility rates stabilise social systems by providing intergenerational support for older demographics. Additionally, growing populations drive consumer demand, promoting market expansion and providing business opportunities crucial for sustained economic development.
Economic downturns, including a lack of affordable housing, also often prompt couples to delay having children, at least temporarily.
From a libertarian standpoint, robust fertility rates underscore individual freedom, allowing people to make autonomous decisions about family size without undue interference. Furthermore, they contribute to economic self-sufficiency, reducing reliance on government welfare programs and fostering a culture of personal responsibility. Sustainable population growth also maintains market dynamics, encouraging competition, innovation, and entrepreneurship organically, without the need for artificial population control measures.
Governments know that a population in decline is a bad thing. In a bid to increase fertility rates, numerous countries have implemented pro-natalist policies. According to the United Nations, 10% of countries had such policies in 1976, 15% in 2001 and 28% in 2015 (being their most recent data). However, assessing the results of these is quite challenging.
Governments often fail to reevaluate their policies, including those designed to increase birth rates. This phenomenon was described by Milton Friedman: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
Governments are spending big, but have not stopped to study the results of their pro-natalist policies. From the available evidence, it appears clear that pro-natalist policies result in small and transient effects on total fertility rates.
The USSR pioneered the implementation of pro-natalist policies.Following the fall of the union, some countries in Central and Eastern Europe continued pro-natalist benefits in spite of severe economic conditions and budgetary pressures.
Two examples from 2005 – in Czechia, spending per child equalled 60.8% of GDP per capita, and 51.3% in Slovakia. These are twice the average of OECD high income countries, which was 26.8%. The birth rate increase in both countries was modest: Czechia’s birth rate in 2005 was 1.29; by 2010 it was 1.51 and by 2021 it was 1.83, still not at replacement level. Slovakia’s birthrate in 2005 was 1.25. By 2010, it was 1.34 and in 2023 it was 1.55.
By 2021, over half of all countries and territories were below replacement level of two births per woman.
From 2007 to 2016, Russia offered mothers who had their second or third child 250,000 roubles (about US$12,000), approximately the average annual income. Evidence suggests that the birth rate for women aged 25-29 increased from 78.4 per 1000 women in 2006 to 99.8 in 2011. However, the annual birth rate change dropped from +2.460% in 2013 to -0.320% in 2014 and has remained negative ever since. In other words, it only had a short term effect.
Complex social and economic factors intersect to shape fertility patterns. These are far beyond the purview of government control. High-income countries particularly witness a steep decline in fertility rates, possibly influenced by increased educational opportunities and changing societal expectations. Later marriage, postponed childbearing and an increase in single motherhood all emerge as trends, as a country’s income levels increase.
We also see factors such as higher levels of education empowering women, and evolving cultural norms around marriage and career aspirations. This is particularly noticeable in the United States, which has decreased fertility rates among second-generation immigrants.
Economic downturns, including a lack of affordable housing, also often prompt couples to delay having children, at least temporarily. This has been seen in the United States, where fertility rates have been declining since 2008.
From a libertarian perspective, declining fertility rates are of concern. However, the question is whether governments should continue to spend money on costly pro-natalist policies. For example, is spending billions on childcare and paid parental leave preferable to allowing single income families to split their income for taxation purposes? Not likely.
The government should concern itself with removing obstacles. By prioritising individual freedom and self-reliance, individuals would be encouraged and empowered to make their own decisions regarding their own family size, without government intrusion.
By promoting a culture of autonomy and self-reliance, libertarian solutions would address declining fertility rates while respecting individual liberties and preserving economic vitality.
Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.
Energy is again front and centre in the news with the debate over the merits of nuclear energy becoming mainstream. But then last week the Prime Minister announced a new scheme to subsidise the manufacture of solar panels in Australia. One wonders whether this is to support industry or just to close down a debating point against solar – that only 1% of the hardware used in Australia is manufactured locally.
The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn.
The truth is that free markets are more effective at capital allocation and problem solving than governments (assuming you accept there is a problem that needs solving). Free markets operate on profit incentives, driving businesses and individuals to invest resources where they are most efficiently used and valued, leading to innovation and optimal distribution of goods and services.
The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government.
Australia’s existing solar energy subsidies are an obvious illustration of the misaligned priorities and inefficiencies that can arise from government intervention. The Albanese government’s commitment to injecting $1 billion into domestic solar panel manufacturing, including in coal-rich areas like the Hunter Valley, is a classic example of the triumph of hope over experience.
Australia’s history is littered with government involvement in business sectors that wasted tax payer money through inefficiencies. The proof of free market superiority was demonstrated when entities like the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was privatised (under Paul Keating), as was Telstra (under John Howard), and Qantas Airways (under Bob Hawke). Each became far more efficient and successful post-privatisation.
A particularly significant example is the case of Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, privatised under Paul Keating. Originally government-owned, CSL was started in 1916 to “serve the health needs of a country isolated by war”. Fair enough perhaps.
The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn.
CSL was privatised in 1994 and has since been transformed into a global biotechnology powerhouse. Post-privatisation, CSL significantly increased its operational efficiency, innovation capacity, and market reach, becoming a leading provider of vaccines and plasma products worldwide. CSL’s journey from a national vaccine manufacturer to a global biotech leader underscores the difference between how governments lose and free markets win.
Albanese ought to learn lessons from Keating and Hawke on the superiority of private capital at solving public problems (banking, telecoms and aviation). Is energy so different? And what does the Albanese government think it is going to achieve anyway with this $1bn investment? How will Australian ventures compete with global giants, especially Chinese manufacturers which benefit from (ironically) cheaper electricity, lower labour costs, and economies of scale?
The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government. Funded in part (and thus enabled) by federal taxpayers, it is now being dismantled after just seven years, highlighting the precarious financial underpinnings of these subsidised solar ventures. This project, once a beacon for renewable energy in remote mining operations, became a financial quagmire, with the cost per tonne of avoided greenhouse gas exceeding market rates for carbon credits.
The DeGrussa project serves as a cautionary tale. There is a broader trend of hasty government interventions in the solar energy sector, driven by politics motives rather than economics.
While the drive towards renewable energy may be commendable (let’s buy into that for the sake of argument), the path to achieving it must be paved with prudent financial decisions and strategic planning – best executed by the free market.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
– if immigration detention is not a practical step towards a person being removed from the country, the detention amounts to punishment, and
– governments can only mete out punishment if they are sentencing someone for a crime.
This ruling led to the release of around 140 people who were in immigration detention but not on a path to removal from the country.
Both the ruling and the release were positive developments.
The people in question could not be lawfully removed from Australia because Australian law:
– requires another country to take them, and there was no country willing to do so,
– deems them to be subject to persecution overseas and hence deserving of protection here, or
– deems them to be physically or mentally unfit for removal.
These laws are decent and should remain.
Some of the people in question have committed no crime. There is no justification for indefinitely detaining people like this, just as there is no justification for detaining citizens who are non-criminals.
The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians.
Some of the people in question have committed crimes, but all of them have completed the sentences handed down for those crimes. There is no justification for continuing to detain people who have completed their sentences.
If you are found guilty of a crime, you are sentenced by a court that has all the evidence before it. Years later, a panel or tribunal considering post-sentence punishment will be inherently less informed about your crime than the original court, and may end up punishing you for things you are yet to do and may not do. The injustice of this is exacerbated if post-sentence punishments were not part of the law when you committed the crime.
In Western civilisation, a certain amount of surveillance and the availability of preliminary offences like conspiracy, aiding-and-abetting, and attempt, are balanced responses to the prospect of future crime. Preventative detention, continuing detention, curfews, and ankle bracelets are not.
The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation. Despite this, conservative politicians have suggested the ruling and release were bad outcomes.
Liberal National politicians have suggested that the Labor Government should have maintained its long-standing lie to the courts that the people in question were on a path to removal from the country.
These politicians have called for public reporting on the location of people who have been released from immigration detention (without corresponding calls relating to citizens released from prisons).
They have also claimed that, under Labor, Australian women are at risk of being assaulted by foreign criminals.
That said, Labor’s approach has been far from enlightened. Labor argued against, and has since opposed, the High Court ruling. Labor has also punished and imposed constraints on the people released from detention without doing anything similar to citizens with the same criminal history (or absence thereof).
Crime more generally
The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians.
The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation.
The Liberal National Coalition has recently proposed that those who make social media posts depicting violence, drug offences, or property offences be hit with up to two years’ imprisonment plus a ban from social media.
Conservative politicians regularly call for less bail, so that people are locked up despite not being convicted of a crime. They cite re-offending as a reason for more incarceration, when re-offending can just as readily serve as evidence of the failure of incarceration. They also justify calls for more police, based on claims that crime is out of control.
As it happens, crime rates in Australia are low and falling.
3.1 per cent of people older than 14 were victims of physical assault in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.7 per cent.
Over the same period, the rate for robbery went from 0.6 per cent to 0.2 per cent.
3.3 per cent of households were victims of break-ins in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.8 per cent.
Over the same period, the rate for malicious property damage went from 11 per cent to 3.7 per cent.
Regarding youth crime, in 2008-09 the rate of offending by those aged 10 to 17 was 3,186.8 per 100,000. In 2022-23 it was 1,847.3 per 100,000.
And with crime by people born overseas, such people make up 30 per cent of the population but only 17 per cent of the prison population.
It is incumbent upon those who are liberally-minded to oppose arbitrary detention and punishment, fanciful claims of crime waves, and the conservatives who perpetuate such madness.
Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.
Housing affordability is a perennial issue that seems to be spilling over into the political domain in a way that is more divisive and acute than ever. And as usual, the political class is more interested in sounding like they are engaging with the issue than actually addressing it.
Oddly enough it is the left side of politics that has shown the most interest in the critical supply side of the equation. The Liberals on the other hand appear poised to double down on demand-side solutions by rehashing their ‘super for homes’ policy – as if there wasn’t already enough money flowing into property! Meanwhile everyone else on the right merely points to immigration.
There is no question that the heart of this issue is the fact that there is not enough housing being built to keep supply in step with demand – I previously hypothesised that more atomised living arrangements could be at least partly to blame, Bob Day suggested land supply was responsible.
Politicians never talk about the amount of misallocated capital which has resulted from government intervention.
There are other problems too – government intervention during Covid brought forward demand and deferred builder collapses, aggravated by inflation of material and labour costs. The affordability of borrowing to buy a house has also tightened – with mortgage repayments rising significantly due to interest rate hikes.
There has also been a long history of demand-side grants, subsidies, policies and exemptions that have aimed to increase affordability while also maintaining high prices. That’s before we even talk about how much state and local governments rely on higher house prices, particularly via stamp duty and council rates.
But there is something more fundamental at the heart of the property market – the extent to which government intervention directs investment away from more productive investment involving genuine innovation. Australia is anti-business, and Labor’s changes to stage 3 tax cuts indicate the punitive attitude government takes towards higher income earners.
Politicians never talk about the amount of misallocated capital which has resulted from government intervention. People respond to incentives – and there is very little incentive to invest in innovation and business, but plenty to invest in property – notwithstanding the current constraints.
The affordability of borrowing to buy a house has also tightened – with mortgage repayments rising significantly due to interest rate hikes.
Would you start a small business and deal with endless red or green tape, the highest nominal minimum wage in the world, the above median corporate tax rate, and spiralling energy costs?
Given the government’s policy settings you’d be more likely to buy an investment property, write off the interest payments against your taxable income, and claim a capital gains discount if you decide to flip it or sell up later. Perhaps you’d even build a property portfolio by leveraging equity along the way.
You’d benefit from the legislative protection of inflated prices that has resulted from real estate becoming such a large pool of private wealth and key source of state and local government revenue. You’d bank on local council opposition to new development, and large public infrastructure projects tying up resources to halt new housing supply coming to market amidst ever growing demand.
Australian property has become such a safe bet that it is now even a well-known vehicle for international money-laundering!
Talk of new housing supply, development, upzoning or adjusting the rules around capital gains tax and negative gearing won’t change the fundamentals. Australia is anti-business and anti-innovation. Housing is the only way to get ahead in the lucky country.
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
In today’s politically charged atmosphere, evangelical libertarians often stray into polarising debates around topics like firearms or drug legalisation. Is there a subtler, more effective approach?
I suggest the “everyday libertarian mindset”. It involves reframing common complaints and concerns through the lens of smaller government and individual liberty.
I often hear myself responding to complaints about government by saying “that’s why we need guns”. When I say this, libertarians “get it”. But this phrase causes our “normie” friends to switch off.
Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power
How about a more congenial conversational pivot: “That’s why we need smaller government.”
Picture this: A friend laments Australia’s low productivity. Instead of delving into a heated debate about employment policies, you respond calmly, “That’s why we need smaller government.” This simple phrase opens the door to a discussion about the role of government in the economy and the importance of prioritising individual liberties over interventionist agendas.
Here are some instances where the everyday libertarian mindset shines:
1. Healthcare costs: Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market. Advocating for smaller government and increased competition can give individuals greater control over their healthcare decisions and costs. Would there be a shortage of doctors, hospitals, and other services if the government got out of the way?
2. Education quality: When concerns arise about education quality, highlight how government monopolies limit choice and innovation in education. By advocating for school choice and decentralising control over education, parents and students can access a wider range of educational opportunities tailored to their needs.
3. Bureaucratic red tape: Encountering bureaucratic red tape or inefficiency? Emphasise the need for smaller government and streamlined regulations. By reducing the size and scope of government, individuals and businesses can navigate processes more efficiently.
4. Personal freedoms: Discuss personal freedoms and civil liberties, emphasising the importance of limiting government power to protect individual rights. Smaller government leads to less intrusion into citizens’ lives and greater respect for individual autonomy.
Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market
5. Publicly funded broadcasters: When discussing the publicly funded government broadcasters, such as the ABC and SBS in Australia, consider the implications of government involvement in media. Point out that taxpayer-funded media outlets compete with the private sector, which do not cost taxpayers anything. By advocating for smaller government and media independence, individuals can support a diverse and free press that serves the interests of the public rather than political agendas. Encourage exploring alternative funding models, such as private sponsorship or subscriber-based models, to ensure journalistic integrity and freedom of expression.
6. Nuclear energy: Discuss the lifting of the ban on nuclear energy in Australia. Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power. Advocate for a free-market approach to energy production, where individuals and businesses have the freedom to pursue cleaner and more efficient energy solutions without burdensome government regulations hindering progress.
I find the phrase “that’s why we need smaller government” easy to apply to almost any situation. Any mistake a government makes – “that’s why we need smaller government – less for these people to stuff up”.
By incorporating these instances, we illustrate how the everyday libertarian mindset can be applied to a wide range of issues, promoting smaller government and individual liberty in everyday conversations. It’s about sparking thoughtful discussions and planting seeds of libertarian principles in the minds of others, one conversation at a time.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
When Al Grassby was Immigration Minister in the Whitlam government in the early 1970s, he announced that multiculturalism was to be Australia’s future policy. Assimilation was over.
There was a time when Australia actively promoted assimilation. It was the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and applied to Aborigines, varied by state and location, involved the removal of vulnerable children from families, included an obligation to learn English, discouraged speaking local languages, and prohibited certain customary practices – particularly those involving violence.
But Grassby was not referring here to Aborigines or to policies from the distant past. Nor was it a reference to the White Australia policy, which the Whitlam government had officially ended. His comment was about new immigrants and implied that they had been subject to a policy of assimilation.
In the generally accepted meaning of the word, this was complete nonsense. What Australia had was a policy of promoting integration. And, as history shows, it had been remarkably successful.
The point is, values matter. Australia does not need multiculturalism.
Mostly European and British, Australia’s post-war immigrants were referred to as “New Australians”. Although encouraged to learn English, they were never asked to disown their origins. There were free English classes for adults, and parents were required to send their children to school, like everyone else, where lessons were conducted in English. The kids often became interpreters for their parents.
Most immigrants became Australian citizens relatively quickly, the only negative being they had to renounce the citizenship of their original country; Australia did not permit dual citizenship until 2000.
If the immigrants themselves had mixed feelings, the second or third generations saw themselves as Australians first and their country of origin second. Immigrants married other immigrants, their children married other immigrant children, and many went on to be highly successful.
The Whitlam government also began to admit significant numbers of people from Asia, initially Vietnam and Cambodia. And while there were pockets of resistance to this, with Whitlam himself wary of accepting anti-communist Vietnamese refugees, these also integrated well. Later waves from places such as Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Malaysia and India were equally successful.
But then something changed. Certain immigrants began to form enclaves and avoid contact with other AustraliansThey also mademinimal effort to learn English. The men often went back to their country of origin to find a wife, even if they were born in Australia, refusing to contemplate finding one locally.
Most importantly, they became contemptuous of Australian culture and values while demanding respect for their own. This was not about football, music or food, but core aspects of liberal democracy: equality before the law, presumption of innocence, respect, democracy, free speech, economic opportunity, and tolerance. This was accompanied by a major upsurge in violent crime and welfare fraud.
While it obviously reflects a failure to integrate, this is nonetheless multiculturalism. The culture of these people is maintained in parallel with Australia’s traditional culture.
If the immigrants themselves had mixed feelings, the second or third generations saw themselves as Australians first and their country of origin second.
After several decades of this, Australia’s laidback ‘live and let live’ culture is now under serious challenge.
In a number of countries in Europe, the same issue has arisen. Several are now abandoning multiculturalism in favour of active integration. Perhaps it could even be called assimilation.
The Netherlands, for example, now requires most immigrants (including asylum seekers) to undertake a “civic integration” examination within three years of arrival. The examination tests knowledge of the Dutch language and society, and a pass is required to obtain permanent residence and citizenship. Certain classes of prospective immigrants must also pass a test even before they first enter the country. The pass mark is being steadily raised.
It is obvious that Al Grassby’s policy is no longer appropriate, if it ever was. Liberal democratic values are jeopardised when authoritarian, doctrinaire or anti-liberal cultures are given equal standing. The presumption of innocence took a major hit in the Higgins case, for example; equality before the law came under threat with the Voice referendum; freedom of speech faces yet more limits with the Government’s Misinformation and Disinformation bill; and economic opportunity is being squeezed by excessive taxation and red tape. Meanwhile, tolerance is challenged by cancel culture and antisemitism.
None of these is directly attributable to a failure of immigrants to integrate, but they indicate a lack of national commitment. If traditional values are not defended, alternative values will inevitably gain a foothold.
There are multiple ways to rectify this problem. Australia already has an integration test for citizenship, for example, but it could be made more like that of the Dutch. There are many sources of potential immigrants, so we could select those most likely to integrate (most of those refusing to integrate come from the Middle East). And we could also make it abundantly clear to prospective immigrants that they are expected to adapt to Australian culture, not vice versa.
The point is, values matter. Australia does not need multiculturalism.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
Since approximately 2016 there has been a rapid increase in personal and for-hire electric scooters (e-scooters) in cities around the world. Over 600 cities now have e-scooter for-hire services and, globally, the electric scooter market is valued at more than AUD $49 billion and growing at 10% per year. In Australia, there was an 800% increase in e-scooters from 2016 to 2021.
However, there are serious concerns regarding e-scooter related injuries.
The Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset has released figures regarding e-scooter riders seeking emergency care in hospitals: 502 in the 2022 financial year, then 958 in the 2023 financial year; nearly a twofold increase year on year. Victoria introduced its e-scooter trial with 2500 rental scooters in Melbourne, Port Phillip, and Yarra council areas in February 2022, and legalised private e-scooters on public roads in March 2022.
Despite the minimum riding age being 16 there have been 193 presentations by children below this age over the past 3 years. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Victorian chair Dr Patrick Lo has stated that 3 children presented in one week with a brain haemorrhage, brain swelling and a broken neck. 42 unfortunate pedestrians have also been treated for e-scooter-related accidents.
Mortality due to e-scooter traffic accidents was 9.2%.
Queensland has released similar figures. In that state, e-scooter injuries admitted to hospitals were as follows: 279 in 2019, 877 in 2022, and 801 by September of 2023.
In Western Australia there was a 386% percent increase in hospital admissions in the year July 2021 to June 2022. There was a 200% increase in injuries between 2017 and 2022.
A study by the University of California San Francisco found that in the US, e-scooter-related injuries and hospital admissions increased by 222% from 2014 to 2018, climbing above 39,000. Hospital admissions expanded by 365%.
Severe Injuries, Lack of Helmets
The study “Comparison of Injuries Associated With Electric Scooters, Motorbikes, and Bicycles in France, 2019-2022”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), looked at 5,233 e-scooter injury patients. Mortality due to e-scooter traffic accidents was 9.2%. The risk of severe traumatic brain injury, 26%.
In a study done by University of California San Francisco, electric scooter injuries included fractures 27%, contusions/abrasions 23% and lacerations 14%. Most concerning, almost one third reported head trauma.
The study “Characteristics of Electric Scooter and Bicycle Injuries After Introduction of Electric Scooter Rentals in Oslo, Norway”, published in the JAMA, found that e-scooter injuries often occur at night, to young adults, who aren’t wearing helmets, and have a high blood alcohol reading. Dr Sarah Whitelaw, an emergency doctor in Victoria, echoes this sentiment. She said in addition, riders were often travelling at high speeds.
In Australia, there was an 800% increase in e-scooters from 2016 to 2021.
Economic Burden
In the US, UCLA research reveals that the healthcare cost of e-scooter injuries increased from $6.6 million in 2016 to $35.5 million in 2020.
Doctors in New Zealand reviewed data of surgeries on injured scooter riders from October 2018 to February 2019. Adding up costs including anaesthetic, theatres, staff, implants, time in hospital and lost income, each injury averaged $19,282 NZD. Over $400,000 was spent in less than five months.
The study “The impact of electric scooters in Melbourne: data from a major trauma service” published on Wiley, looked at e-scooter injuries admitted to Royal Melbourne Hospital from January 2022 to January 2023. 247 riders and 9 pedestrians presented for treatment. 33% of riders were wearing helmets at the time of incident. 50% reported head injuries. Hospital cost totalled $1.9 million, and median cost was $1321.66 per patient.
According to the hospital’s website, “The Royal Melbourne Hospital is part of Australia’s public health care system and offers hospital care to any Australian resident under Medicare arrangements.” This also applies to the 696 other public hospitals across Australia many of which would be treating e-scooter injuries, paid for by the taxpayer.
Solution
The question for libertarians is not whether to restrict or ban e-scooters, which is what authoritarians prefer, but how to move the financial risk and economic burden of injuries from taxpayers to e-scooter riders.
One potential solution is to establish an insurance requirement for both rental and private e-scooter owners. Purchased by riders, this would function like first-party and third-party car insurance. In the event of an accident, the insurance would cover resultant medical costs.
Consistent with the concept of personal responsibility, this approach would shift financial liability to individual riders and decrease reliance on public healthcare funds. It might even become a model for managing other health risks.
Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.
Two years ago the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Sir John Cunliffe, spoke the most sinister sentence I’d heard in a long while. The menace was unmistakable:
This statement was offered in the context of Central Bank Digital Currencies. Let me explain what these are and why Sir John’s statement is terrifying.
Everyone knows about cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. In January 2024 their total market capitalisation reached $US 1.77 trillion. For central banks that is an inordinate amount of money sitting outside traditional financial systems and regulatory frameworks.
The crypto market has evolved. Until fairly recently it was difficult to spend, so it tended to be treated more as an investment asset than as a mechanism of exchange. The time taken to process transactions was the most inhibiting factor. Unlike the near-instantaneous transactions of current electronic payment systems, cryptocurrency processing can take minutes.
Imagine the government decides the economy requires stimulation by encouraging spending – your pay-cheque will lose 20% of its value if you don’t spend it within a month.
That made it suitable for a making a purchase from an online retailer, but not so good for buying a coffee in the local café.
Technology has evolved to address this limitation. Cryptocurrency exchanges (much like a brokerage) now offer a variety of financial tools and services in partnership with credit card companies. One such service is a debit card directly linked to a crypto account.
This resolves the usability issue. A card such as a WireX can be used wherever Visa is accepted with transactions debited from the user’s crypto account at the speed of a standard EFTPOS transaction. Spending cryptocurrency to buy an espresso has become mundane.
And in consequence, financial technology (fintech) becomes tomorrow’s battlefield.
Conducting private transactions with a democratised digital currency is nirvana for libertarians but a nightmare for the state. Tax departments find it difficult to levy goods and services taxes on transactions that are opaque, while central banks can struggle to set monetary policy when sections of the populace are using a different currency. In New Zealand the Reserve Bank’s ‘Future of Money’ discussion paper identifies this as the primary risk to New Zealand’s monetary sovereignty. For a small economy, the prospect of goods and services being priced in a cryptocurrency instead of $NZD is a very real challenge to the Reserve Bank’s overarching objective of stewarding a stable anchor of value.
What to do? For the state the answer is to co-opt and regulate, which is where Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) come in.
Like most central banks, the Bank of England realises digital currencies are inevitable. Their plan is to mandate a state-controlled alternative, linked to the traditional local currency.
As Sir John points out, CBDCs can be programmed like any other cryptocurrency. From the point of view of the state this is fantastic: improved efficiencies in the financial system generating economic benefit whilst enhancing the control that states traditionally exert over fiat currency.
From the point of view of the people it is not so good. Programmability has the potential to enable totalitarian micro-control over every aspect of our financial lives. When every transaction is recorded and the state can manipulate the currency with immediate effect, the people are reduced to mere economic units whose financial behaviours can be strictly monitored, manipulated and mandated.
Cryptocurrency exchanges (much like a brokerage) now offer a variety of financial tools and services in partnership with credit card companies.
Imagine the government decides the economy requires stimulation by encouraging spending – your pay-cheque will lose 20% of its value if you don’t spend it within a month. Imagine being automatically sent to the bottom of the queue for diabetes treatment because the health system has determined you spent too much on Coca-Cola over the last 12 months. The possibilities afforded by control of currency at this granularity are endless.
In New Zealand the Reserve Bank’s discussion papers are at pains to obfuscate the essence of this aspect. In response to concerns raised by the public, industry and no less than the Privacy Commissioner himself, the Reserve Bank stressed that privacy would be a consideration. It has not been elevated to the status of principle. Of perhaps greater concern is the Reserve Bank’s differentiation between the definitions of privacy and anonymity:
“’Privacy’ means that it is possible that data was collected but has not been shared, while ‘anonymity’ means data was not collected.”
Between the competing regulatory demands of the Privacy Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act, the Reserve Bank’s view of precisely where on the spectrum New Zealand should reside certainly isn’t leaning towards privacy or the anonymity Kiwis currently enjoy with physical cash currency.
Alongside the introduction of CBDCs will be initiatives to hobble the competition. Governments will endeavour to regulate existing cryptocurrencies out of existence and are likely to impose stiff penalties on those who trade in them, an aspect the Reserve Bank addresses with the vague and rather euphemistic intention to ‘Regulate new forms of money and payments that impact stewardship goals.’
This is already happening in China: the introduction of the Digital Renminbi CBDC in 2021 was accompanied by an outright ban on other cryptocurrencies, the Standing Committee knowing full well that control of the digital currency was essential to the long-term success of the overlying Social Credit System.
Western governments are likely to put a friendlier face on CBDCs, arguing trust, convenience and efficiency. Despite those arguments and the fluffy, paternalistic authoritarianism espoused by technocrats such as Sir John, no-one but your mum should have the right to tell you how many sweets you can buy with your own money.
Because she has your best interests at heart. Sir John espouses the best interests of the state.
Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.
The reverse correlation between the internet’s growing accessibility and its diminishing freedom can only be arrested by changes in user habits
Much has been made of the ACMA ‘misinformation bill’ and its potential impact on free speech online in Australia. But the internet hasn’t been a bastion of free expression for quite some time now, and like always, it ultimately comes down to choice and the power of the consumer.
Prior to the rise of social media giants such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter/X, the internet was largely a decentralised hub of independent content, websites, blogs and message boards. It was something of a wild west – not as easy to navigate or as accessible as it is today.
The market responds to genuine economic incentives far more than it does to vitriolic comments online.
Speech online was regulated not by law as much as in-house moderation, which sought primarily to improve the user experience. Google search functioned properly, as your search terms would deliver you to websites or listings which were actually relevant. Anonymity online was a key tenet of staying safe – people were actually encouraged to separate their online and offline lives.
This has now been replaced or superseded. Mostly gone are the volunteer admins of message boards – automated or paid moderation teams on large sites such as YouTube now ban users with no remit and apply terms and conditions selectively. Google search has descended into a bidding war for top place between AI-generated SEO-optimised junk listicles that attract clicks but ultimately waste your time (hint – use Reddit instead).
As for anonymity, KYC (know your customer), verification ticks and ID verification on account of frauds and criminals have largely taken care of that. Even Bitcoin, created to store wealth and transact outside the traditional finance system, has instead limped into Wall St via ETFs as dreams of mass adoption turned to mass investment by the very institutions it sought to subvert.
Alternatives exist, of course: you can source your news and editorials from independent publications like this one, or via Substack and other such platforms. You can even support creators directly who can no longer exist on YouTube or Facebook via platforms such as Rumble or Locals.
But we often don’t – it takes extra time, extra money, extra effort. Just like acting to protect our freedoms offline – we could use cash more, we could avoid supermarkets and shop local, we could live off-grid.
Speech online was regulated not by law as much as in-house moderation, which sought primarily to improve the user experience.
Ultimately, our collective need for security and convenience has allowed larger players to create monopolies in online spaces. As the internet has become more centralised and increased traffic (ie revenue) flows to the major players, we have subsequently seen an alarming but unsurprising partnership between ‘big tech’ and government develop. One that has sought to suppress free expression and crush competition.
We have largely allowed the same offline of course. It’s not just government either – consider the extra restrictions and occasional obstacles we face when transferring money from bank accounts for certain purposes. This is at least in part due to the collective risk of scams and fraud that is being passed on as a reduction in the ability to transact freely.
Achieving political, cultural or economic change which protects or expands freedom requires you to act, not just to think, not just to post online.
The market responds to genuine economic incentives far more than it does to vitriolic comments online.
As with the internet, when demand for security and convenience grew, the market adjusted. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World perfectly described a society that had sleep-walked willingly into dystopia by simply having their base needs and comforts met conveniently.
We mustn’t follow a similar pattern. So don’t just demand freedom — create demand for freedom!
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is famous for, among other things, zero tax. That ended this year. The UAE now has a 9% tax rate for all but a very few exempted industries.
The implementation of a corporate tax is not because the UAE needs the money to build new roads, hospitals, schools or public facilities. The UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world. None of it required tax revenues. Nor was it all paid for with money from oil revenues.
Similarly, the UAE is not implementing a tax regime to fund public services such as policing, rubbish collection, healthcare or education. Again, the UAE embarrasses high-tax countries when it comes to public safety, maintenance of public spaces, healthcare and education. People in the UAE cannot even conceive of being robbed, let alone mugged; or even seeing a homeless drug addict. The unparalleled safety and cleanliness of the UAE has not required tax revenues; nor was it all funded by oil revenues.
The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.
The UAE is also not implementing a tax regime to fund a social welfare program. 89% of the UAE’s 9 million residents are expatriates. They must support their residency through work sponsorship or business profits, or else they have to leave. Technically, there is limited assistance available to the 11% minority of native emirate citizens. In reality, there is an unspoken positive discrimination applied to emirate citizens for various job positions. So taxes are not needed for welfare.
The UAE is also not implementing a corporate tax to cover a ballooning government bureaucracy and out-of-control public indebtedness, like that seen throughout the “developed” Western nations, such as Australia. The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.
The idea that Governments need an instrument as crude as tax to monetise a national economy is as archaic as it is absurd. We live in a world in which some of the largest and most successful companies lose money on their core business in order to drive greater profits from tangential sources. Airlines, for example, knowingly lose money from the business of flying planes, because greater profits come from the financialisation of their frequent flyer programs. Google and Facebook also stand out as companies whose revenues exceed the GDP of entire countries despite their ‘core products’ being ostensibly given away for “free”.
The UAE has attracted literally trillions of dollars of foreign investment, hundreds of thousands of companies, millions of residents, tens-of-millions of visitors each year, and built some of the most incredible cities on earth in scarcely a few decades; primarily, arguably, as a result of eschewing taxation. So why would the UAE change direction after achieving such success following a far more sophisticated business model?
UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world.
The reason the UAE is sacrificing the zero-tax brand it worked so hard to build, is due to political pressure from socialist, globalist, kleptocratic politicians in high-tax, western nations. That is, the same politicians responsible for the terminal decline and humiliation of the West – the exponentially increasing debt, monetary debasement, deindustrialisation, illegal migration, growing homelessness, increasing crime, energy shortages, insane ‘woke’ politics, military weakness, civil unrest etc etc etc – are demanding that other nations, like the UAE, follow their lead.
Unfortunately, the last time the UAE ignored the bullying of Western politicians they were placed on a so-called international ‘grey list’ by the Financial Action Task Force (FTAF) for not doing “enough” to “fight money laundering”. Compared to the money laundering taking place in the US, the volume going through the UAE is a pittance. But the issue was never about money laundering; it was demonstrating fealty to the Western political cabal. The ‘grey-listing’ was to embarrass the UAE rulers. The practical effect was simply to increase the paperwork burden placed on UAE banks moving money to and from overseas. That burden has made routine banking more difficult and expensive for legitimate SMEs, while having virtually no impact on companies and individuals transacting large sums.
So the embarrassingly incompetent boobs overseeing the decline of the world’s richest countries have finally forced the UAE to start penalising businesses for being successful. The question now is: what is the likely impact going to be?
In 2018, the UAE was similarly pressured into implementing a goods and services tax (VAT) that included precious metals. The new 5% tax caused a 75% reduction in precious metal trade. Just 6 months later the Government exempted precious metals from the tax, restoring trade to previous levels.
So it will be very interesting to see what comes of the new UAE tax.
Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.
“Grab your torch and pitch-fork” was the rallying cry of the left in the recent debate over stage three tax cuts. And so the mob was led to follow a trail of sprinkled money to the door of high income earners to rob them of tax relief.
In the debate over Australia’s tax system, the concept of “fair share” has been wielded like a moral cudgel. Advocates argue high-income earners should pay more under the guise of affordability. Yet when we examine the impact of progressive taxation, especially through the lens of real-life financial pressures, the narrative of fairness starts to show cracks.
Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions.
Consider someone earning $200,000 annually. Contrary to the image of affluence often portrayed, they face substantial financial obligations: mortgages, rising living costs, and family expenses. Despite these challenges, they’re taxed at a rate significantly higher than those earning $70,000.
Under the new “Stage 3” regime, the person on $200,000 pays $55,000, which is $45,000 more than the person on $70,000 who pays $10,000. That is, more than five times as much in absolute dollars. Fairness isn’t just about percentages; it’s about the impact on individuals’ lives. The dialogue around tax rates frequently ignores these actual dollars paid, masking the true disparity. (See graph).
Furthermore, this focus on rates overlooks a critical issue: bracket creep. As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power. This is an insidious form of taxation that exacerbates the burden on middle and higher-income earners, eroding the principle of fairness the system claims to uphold.
Moreover, the strategy of progressive taxation, while politically popular, overlooks the broader economic implications. High tax rates for top earners disincentivize the innovation and investment that drive economic growth. It is a short-sighted approach that prioritizes immediate political gain over long-term prosperity.
As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power.
But the conversation about fairness must also challenge the government’s role in fiscal management. Instead of relying on tax increases, especially through bracket creep, as a default solution for budget shortfalls, there’s a pressing need for government to exercise fiscal restraint. This involves cutting wasteful spending, prioritizing essential services, and treating taxpayers’ money with the respect it deserves. Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions.
A fair tax system would mitigate the effects of bracket creep, ensuring that individuals are not penalised for nominal increases in income that don’t reflect real gains in wealth. Alternatives such as a flat tax could offer more equitable solutions, ensuring everyone pays their share in a manner that encourages economic growth and innovation.
In advocating for a truly “fair share” we must demand comprehensive tax reform that addresses not only the rate of taxation but also the underlying issues of bracket creep and fiscal responsibility. The aim should be a system that encourages prosperity, treats every taxpayer with fairness, and holds the government accountable for the stewardship of public funds. The quest for fairness in taxation is not just about adjusting rates; it’s about crafting policies that encourage a vibrant economy, respect individual contributions, and ensure the government treats taxpayer money with the care it warrants.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
As another Australia Day passes, it gives us the opportunity to reflect on our national identity and what it truly means to be Australian with the number purporting to opt out of celebrating our national day increasing.
CHANGE THE DATE
26 January 1788 marks the landing of the First Fleet and raising of the Union Jack in Sydney Harbour. While it is true it has only been granted public-holiday status since 1994, the term “Australia Day” has been used to celebrate 26 January in all states and territories since 1935. In New South Wales, 26 January celebrations date back to 1808.
While changing the date may sound like a way of keeping more people happy, in fact complaints about the date are nothing more than a facade for the true anti-Australian and anti-Western motivations behind the movement.
History is replete with actions that we would find abhorrent in modern society – and some of the actions of Australia’s first settlers are no exception. Regardless of what new date we may find, the grievance industry would have absolutely no hesitation finding some historical injustice on that new date to complain about. Which is precisely the point.
Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny.
The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety. In fact, these grievance professionals do not believe Australia, or its culture, is worth celebrating. They are the Australian subsidiary of the global grievance industry’s efforts to prevent the celebration of any aspect of Western culture, despite it being responsible for the most free and equitable societies in human history.
A BROKEN CLOCK
But what if they’re right? What if these grievance professionals have stumbled onto something, inadvertently of course? The irony is that Australia is the wet dream of the very authoritarians who attempt to suppress the celebration of any of its achievements.
Contrary to the popular narrative of the laid-back Aussie, we are an incredibly orderly and compliant bunch. If Shakespeare was right and all the world is indeed a stage, Australia is the usher, dutifully ensuring the audience is seated correctly and quickly shushing those who dare exceed the permitted level of fun.
“But we were once a great nation” all the boomers will cry! Perhaps we were; I was not alive to see, but I suspect that is nothing more than a nice comfort to cling to.
THE LUCKY COUNTRY
Our history suggests we were always orderly and compliant, inheriting our love for order from Mother Britian and never seeking independence from her. Like an overly dependent child and a helicopter mother: the mother fearful of the harms that freedom may entail, and the child comforted by a familiar dependence.
The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety.
Australian liberty is no better summarised than by our closest encounter with homegrown rebellion: the Eureaka Stockade. It lasted a grand total of 15 minutes before the rebels were overrun by security forces.
While the founding documents of the rebel miners proclaims that “taxation without representation is tyranny”, echoing the language of the United States Declaration of Independence, the Eureka flag now hangs in the offices of tyrants across the country.
The symbol of our failed rebellion is captured by the tax collectors and tyrants it once opposed. All to the rapturous applause and adulation of the captive populace.
GOLDEN SOIL
Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny. American gun-grabbers point to “the Australian model” to disarm their populace. Global health bureaucrats gushed over “the Australian approach” to Covid tyranny. Regulators worldwide were inspired by Australia’s plain-package cigarettes and sky-high tobacco excise.
While the Australian economy was once described as “a farm on top of a mine”, it should now be updated to “an unrelenting bureaucracy on top of a mine”. By revenue, state government administration is now the biggest industry in Australia. And tyranny is our biggest export. And even though I celebrated Australia Day the most Aussie way I know how, in front of a barbeque, with a beer in hand and the cricket on TV, as the state-mandated bedtime approached, I couldn’t help but wonder: am I truly proud to be Australian?
While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.
Over the last decade, decommissioning and waste management of solar and wind energy projects has grown into a thriving industry. In the decades to come, with the continued deployment of projects all over the world, it will massively expand.
Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes. Decommissioning large plants can run up costs of millions, or even billions.
Solar
As solar capacity expands, demand for decommissioning services will increase. International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that global solar project waste will reach 212 million tonnes a year by 2050.
Despite photovoltaic projects supposedly lasting 20 years, owners often decommission early. Reasons include broken panels, manufacturers out of business, outdated technical attributes and unprofitable projects.
The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.
Solar systems require highly specialised waste management. To reduce landfill waste and promote sustainability, responsible disposal and recycling practices are crucial.
Environmental concerns regarding solar waste components include gallium arsenide, tellurium, crystalline silicon, lead, chromium, cadmium, sulfuric acid, mercury, radioactive materials and heavy earth minerals. Inadequate disposal leads to chemicals leaching into groundwater, stressing nature and agriculture and poisoning drinking water.
Solar panels also contain valuable raw materials such as copper, steel, aluminium, zinc, and silver. These are wasted in landfill.
Wind
Waste management of wind turbine blades is also complicated, expensive and raises environmental concerns.
Each blade is 50 to 90 metres long. It must be cut up using specialised equipment. Blades consist of resin and fibreglass, which cannot be recycled or crushed. Existing landfills do not have space for them and setting up new landfills is expensive.
To understand the scope of the issues, let’s take a look at the two largest economies, the US and China.
US
Solar
Commenting on a report by the Energy Information Administration, Solarcycle CEO Suvi Sharma said, “Solar is becoming the dominant form of power generation, but with that comes a new set of challenges and opportunities. We have not done anything yet on making [solar] circular and dealing with end-of-life [panels].”
There are approximately 500 million solar panels installed across the US, increasing 20% each year. Ninety percent of decommissioned panels currently go to landfill due to recycling costs. From 2030 to 2060, the US will accumulate 9.8 million tonnes of solar panel waste, according to a 2019 study published in Renewable Energy.
Sharma stated that, “We see that gap closing over the next five to 10 years significantly, through a combination of recycling becoming more cost-effective and landfill costs only increasing.”
Time will tell whether or not this prediction is accurate.
Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes.
Wind
The lifespan of a wind turbine is purportedly 20 years. However, as Julie Angulo, senior vice president of Veolia stated “We are seeing a wave of blades that are 10 to 12 years old, we know that number is going to go up.”
Decommissioned wind turbine blades have joined solar panels in landfills, and are known as ‘forever waste’.
According to a 2021 study released by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the US will decommission 3,000 to 9,000 blades every year until 2026, 10,000 to 20,000 blades a year until 2040, and 235,000 blades a year by 2050.
China
China leads the world in wind and solar energy equipment manufacture. China’s initial aim was 1,200 gigawatts of wind and solar by 2030. The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.
Waste volumes will rise as projects are decommissioned and replaced, emphasising the need for recycling measures. China currently doesn’t have specific regulations or processes for solar panel and wind turbine waste management. The State has announced it is working on industrial standards and rules to address this.
The state planning agency advised that China aims to have a “basically mature” full-process recycling system for wind turbines and solar panels by the end of the decade.
Solar
China is the world’s leading solar market. It has surpassed everyone in terms of expenditure, manufactured panels and energy production.
The International Renewable Energy Agency reported that in 2023, China dominated global solar panel additions with a record-breaking year, adding an estimated 180 to 230 gigawatts.
However, in June last year China’s official Science and Technology Daily newspaper advised that in spite of the lifespan of 20 years, many of China’s solar projects show significant wear. The paper cited experts saying that China will have 1.5 million metric tonnes of decommissioned panels by 2030. This rises to 20 million tonnes by 2050 and is also in line with The International Renewable Energy Agency’s estimations. China will have the greatest amount of solar panel waste in the world.
Conclusion
The burgeoning solar and wind energy sectors demand attention to the economic implications of decommissioning and waste management. We need to face the fact that “sustainable” energy might not be so sustainable, and fossil fuels alongside nuclear are still necessary to keep costs and environmental damage to a minimum.
Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.
My recent discussions on Liberty Itch have painted a picture of China’s landscape as a prison-like surveillance-intensive system, and as a no-privacy technology-driven cashless society. In this article, I want to further explore the future of China as we look towards 2024 and beyond. I will examine the implications of China’s expanding surveillance state, the tightening grip of authoritarian power, the simmering economic challenges, and the looming demographic crisis.
A Safe Prison
In China, particularly within its major cities where surveillance cameras are omnipresent, the situation resembles a vast yet secure prison. Proponents may argue that it ensures unparalleled safety, but high security is also a characteristic of prisons, largely due to extensive surveillance, with only a few exceptions like Jeffrey Epstein.
Beyond what I discussed in my previous article, emerging technologies are being used by the government to further erode any remaining privacy. A recent example I heard from a friend is a discreet device, easily overlooked, capable of extracting comprehensive information from your phone within a short range. Although not widely deployed yet, the potential of such technology is horrifying. While the most secure phone option in China is an overseas iPhone, these have been banned by all government bodies and affiliated organisations – a decision aimed at facilitating surveillance under the guise of patriotism.
The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023
A Loyal Empire
Xi Jinping’s regime is imposing a concentration of power unprecedented since Mao’s era. This communist empire demands not just loyalty, but absolute allegiance from its members. Figures like the recently deceased former Premier Li Keqiang, known for their more liberal stances on society and the economy, have been conspicuously absent from the new cabinet for a year.
With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier. In various government bodies and affiliated institutions, such as banks and universities, advanced AI-embedded cameras are being employed to analyse people’s facial reactions. These sophisticated systems scrutinise subtle changes in lips, noses, chins, eyes, and eyebrows to infer individuals’ emotions – admiration, confusion, indifference, or even dissent. The leap from mere “facial recognition” to “mind reading” is deeply troubling.
A Growth Mirage
China’s economy is facing severe challenges. Despite optimistic forecasts for a robust recovery following China’s post-COVID reopening at the end of 2022, the reality in 2023 has been starkly different.
Stock Market: In contrast to the significant gains in global share markets in 2023, with the US up by 24.2%, the Eurozone by 15.7%, and Australia by 7.8%, China’s stock market has seen a decline, down by 11.4%.
Property Market: The real estate sector, once a cornerstone of China’s economic growth, has seen a decline of 20-30% across most major cities. In cities like Shanghai, luxury properties have seen even steeper declines of 30-40%. This downturn is more pronounced in smaller cities experiencing a net population outflow. Additionally, a report in August 2023 indicated that the vacancy rate in 28 major cities was at 12%. (For comparison, Australia’s vacancy rate was recorded at 1.02% in October 2023.)
Local Government Debts: Local governments need to repay a record US$651 billion in bonds in 2024. The deep property slump is reducing their ability to generate income from land sales, which is a crucial revenue source. The slowdown in the broader economy has also affected their tax revenue. Growing concerns about potential defaults could trigger a widespread economic crisis.
Spending: Although people are still showing off with travelling photos on popular Chinese social media platforms, overall spending has reduced significantly, leading to the phenomenon termed “selfie travel.” A friend, whose business has suffered a significant downturn, satirically remarked, “I used to shop at Hermes, but now I shop at Uniqlo.”
With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier.
Youth Unemployment: The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023, leading to the government’s decision to cease publishing the data. The last official youth unemployment rate was over 20%. This trend is attributed to a slowing economy and a mismatch between graduates’ skills and job market demands, as well as their expectations and “lying flat” attitudes, which pose serious implications for social and political unrest.
Baby Boom Bust
China’s future is increasingly influenced by a significant demographic issue: its declining birth rate. In early 2023, China experienced its first decline in birth rates in 60 years, a trend that only intensified as the year progressed. Despite policy shifts from the One-Child to the Two-Child and later the Three-Child policies, young families remain reluctant to have more children. This trend, along with minimal population growth, threatens to strain social security systems, potentially leading to a critical tipping point.
While numerous factors, such as potential war with Taiwan and evolving political and economic relations with Western countries, play a role in shaping China’s future, the areas discussed here are particularly significant. The increasing reliance on surveillance, a heightened emphasis on ideological conformity, and a declining population, point towards significant difficulties ahead. Though Xi Jinping, persistently criticised for lacking the capability to advance China’s progress, remains the unchallenged supreme leader, China is in urgent need of a new Deng Xiaoping—a true reformist—to take the country back onto the right track.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
By ‘closing the loopholes’, Labor ultimately seeks to undermine self-employment, casual employment and competition, Libertarians must take note.
November 17 2023 The scene is the 2023 HR Nicholls Society conference in North Sydney; the speaker is Ken Phillips; the topic: Federal Labor’s ‘Closing the Loopholes’ bill.
Phillips is unassuming, plainly dressed, but he means business. In a conference otherwise dominated by partisan interests and the society’s own history, he cuts through with a powerful and practical message. Having dissected and analysed all 274 pages of the ‘Loophole’ bill and written his own submission (on behalf of Self-Employed Australia [SEA]), he has been in regular contact with the crossbench, who Labor currently relies on to pass legislation.
Ken Phillips
Phillips was optimistic then, satisfied that the crossbench were heeding his call for caution and discernment over the prevailing narrative. But it was not to last; Senators David Pocock and Jackie Lambie combined to split, then pass, the first tranche of the bill, including concerning new provisions that escalate the power of union delegates. But the worst is yet to come.
Subject to an inquiry this year, the remainder of the bill seeks to undermine commercial contracts, create strict pre-conditions that define ‘casual’ employees, and effectively prevent workers from being their own boss.
The loophole bill relies on the rhetoric of exploitation: pitting workers against employers and removing agency from consenting participants in the ‘gig economy’.
90% of people working for digital gig platforms are also employed elsewhere.
The reality is quite different – I should know, having been a contract worker and a casual for much of my working life. These reforms in fact represent a direct attack on my livelihood.
Keep it casual
As Phillips demonstrates in his analysis of wages by employee type, casual workers are financially better off on an hours-worked basis to the tune of about 6% (more if you consider the higher super contributions). What’s more, being a casual employee allows for the worker to ramp up or down their hours, take on a different employer and maintain flexibility much more readily – something I made use of as a student particularly.
Businesses also require flexibility to operate effectively in the marketplace, as demand and staffing requirements fluctuate. The loopholes bill creates stringent regulations on how an employee can be considered casual. This will simply disincentivise businesses from hiring staff as employers will have fewer options to reduce their wage liability when business is slower.
Fixed contracts
Contract and self-employed workers are also in the sights of Labor and the unions. The proposed legislation coins a new term – ‘employee like’ – to describe self-employed workers. This means self-employed workers will be subject to the industrial relations system, undermining the nature of commercial contracts between consenting parties.
As a contract worker myself, I do not miss the IR system. My generous employers allow me paid leave entitlements anyway, and I can readily work for an employer based anywhere in the world, making my own choices with regards to super contributions.
Pitting workers against employers and removing agency from consenting participants in the ‘gig economy’.
Getting a gig
A major objective of the loophole bill is supposedly to protect workers from exploitation in the ‘gig economy.’ The reality is quite different: well over 90% of people working for digital gig platforms are also employed elsewhere – they are ‘hustlers’, earning top-up income outside of regular employment.
There are concerns for market competition too. By eliminating self-employed workers from the marketplace, large operators in industries such as transport and construction will face less competition. How this market concentration will benefit workers and consumers, or is consistent with Labor’s message to voters, I cannot reconcile.
An unlikely union
It is a good deal for those large operators though, and it’s an especially good deal for the unions, perhaps revealing the true motivations behind this bill. Trade union membership has dwindled for decades, and the availability of flexible or casual work has further undermined their influence.
By forcing all workers into employment contracts subject to IR law, the unions can once again wield significant influence. Large employers can collude with these unions and suppress competition, diluting the influence of smaller or independent players in their respective industries.
The big loser is of course the workers, who lose flexibility in their employment arrangements, are forced to work in industries dominated by a few large players, and are financially less well off if they are casual.
It is truly a sad state of affairs that the party of workers would propose such a bill, but it is characteristic of Australian politics, long divorced from the interests of common workers. Further reading: https://selfemployedaustralia.com.au/be-your-own-boss/
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
‘Go where you are treated best’ is the tagline of entrepreneur, Andrew Henderson, founder of the business Nomad Capitalist. Andrew and his team help entrepreneurs, retirees and others move their lives out of countries like Australia to countries where they will be treated best. It is a business that has being growing exponentially in recent years.
When I first heard Andrew speak those six words during the earliest days of the Covid sham, it hit me like a power-slap from Mike Tyson. What the hell was I still doing in Australia? For years I thought I had been fighting to build small businesses. But I had not; I could do business just fine. I had a bunch of great products and services in an interesting niche. I liked my customers, and my customers liked me. The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it. The reality was Australia no longer treated me well, let alone best.
The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments.
“We crush many a dream around [here]” was proudly proclaimed to me by an officer of Melbourne’s Stonnington Council when I applied for a permit to open a simple, small business. He also bragged how new laws rendered thousands of commercial properties “completely unlettable”. Sadly, the only thing shocking about his statements was his candor. His malicious and malignant attitude towards honest citizens, small business operators and the future success of the country was what I had come to expect from Australian bureaucrats.
Being an unwilling participant in an abusive relationship with local government was only part of the problem. The bigger problem was the direction of the country as a whole.
The absolutely disgusting and immoral human rights abuses orchestrated by the Victorian Government, media and law enforcement during the Covid sham was not an aberration. Nor was the Victorian public’s willing complicity. It was unequivocal proof of the direction society had been headed.
So what is a patriotic Australian supposed to do? Vote? For whom? Protest? And get shot with rubber bullets or sprayed with mace for not supporting the Government-approved message? Exercise your free-speech online? And get arrested in your home, in front of your kids, even if you are pregnant? Or have your government-permission to practice your profession cancelled? Or have your bank accounts frozen?
Australia does not have a bill of rights. You have no legislated right to free speech or right to protest. The Government could not care less about having signed the international treaty for human rights. Their Covid shenanigans proved that unequivocally.
When democracy has been hijacked, like it has been in much of the so-called “free world”, your most powerful option is to vote with your feet and go where you are treated best. If enough people leave, the people and government left behind will be forced to change, to stem further losses and attract good people back. If they do not change, the country will fail as their beliefs and policies were destined to anyway.
The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it.
Unfortunately, for most people leaving is not an option. The nature of most people’s vocations, businesses, finances and/or families makes leaving all but impossible. There will always be people who have no option but to stay and fight against bad governments. But that does not mean staying and fighting is noble; in most cases throughout history, staying to fight your own government has been a terrible option.
For the few people who can move their lives and business elsewhere in the world, they owe it to themselves and their country to go where they are treated best. It is not weak or cowardly, as many jealous people will say. Nothing is harder than leaving family and a lifetime of friends, to face the uncertainty of restarting life in a new country. But it can be the most patriotic thing you can do; not to mention cathartic, enlightening and positively life changing.
A country is not its government. Being so disgusted and disillusioned with a government that you move says nothing about your feelings toward the country or its people. The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments.
Australians are lucky to be welcomed all over the world. Wherever you go, you will always be Australian (or whatever nationality you are). If you go where you really are treated best, you will almost certainly be more financially, emotionally and spiritually successful than you could have been under the current government in Australia.
Nomad Capitalist has a website. I recommend taking a look at it.
Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.
Unions and libertarians disagree about almost everything. However, they do both share one core tenet – the right to “freedom of association”. Well, maybe not so much anymore.
Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals. It also happens to be a right incorporated in international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Freedom of association stands as a cornerstone of a free society.
Unions rely on freedom of association for their very existence. Unless workers are free to associate, there can be no unions.
Finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith.
However, a piece of recent news begs the question as to whether this right is still valued, or maybe even understood, by the union movement. Or perhaps the left’s war on Christianity gets precedence over one of the union movement’s foundation principles.
For many Christians it is their faith that has led them to libertarianism – for reasons discussed elsewhere on Liberty Itch. I won’t revisit here that any attack on Christianity is also an attack on our civil liberties.
Not all libertarians are church goers of course (albeit they should seriously consider becoming so). Secular libertarians should be alarmed, nonetheless. The debate over proposed religious discrimination laws in Australia presents a significant point of contention, particularly concerning the principle of freedom of association.
The union movement’s position on this is riddled with hypocrisy.
Firstly, the right to freedom of association also extends to religious organizations, allowing them to maintain their faith-based hiring practices. By pushing to restrict these schools’ hiring autonomy, the trade unions risk undermining the very freedom of association they hold dear.
Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals.
Second, trade unions, which typically advocate for workers’ rights, appear to disregard this idea when it comes to religious schools’ hiring practices. This raises concerns about the consistency of their stance and whether they are applying the same standards to themselves.
Third, while the unions bemoan discrimination implicit (they say) in hiring based on faith, by limiting faith-based schools’ hiring autonomy, they may discriminate against religious individuals who want to work in environments aligned with their beliefs, thus contradicting their own principles of non-discrimination.
And finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith. Limiting their ability to hire staff who share their beliefs homogenises the educational landscape and limits diversity of educational options, which is contrary to the principles of a free and open society.
Let’s call it what it is: the trade union movement’s call to prevent faith-based hiring in religious schools is at best the “politics of envy”, and at worst an unprincipled and hypocritical attack on Christianity. Let’s see if state and federal governments have the courage and integrity to resist this push.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
In her excellent book The Siberian Curse, British-American author Fiona Hill describes how the settlement of Siberia in the twentieth century and the mass movement of people and industry into this vast region by central planners lie at the root of many of Russia’s contemporary problems.
Central planning – whether geo-political, social, urban or economic – has caused many a disaster.
Examples abound around the world, but allow me to cite a local one.
Worst of all, it puts home ownership out of the reach of those on low and middle incomes.
A number of years ago, I bought a block of land on a very busy main road in one of Australia’s capital cities. I submitted plans to the local council to build 12 semi-detached home units on the land and, as the zoning allowed for such a development, I didn’t expect any problems. That was of course until I came up against the Council Town Planner who said he’d recommend the development be approved “subject to the provision of noise attenuation devices” across the front of the property (noise attenuation is a fancy name for sound-proofing). I tried to point out that there were thousands of kilometres of main roads with many thousands of dwellings fronting these main roads and it all seemed to work quite well without ‘sound attenuation’. I also told him that the project was actually geared towards older people, many of whom prefer the noise of traffic and pedestrians chatting as they said it made them feel safer than in some quiet back street or cul-de-sac. But he was having none of it. He wanted his noise attenuation devices.
Naturally, I tried the commercial argument that people who didn’t like noise wouldn’t buy into the project and that the market would sort it out. But for reasons known only to town planners but obscure to common sense, he rejected all my pleas, and I had an acoustic engineer design a front fence to assist with noise attenuation. But no sooner had I finished the job than the Royal Society for the Deaf bought all the units – every single one of them. I showed the planner the contract and he couldn’t even see the funny side of it.
Ludwig von Mises, one of the most notable economists and social philosophers of the 20th century, observed:
Ludwig von Mises
‘The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. Planners aim at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of their own plans.’
National, State and Local government planners now infiltrate our lives at every turn.
Take the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), for example, the nation’s main economic planner.
The RBA has over 1,500 staff and as well as its headquarters in Sydney, has offices in London, New York and Beijing.
The RBA basically has one main task – to control inflation. As we know, inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods and services. When governments contribute to this by running deficits, the RBA is there to put up interest rates and make the government feel the pain of their spending. In recent years, however, the RBA did not do this. In fact, in spite of record deficit-spending, former RBA Governor Philip Lowe said in 2021 the bank would be keeping interest rates low until at least 2024!
Central planning – whether geo-political, social, urban or economic – has caused many a disaster.
Since then it has raised interest rates 14 times in an attempt to bring inflation under control, in effect shifting the inflation burden to consumers – particularly low-income consumers – through price rises.
One can also trace the current housing affordability crisis back to the RBA when it similarly refused to admit it made a mistake with its submission to the 2003 Productivity Commission Inquiry into First Home Ownership. The Bank’s focus on demand stimulators (capital gains tax, negative gearing, low interest rates, etc. – all Federal matters) and not supply factors had a huge influence in shaping the Productivity Commission’s findings.
As we now know, the RBA overlooked the real source of the affordability problem – the unwillingness by State governments to release more land for new housing and urban planners’ obsession with urban densification, an idea that has failed all over the world. Whether it’s traffic congestion, air pollution, the destruction of bio-diversity or the unsustainable pressure on electricity, water, sewage, or stormwater infrastructure, urban densification has been a disaster. Worst of all, it puts home ownership out of the reach of those on low and middle incomes.
As von Mises observed, the step between planner and dictator is not as big as some might think. When their plans are rejected, planners become indignant, and instead of adjusting their plans to suit the people who have rejected their ideas, they seek ways to enforce their will on the people. The inner authoritarian is revealed.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
During my recent one-month stay in China’s bustling metropolises, the omnipresence of technology, particularly WeChat (a “Super App” Elon Musk wants X to be for the West), was starkly evident. QR codes adorned nearly every surface, from restaurant menus to market stalls, making WeChat an indispensable part of daily life. The ‘everything app’ seamlessly integrates functions akin to WhatsApp, Facebook, eBay, Uber and many others into one platform.
The convenience it offers is undeniable: messaging, social networking, making payments, ordering food and hailing rides are all accomplished with a few taps on a smartphone. However, beneath this veneer of ultra-convenience lies a more ominous reality.
The Illusion of Convenience Over Privacy
In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, a superficially perfect society masks deep underlying issues. This theme resonates profoundly with my experience in China. On the surface, life is streamlined and digitised. In cities like Shanghai, cash is almost obsolete (I used no cash at all for the one-month trip), and every need or whim is catered to with astonishing efficiency, with technology not just an enabler but a dominant force shaping society. Yet, this convenience comes at a steep cost – privacy is virtually non-existent.
The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens.
Surveillance: Beyond the Physical Realm
The extensive surveillance network I described in “China’s Dystopia I: Security to Slavery” is not limited to physical spaces. Every transaction, interaction or movement facilitated by WeChat and other digital platforms is tracked, recorded, and scrutinised whenever the government deems necessary. The app, while a marvel of modern technology, doubles as a tool for surveillance, with the Chinese government having unfettered access to the data collected.
Digital Dystopia: A Double-Edged Sword
This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience. On the other, it represents a dystopian reality where personal details, preferences, and even thoughts are no longer private. Every digital footprint is monitored, contributing to a profile that the government can access and analyse at will. The notion of ”Big Brother” in George Orwell’s “1984” finds a parallel here, though it is perhaps more aptly described by Huxley’s vision where citizens are placated with pleasures and conveniences, unaware of or indifferent to the loss of their freedoms.
The Perils of a Cashless Society and Social Credit
The move towards a cashless society in China brings its own set of risks. The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens. Coupled with the social credit system, this creates a scenario where individuals can be rewarded or punished not just for their actions, but also for their associations.
This system has become a tool for cracking down on dissent. Individuals or groups who interact with or support entities disfavoured by the government can find themselves facing financial restrictions or worse. Being locked out of WeChat, for example, effectively prevents participation in daily life.
This level of control over personal and financial interactions adds another layer to the surveillance state, where not just actions, but also associations, are monitored and controlled.
This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience.
Rethinking Freedom in a Digitally Connected World
As we progress further into the digital era, the Chinese model serves as a crucial case study for the rest of the world. It poses a fundamental question: what is the true cost of convenience? In a society where every digital interaction is monitored, can freedom truly exist? The allure of a frictionless, digital life is powerful, but it should not blind us to the importance of safeguarding our privacy and freedom.
As Australia observes the unfolding digital dystopia in China, it becomes imperative to reflect upon our own relationship with technology and surveillance. While enjoying a more open and democratic society, Australia is not immune to the risks posed by the unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies. The use of such technologies for contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic signalled clear privacy erosion and government overreach.
As Australia strides forward in its technological journey, it must tread cautiously to avoid the pitfalls seen in China. As Huxley’s “Brave New World” warns, a society enamoured with comfort and entertainment may be blind to the erosion of its essential liberties. The challenge for us is to ensure that technological advancements serve humanity, not government.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
Why is it that in many countries, including Australia, governments consistently spend more than they collect in taxes, thus increasing the national debt?
Most governments understand that budgets should be balanced. They have seen what happens in countries that accumulate too much debt and cannot service it. And yet, the debt keeps growing.
The explanation is rather uncomfortable for many of us. It is, broadly speaking, our own fault. We keep electing governments that reflect our thinking.
There was a time when we largely provided for ourselves. Prior to 1909, for example, there was no age pension; everyone was expected to save for their retirement, directly or via a mutual society.
The reality of socialism is universal poverty, but the illusion of unlimited, universal care remains powerful.
Similarly, prior to 1910 there was no disability support pension. Privately funded charities and philanthropic organisations provided assistance for the disabled.
It was the same with health care; Medibank, the precursor to Medicare, did not exist until 1976.
University fees were a private cost until 1974. There were many scholarships on offer but those who failed to obtain one and whose family was unable to pay the fees would often delay or forego tertiary studies.
For women returning to work, childcare was typically provided by families, friends and neighbours, or by community organisations such as churches. Government subsidised childcare only began in 2000.
Most people would probably be disinclined to wind back the clock. And yet, most people also believe that they already pay too much tax and do not wish to pay more. And therein lies the problem.
In the five years in which I was a senator, I wrote hundreds of articles for newspapers and magazines. The subject on which I received the most hostile feedback was the suggestion that eligibility for pensions should take into account all assets, including the family home. It was inequitable, I argued, that the taxes of those who could not even afford to buy a home were funding the pensions of those living in multi-million-dollar houses.
I lost count of the number of people who claimed they were entitled to a pension because they had paid taxes during their working life. Many also argued that age pensions were justified because there were parliamentary pensions (although these were abolished in 2004).
It made me realise that Australians want to have their cake and to eat it too. That is, they want the government to pay for all sorts of services, but do not associate this with taxes. Money from the government is somehow different.
We keep electing governments that reflect our thinking.
The outcome is that governments implement generous schemes such as the NDIS, age and disability pensions, Medicare, childcare subsidies and HECS, generally to public acclaim, without mentioning where the money is to come from. There are far more votes in spending money than collecting it.
This presents a problem for libertarians, who advocate low taxes and small government. How can they persuade Australians that the hugely expensive government-run schemes they consider to be a right are either not necessary or could be replaced by something that is cheaper and more effective, if approached differently.
This same problem is now facing Argentina’s new president, Javier Milei. Although Argentinians elected him with his libertarian agenda, he did not receive a majority of votes and his party does not have a majority in parliament. Argentinians, like Australians, have been told for decades that the government will provide. Like most Australians, most are yet to accept that their expectations are unrealistic.
Unless voters can be persuaded that there is no such thing as free government money, and that personal responsibility yields better results at lower cost, there is little chance governments will implement policies based on that. Even in Argentina, which has defaulted on its national debt no less than eight times, the appetite for economic reality is low. Milei will require the wisdom of Solomon to implement his policies.
We must hope that he succeeds. The reality of socialism is universal poverty, but the illusion of unlimited, universal care remains powerful.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
The Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 (the Digital ID Bill) was passed by the Senate this month.
According to the government the Digital ID System will address the need for a “secure, voluntary, and inclusive method” to verify Australians online, because “recent cyber incidents” have proven the need for identification to be “reliable”. Somehow, this is all said without the slightest hint of irony.
Just last year the story emerged that the government’s flagship Digital Identification system, ‘myGov’, had been ‘hacked’ to the tune of over half a billion dollars. Fraudsters claimed $557 million from the Australian Tax Office (ATO) by creating false myGov accounts and linking them to the tax files of 8100 genuine taxpayers. They replaced the bank details of real people and businesses with their own.
This ‘recent cyber incident’ did indeed prove the need for identification to be secure and reliable. It also proved that government is not the organisation to make it so.
But this example of the government’s profound lack of competence with information technology is not isolated or rare. The government’s track record of implementing reliable and secure digital infrastructure projects could only be described as appalling.
How can the government claim that its digital identification system will be voluntary and inclusive when it has been knowingly acting unlawfully with identification for years?
Who can forget when Queensland Health tried to implement a new payroll system? They blew their budget by 20,000%, costing Queensland taxpayers an astonishing $1.2 billion and requiring 1,000 new staff to manually manage the payroll. The independent inquiry described the debacle as “the worst failure in public administration in Australian history”.
Then there was the disastrous Robo debt scheme. The Australian government tried to build a system to detect welfare fraud and overpayments. 443,000 Australians were abused and wrongly accused of fraud or Centrelink debts. Some were so distressed by the abuse they took their own lives. There was a class action lawsuit resulting in a $1.8billion pay-out from the government. The debacle led to a Royal Commission which described Robo debt as a “human tragedy”.
Then there is the $1.5 billion My Health Record project. The former head of the project, Paul Shelter, famously said he would opt-out of the My Health Record system that he himself was responsible for building because of the poor security model. He disliked that your private and personal data can be accessed for reasons of public revenue. He said that the poor security, along with the way people were being signed up (without their express consent) was “symptomatic of the way government handles IT”. The National Audit Office confirmed recently that My Health Record still fails to appropriately manage cybersecurity risks.
With a resume of disasters like these, how can we be expected to trust the government to build a secure and reliable digital identification system? The centrepiece of the system – myGov – has already been hacked successfully.
But the demonstrable lack of trustworthiness of the government with regard to digital identification extends beyond incompetence. The Government has for years been unlawfully using identity verification services without any legislative basis in breach of their own privacy laws. A Senate inquiry heard that the Document Verification Service has been used over 140 million times by approximately 2,700 government agencies and industry organisations. That was just in the past year alone.
443,000 Australians were abused and wrongly accused of fraud or Centrelink debts.
In addition, the Face Verification Service was used 2.6 million times. Senator Shoebridge stated that “The conclusion that pretty much every stakeholder has drawn is that the current identity verification services procedure is unlawful and, in the absence of any statutory underpinning, is open to legal challenge”.
He warned that the government was facing “potentially significant civil damages” that could be “aggravated by the fact that they continue to operate a service knowing full well that it is unlawful, and in breach of the privacy laws”.
The newly passed legislation is clearly a case of the Government giving itself legal permission to do what it has been doing unlawfully. Digital Rights Watch told Senators that the government was now retrofitting a legislative foundation to an existing set of practices and rushing the Bill through to protect itself from liability. The Law Council of Australia also criticised the use of these services without any laws underpinning it.
How can the government claim that its digital identification system will be voluntary and inclusive when it has been knowingly acting unlawfully with identification for years? The long history of catastrophically botched digital infrastructure projects prove that we absolutely cannot trust in the government’s competence. But its equally appalling record of disregarding privacy and identity – to the point of ignoring its own laws – prove that it cannot be trusted with our privacy or personal information at all.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
Nothing short of a full Royal Commission into the nationwide pandemic response will be satisfactory given the scale of government intervention, the hurt caused, and the economic and social legacy it has left on Australia.
One of the many well-known rules of politics is that one only calls an inquiry when one is already sure of what it will find. Such was the case in Victoria, when retired judge Jennifer Coate headed the inquiry into Victoria’s bungled Covid hotel quarantine system, a vulnerability which led to months of lockdown across the state. She found that ultimately ‘no one’ was responsible for initiating the conditions under which breaches occurred, which largely revolved around contracted private security being compromised by lack of supervision and infection control training.
Premier Daniel Andrews took the opportunity to roll his then Health Minister Jenny Mikakos, and the report was able to pinpoint the decision to use contracted private security as a key failing. In the end, two departments blamed each other (a fine was paid from one to another), Andrews apologised and claimed ‘accountability’, and we never quite found out why the police force or ADF were shunned while expensive security contracts were whipped up and tendered with lightning speed.
Daniel Andrews
So as the Federal Government launches its own inquiry into the Federal response to the Covid 19 pandemic, libertarians, and indeed anyone interested in the truth of these matters, could be forgiven for remaining cynical.
But it is a disgrace that we may never be able to hold the states accountable for the most egregious government interventions during the pandemic.
For one, this inquiry ought to be a Royal Commission – one that can obtain key documents and communications, and compel witnesses to appear and truthfully answer questions. In Victoria, phone records and key communications were redacted, the inquiry and media focussed solely on only one key decision (or ‘creeping assumption’), and the political damage was very limited.
As mentioned, an inquiry operates within the confines of what the current government is prepared to expose. In the case of Andrews in Victoria, a few carefully selected heads rolled. With this upcoming Federal inquiry, the goal will undoubtedly be to inflict further damage on former Coalition ministers.
The terms of reference focus solely on the federal pandemic response, and specifically rules out the ‘unilateral actions of state and territory governments’. Thus, many of the most harmful government interventions and gross acts of bureaucratic inflexibility cannot be examined.
The language of the terms of reference also fails to mention human rights, and seems fixated on systems, rather than the human cost of the pandemic. I daresay the findings of this inquiry will focus on how government can be improved during a pandemic or emergency, not how it can be minimised.
One of the many well-known rules of politics is that one only calls an inquiry when one is already sure of what it will find.
We will however have a chance to ruminate on the two years of international border closures and inflexibility on that front. We can shine a light on the secrecy of National Cabinet meetings, the role of the Home Affairs department in suppressing online information, and the role of the ADF at supporting the enforcement of State restrictions. We can also reflect on the Federal Government’s role in communicating to Australians about Covid-19, vaccines, safety assessments and initial restrictions. Finally, perhaps we will have a chance to inspect the economic damage inflicted by the dramatic fiscal response, perform a cost-benefit analysis and review the economic legacy of programs such as JobKeeper, JobSeeker and HomeBuilder.
But it is a disgrace that we may never be able to hold the states accountable for the most egregious government interventions during the pandemic. What of the bureaucratic inflexibility at state borders, which kept families and loved ones apart and even resulted in the deaths of infants? What of the vaccine mandates that drove a wedge between those who ‘consented’ and those who didn’t, inflicting untold social and economic damage in many cases? What of the state-imposed lockdowns which persisted well beyond the initial period of uncertainty and panic in 2020?
We deserve to have these questions picked over with the finest of combs, and those responsible for unnecessary harm must be held accountable.
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
Christmas is characterised by the ubiquitous plentiful Christmas lunch. However, many Australian families will struggle to afford to put food on the table, as they face food insecurity troubles.
Defining Food Insecurity According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the UN, food insecurity is defined as “whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, or the ability to acquire acceptable food in socially acceptable ways, is limited or uncertain.”
Food insecurity is ascertained by one simple question: “In the past 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy any more?”
Reasons for food insecurity in Australia Cost of living is most often cited as the main reason for food insecurity. Cost of living pressures have been exacerbated by a number of factors.
Above average inflation: In January this year, the CPI headline reading of 7.8% was the highest since 1990. This figure has remained around this mark all year. Recently, the RBA stated that inflation won’t return to target range (2% to 3%) until the end of 2025.
Elevated food inflation: Data indicate that food prices will continue increasing by up to 10% each year. This will increase the average household’s annual grocery bill of $13,000 by ~$108 per month.
Industry levies are insidious. Just like a tax, the cost filters through supply chains, affecting the end consumer.
Elevated interest rates:Mortgage payments increased 71% YOY this year, as people came off fixed-rate mortgages and on to higher variable rates. By the end of this year, 48.5% of total borrowers will require 30%+ of their income to service their mortgage, according to Australian National University’s Australian tax and welfare system model.
Declining household savings: Increasing mortgage repayments and inflation have seen the average household savings ratio drop to 1.1% – the lowest level since 2007.
Wages unable to keep up: The Australian Bureau of Statistics says the wage price index increased 1.3% in Q3, the biggest quarterly rise in the 26-year history of the report. Simultaneously, the RBA raised interest rates to a 12-year high of 4.35% in order to combat a CPI increase of 5.4% over the 12 months to September 2023 quarter.
Libertarian solutions As Adlai Stevenson said, “A hungry man is not a free man”. Addressing food insecurity from a libertarian perspective requires furthering freedom and voluntary cooperation. In practice, this includes minimising government intervention to maximise efficient allocation of resources and productive output.
Adlai Stevenson
Australian farmers are essential for our food production and security. According to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), most of the food sold within this country is supplied by Australian producers.
National Farmers Federation’s (NFF) recent campaign made a stand against expanding government intervention, claiming “food production is not a central priority for the current Federal government”. NFF went on to add that Labor is running a “niche ideological agenda” and “wilfully ignorant of the plight of farmers”. To support these claims, NFF cited a recent survey finding a majority of farmers think the Labor government’s policies are harming the agricultural industry.
Contributing to this sentiment is the federal government’s proposition to introduce a new Biosecurity Protection Levy from the 1st of July 2024. According to the DAFF, “taxpayers, importers, international travellers and producers” would be subjected to this cost.
Cost of living is most often cited as the main reason for food insecurity.
In their research paper ‘Towards Levyathan? Industry levies in Australia’, the Productivity Commission included a case study on the Biosecurity Protection Levy. This report is unerring in its analysis of government motivation for opting for the levy structure. The report:
Suggests that targeted industry “levies” may encounter less community resistance compared to broad tax increases.
Highlights the public’s immediate concern with direct costs of taxation, emphasising the potential favourability of perceived indirect costs of an efficient tax system.
Notes that people may view levies more positively, assuming they are not directly impacted, creating a phenomenon termed “fiscal illusion.”
Industry levies are insidious. Just like a tax, the cost filters through supply chains, affecting the end consumer. In this case, further increasing grocery bills for families across Australia. The report asks and answers two important questions:
Will levy payers be in a position to monitor and influence how levy proceeds are used?
How will primary producers know whether levy proceeds are going to activities that they value?
The answer: unclear, but unlikely. Levy proceeds will only fund a proportion of overall biosecurity activities, and it is not proposed that those revenues will be allocated to particular activities.
As libertarians, we stand in opposition to the appropriation of funds for opaque causes. It is essential we “watch the watchmen”, and advocate fiscal responsibility and austerity. This is an important part of our work to spread a singular life-giving, flourishing freedom throughout our country, including affordable food.
Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.
Strange Mixture of Ethno-Nationalism And Soviet-Style Authoritarianism Is A Very Real Risk.
The proportional representation electoral system in New Zealand encourages the formation of coalition governments. The usual outcome is a coalition featuring one of the traditional major parties, the leftist Labour party or the centrist National party, with another party, perhaps plus other sympathetic parties providing confidence and supply from outside government.
Only twice in the 27 years of proportional representation has this scenario not occurred. In 2020, where an electorate inexplicably grateful for the Covid response handed Jacinda Ardern’s Labour party an unprecedented absolute majority, and 2023 when the centrist National party, the populist NZ First and libertarian Act parties formed a three-way coalition. Members of all three parties will hold ministerial warrants inside and outside cabinet, and a comprehensive policy platform has been agreed amongst them.
The libertarian influence over the new government is a lot less than it could have been
The essential objective of the policyplatform is recovery from the devastation wrought over the last six years by the Labour-led government. Every key economic and social metric is in the red, core Crown debt has tripled, infrastructure is crumbling, cost of living and inflation are crises, Stalinesque centralisation of devolved services such as health and tertiary education have been eye-wateringly expensive failures, and democracy at all levels of government has largely been supplanted by the euphemistically named “co-governance” of public services: Maori prima inter pares Apartheid.
In six short years the far-left ideologues of the Labour party, cheered on by their fellow travellers in the corrupted media, have taken NZ’s “Rockstar Economy” to the point where the country is teetering on the verge of middle-income instead of first world nationhood, and a society where civil unrest between a coalition government seeking to reassert democratic norms and a significant proportion of the populace dedicated to replacing democracy with a strange mixture of ethno-nationalism and Soviet-style authoritarianism is a very real risk.
The proportional representation electoral system in New Zealand encourages the formation of coalition governments.
The hope of the Act and NZ First constituencies (and to a lesser extent, their National party peers) is that the two minor coalition partners can provide National with some much needed backbone. Traditionally a centre-right party representative of rural interests, business and exporters, National today has devolved into the blandest of beige centrist parties, pitching themselves as more fiscally prudent and better at delivery than their Labour party counterparts. Whilst accurate, these are not the radical characteristics needed by the incoming coalition to reverse the calamity of six years of unrestrained wokeism.
A lack of unity amongst the parties might be the coalition’s greatest weakness, embodied by the leader of NZ First Winston Peters, whose reputation for capriciousness and venality is well-earned. Since 1996 he has entered into coalition four times, twice each with Labour and National, an experience both parties came to regret on all four occasions.
Winston Peters
The fear of Act and National voters is he will blow up this coalition as he has done to coalitions in the past. And much to the dismay of libertarians, that risk is largely the fault of David Seymour, leader of the Act party. As early as 2022 Act were polling around 15% and an all-time high of 20% seemed achievable, which would almost certainly propel a National/Act coalition to the treasury benches.
Much to the chagrin of party rank and file, and grandees such as previous leader Rodney Hide, David Seymour took the inexplicable decision to broadly back Jacinda Ardern’s autocratic approach to pandemic lock-downs, vaccine mandates and the protests against them.
Going so far as repeating Labour party agitprop against anti-mandate demonstrators in a very public refusal to meet with them, Seymour singularly alienated a large section of Act’s constituency. A constituency Winston Peters was only too glad for the opportunity to champion.
Embracing the disaffected constituency that Seymour repudiated was enough for Peters to re-enter parliament and coalition government. Conversely for David Seymour, abandoning Act’s libertarian principles consigned the party to a paltry 8.6% of the popular vote, and the ignominy of coalition with NZ First. Act supporters can only hope David Seymour has been suitable chastened by the experience to refrain from such a damaging strategic mistake again, and that Act and National can survive the impact of NZ First upon the coalition government.
The libertarian influence over the new government is a lot less than it could have been, at least in its first three-year term of office.
Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.
The ABS says there were 2,430,400 public sector employees in Australia as at 30 June 2023. That is across Commonwealth, State, Territory, and Local Government. By way of context, this is:
How bad would the shortages be if the public sector did not hoover up all the skills and resources which are in short supply.
The salary costs for all these employees for the 12 months to 30 June 2023 was a humble $215 billion. Again by way of context, Australia could pay for the multi-year AUKUS nuclear submarine program with one and one third years of Australian public sector employee salaries.
In November 2022, the ABS said there were 2,160,000 public sector employees at June 2022. Twelve months later, in November 2023, the ABS said there were 2,348,400 at the very same date. That is, the ABS somehow found an extra 188,000 extra public sector employees hiding behind the lounge cushions. Just a small 9% variation.
The ABS says there were 2,430,400 public sector employees in Australia as at 30 June 2023
This is not a suggestion that there should be no public sector employees. But 2.4 million? Is it any wonder that Australia is experiencing economic pain and inflation with ever more resources being transferred from production to the public sector. Plus all the reported skills shortages … in engineering, ICT, legal, accounting, and trades … how bad would the shortages be if the public sector did not hoover up all the skills and resources which are in short supply.
These numbers are staggering but are sadly par for the course in Australia, where our political leaders seem to believe that any problem can be solved by taking money and property by means of legal force from taxpayers to give to people who pay no price when their schemes and solutions don’t work.
Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.
Argentinians recently voted in Javier Milei to be their President.
Milei has good policies, and he will probably be able to implement a good chunk of them.
This is not just good for Argentinians, it is good news for us. Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.
But we shouldn’t get carried away. Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish list, and not all of his policies are good. And the circumstances of Milei’s election won’t be repeated in Australia any time soon.
Milei has good policies. Milei’s party has an exemplary, wide-ranging, libertarian platform promoting both social and economic freedoms. Milei did not appear to walk away from any of this platform in his campaign.
The campaign naturally focussed on economics, given Argentina’s current crisis. In his campaigning Milei skilfully educated voters on why a libertarian prescription on monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy is the way to go.
The lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government
Milei is likely to be able to implement some of his policies. The formal powers of the Argentinian President are similar to those of the US President, with appointment, veto, and decree powers.
Unlike US Presidents, Argentinian Presidents are in the habit of regularly introducing a budget, so Milei will be better placed to cut government spending than an American President.
Milei will bolster the credibility of libertarian parties in Australia. We can now point to a libertarian in power in a country with more than 45 million people.
We now have a great counter-point to claims that libertarianism is irrelevant.
Australian libertarians seeking election will be able to say that if libertarians can be elected, and if libertarian policies can be implemented in Argentina, then the same can happen in Australia.
But not all of Milei’s policies are good. Milei stoked and tapped into anti-woke sentiment, including through supportive references to America’s Trump and Brazil’s Bolsonaro.
This is a problem if it translates into the implementation of illiberal policies, or concentrating on issues of wokeness at the expense of more crucial reform, or if it means Milei has the same regard for the law as Trump and Bolsonaro.
Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.
That said, Milei’s comments cleverly tapped into anti-woke sentiment without committing to do anything illiberal. After all, there’s nothing illiberal about abolishing a Women’s Ministry. So there might be nothing to worry about on this score.
A more clearly disappointing campaign tactic was Milei’s opposition to legalising euthanasia.
But this tactic may well have been a smart move. A large proportion of Argentinians claim to be Catholic, and the Catholic Church is staunchly anti-euthanasia. Argentinian politics, even for presidential elections, involves considerable coalition building, with Milei’s party working with Argentina’s Faith Party. Milei also faced significant criticism from the Church for wanting to slash welfare, so perhaps it was best to concentrate the attack on the Church at its weakest point.
Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish-list. Milei’s alliance of parties will have 38 of the 257 seats in the lower house of the national parliament, and 7 of the 72 seats in the upper house.
Argentina is a federal country, and there is next to no libertarian presence at Argentina’s provincial level.
Many of the circumstances of Milei’s election will not be replicated in Australia. It seems that Milei was elected because both the traditional left-wing grouping (who were in government) and the traditional right-wing grouping (who were in opposition) were unusually splintered and unpopular. Both groupings also lacked a charismatic leader, with both the incumbent President and Vice President not contesting the election. Such conditions could occur in Australia.
But the main reason Milei was elected was Argentina’s economic malaise. Argentina currently has one of the highest inflation rates in the world, and its economy is shrinking. The latest assessment of Freedom House is damning:
“Aggravated by corruption and political interference, the lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government. Leftist spending measures and price controls distort markets, and government interference still hobbles the financial sector. Fading confidence in the government’s determination to promote or even sustain open markets has discouraged entrepreneurship.”
Freedom House’s assessment of Australia is glowing in comparison.
So Argentina needs a libertarian leader more than Australia does, and hopefully more than Australia ever will. Milei’s election does not presage a global wave of libertarianism, but it is still great news, not just for Argentinians, but for Australians too. Let’s watch and learn.
Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.
Did Certain Events Really Take Place The Way They Have Been Presented?
Many readers will be aware of the term ‘red pill’. But for those who are not, it refers to a scene in the 1999 blockbuster The Matrix where the main protagonist, Neo, is presented with the option of continuing to live in his computer-simulated reality by taking the blue pill, or to be exposed to the unsettling truth of his existence by taking the red pill. In the decades since, being ‘red pilled’ has come to refer to waking up to the unsettling realities of our controlled existence.
To take the white pill is to abandon despair and surrender to the optimism of hope.
DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE In the last few years, use of the pill metaphor to represent different ideologies and worldviews has continued to expand. Yet while many are now aware of red and blue pills, far fewer are aware of black and white pills.
The commonly understood pathway is that we begin in a blue-pilled existence: we accept the world around us as the truth and do not question what is presented before us. Most people spend their entire lives perceiving the world this way – never delving below the surface level. Some of us begin to question the world we see around us: we become red pilled. Is the government really acting in our best interests? Are we truly free? Did certain events really take place the way they have been presented?
The awakening that comes from taking the red pill can often spur someone to action. The realisation that all is not as it seems must be shouted from the rooftops; people need to be woken from their living slumber and see what is really going on. But the reality is that most people want to continue living in the simulation. Challenging your worldview and potentially shattering everything you believe to be true is hard, and that is a journey most people are not willing to take.
THE BLACK PILL Those who are red pilled can become disillusioned by their failed efforts. Ultimately they believe that nothing matters and any efforts to change are futile: they take the ‘black pill’. They become extreme nihilists. For many, their journey ends here: bitter at the world for failing to see what they see. They withdraw, believing that the living zombies around them deserve this world they have created.
Unfortunately many libertarians, and those who are politically active, fall into this trap. Stuck in a sad, black-pilled existence; determined that they will be further alienated by an increasingly authoritarian world. Looking around, particularly during recent Covid tyranny, it is hard not to agree. News of new, “deadly” Covid strains, incoming global warming lockdowns, 20-minute cities, a growing surveillance state and unending censorship is incredibly depressing to those of us who believe in freedom, prosperity and human enterprise.
ANOTHER WAY There is one final step on this journey: the ‘white pill’. To take the white pill is to abandon despair and surrender to the optimism of hope. Unlike the blue pilled, who are hopeful due to ignorant optimism, being white pilled requires you to challenge nihilism with reason and inquiry. In other words, it is to become cynical of cynicism and sceptical of scepticism.
we accept the world around us as the truth and do not question what is presented before us.
There is nothing dishonest or unprincipled about taking the white pill. While the blue pill represents optimism due to ignorance, the white pill represents optimism in spite of ignorance. And not only is it ideologically authentic, it is also much more likely to convince others of the merits of freedom and liberty. When you live your life as a beacon of hope and reasoned optimism, others will be naturally drawn to you. When you live a sad and bitter existence, others cannot wait to get away from you.
WALK YOUR OWN WAY Libertarians might not enjoy much political success, but I don’t particularly care what a bunch of bloated public servants in a fancy room hundreds of miles away from me say – and neither should you. These are people who I have never met and do not relate to in any way. Despite what they may call themselves, they are not my representatives.
Winning seats in parliaments should not be our metric for success; rather living a free and prosperous life. Freedom comes from within, and I know I will always be a free man unless I let them take it from me!
Have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the festive season, free and white pilled.
While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.
SA State Government to stop bludging on the other states
On 1 July 2014, my first day as a Senator, Adelaide’s Advertiser newspaper published an opinion piece I had submitted titled, Shedding the ‘Bludger State’ tag, in which I implored the SA State Government to stop bludging on the other states and start standing on its own two feet.
Then Premier Jay Weatherill responded by calling me ‘an enemy of the state’.
Many South Australians can probably remember the time when more than a dozen of Australia’s top 100 listed companies had their head offices in Adelaide – News Ltd, Fauldings, Southcorp, Elders, Normandy Mining, Adelaide Bank, Adelaide Brighton, Standard Chartered Finance to name just a few. Today there’s just one – Santos (and even Santos is only headquartered in Adelaide because of some vague arrangement).
At the time of Federation, South Australia led the constitutional debates and had an influential hand in shaping the new Commonwealth of Australia. For decades after, Adelaide was Australia’s Number 3 city – bigger and more prosperous than either Brisbane or Perth.
Led by Tom Playford, South Australia prospered under the principle of ‘cheap land, cheap power, cheap water, and cheap labour’. Wages were lower than in Sydney and Melbourne, but despite the lower pay packets, South Australians’ quality of life and standard of living were higher than their interstate counterparts.
Not surprisingly, the first area where the boundaries between state and Federal governments were tested related to tax.
It was an example of genuine competitive federalism – not the pseudo competitive federalism of today in which state governments try to outdo each other enticing companies to set up in their states.
Since those halcyon days, South Australia has lost each of the competitive edges that made it prosperous.
First to go was cheap land – thanks to urban planning controls – then water, then centralised wage fixing (waiters, nurses, and factory workers across Australia all had to get the same pay).
As for power prices, they are now not just the highest in Australia, but some of the highest in the world.
Last year, the South Australian premier folded like a pack of cards over nuclear power. The idea that he and his Labor colleagues would take on the urban planners, water barons and unions to make SA competitive again is laughable.
SA is destined to be a mendicant State for a long time to come.
Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke once said, “We’re all Australians, whether we’re from Melbourne or Sydney”.
Where those from the ‘outlying States’ (as Paul Keating called them) belonged, was anyone’s guess.
When Australia came together as a nation in 1901, Sir Samuel Griffith, nailed it by saying:
“We must not lose sight of the essential condition that this is to be a federation of states and not a single government of Australia. The separate states are to continue as autonomous bodies, surrendering only so much of their power as is necessary for the establishment of a general government to do for them collectively what they cannot do individually for themselves.”
Sir Samuel Griffith
Those who spend the money should raise the money
The powers given to the Federal Government by the states in 1901 included trade and commerce, corporations, currency, banking, pensions, taxation, foreign affairs, communications, copyright, marriage and family law, quarantine, and defence.
There was no mention of hospitals, schools, disability services, pink batts, carbon dioxide emissions or many of the other things that federal governments these days decide they want to spend our money on.
Not surprisingly, the first area where the boundaries between state and Federal governments were tested related to tax.
In 1942, all income taxing power was handed to the Federal government for the duration of World War II under the ‘defence’ power of the Constitution. This was intended to be temporary and was to last until the end of the war. But as predictable as the sunrise, when the war ended the Feds did not relinquish their income tax collector role (not that the states wanted to resume income tax collection, but that is not the point).
Since then, the tax revenue balance has continued to move away from the states and towards the Feds. The imbalance which now exists is known as ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’.
South Australians’ quality of life and standard of living were higher than their interstate counterparts.
Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federal country in the world. The Federal government raises over 70% of all government revenues – much more than is required to fund its own operations – while the states don’t raise anywhere near enough to fund theirs. The Feds then make up the states’ shortfall through Commonwealth grants.
This creates a perpetual blame game. Failures at the state level are blamed on the Feds’ lack of funding, and failures at the federal level are blamed on the states’ poor service delivery.
Duplication of health and education bureaucracies alone costs taxpayers billions of dollars, yet the Feds do not run a single hospital or a single school.
This cannot go on. State and Federal governments should only collect taxes for their own purposes, and taxpayers and consumers should be fully informed as to what is a state tax and what is a Federal tax. Those who spend the money should bear the responsibility of raising it.
This confusing power structure between the states and the Federal government – and between individual states – was emphatically exposed during Covid, with many calling for the abolition of state governments and the formation of one national government.
But as Covid revealed, the Federal government doesn’t have the power it thought it had. The Feds may have the money, but it’s the states that have the power.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
To comprehend the vast folly of the wind power industry, we can ask one logical question: Is the business concept viable?
Assessing business viability necessitates a comprehensive review of financial projections, operational feasibility, profitability and return on investment (ROI).
Financial analysis demands meticulous examination of startup costs and operational expenses, versus revenue.
Operational feasibility assesses practical aspects, evaluating the availability of resources and skilled personnel.
And profitability and ROI requires the business to generate revenue in a manner that justifies investment.
Successful businesses meticulously align these factors to achieve sustained success in the free market.
Keep this information in mind as we look at business cases from the wind power industry over the past year.
Financial Trouble
Markbygden Ett: The owners of the Markbygden Ett sub-project, part of Europe’s largest onshore wind complex, are undergoing financial restructuring in the Umeå district court, northern Sweden. Facing bankruptcy, the company’s financial struggles stem from an unprofitable 19-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed with Hydro in 2017. The fixed-volume PPA obliges the company to buy power on the spot market during insufficient wind production, incurring costs due to intermittency. Spot prices rise when wind power is low, contributing to substantial losses.
This exit cost the Danish company $2.2-2.6 billion in penalties.
Siemens Energy AG: Siemens Energy AG is facing a substantial downturn, its share price having dropped nearly 70% since June. This is mainly attributed to issues within its wind turbine subsidiary, Siemens Gamesa. The company projects a €4.5bn loss for the year due to quality problems and offshore ramp-up challenges. Additionally, technical faults in onshore turbine models are expected to cost around €1.6bn to rectify. Siemens Gamesa’s CEO highlighted concerns including rotor blade wrinkles and bearing particles, posing risks to critical components. Siemens Energy aimed to address these issues, but struggled to secure guarantees for its order book. This contributed to a €2bn loss in Q3. Germany’s government approved a €15 billion financial package, including €7.5 billion in loan guarantees, to support Siemens Energy in delivering Germany’s renewable projects. However, the company’s challenges persist.
Cancelled Projects
Ørsted: The world’s biggest wind power developer received approval to develop wind power off the New Jersey coast in June this year. It terminated both developments five months later due to soaring costs. This exit cost the Danish company $2.2-2.6 billion in penalties.
Avangrid: Avangrid, a member of the Iberdrola Group, is terminating power purchase agreements (PPAs) for the Park City Wind offshore project in Connecticut, citing industry challenges like inflation and supply chain disruptions. This follows their similar move with the Commonwealth Wind project in Massachusetts, resulting in a $48 million penalty. Avangrid plans to rebid both projects. These decisions align with a broader trend of wind project cancellations and challenges nationwide, including requests to government for rate increases above those previously agreed.
Siemens Energy AG is facing a substantial downturn, its share price having dropped nearly 70% since June.
Fortescue: Fortescue Metals Group has abandoned its Uaroo Renewable Energy Hub project in Western Australia, once a key part of its green energy strategy. The multi-billion-dollar initiative aimed to build 340 wind turbines and a solar farm, generating up to 5.4 gigawatts. The project’s termination, marked by last month’s approval application withdrawal, signifies a shift in Fortescue’s commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.
Vattenfall: Swedish energy giant Vattenfall has halted plans for the Norfolk Boreas wind development, a crucial part of the UK’s green energy goals. The project, intended to power 1.5 million homes, faced a 40% cost increase due to global gas price surges and supply chain challenges. After winning a government contract with a record-low bid, Vattenfall deemed the project unprofitable amid changing market conditions. The decision incurred a £415 million penalty. This is still seen as prudent, considering lack of future profitability. Vattenfall urged the UK government to adapt the financial framework, and the government capitulated, agreeing to increase payments for offshore electricity generation. This intervention raised hopes for the Norfolk Boreas project’s resumption.
Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.
Australia’s centrally planned economy is failing – intergenerational wealth gaps are widening, economic prospects are waning, and the side effects from the Reserve Bank’s (RBA) medicine are becoming worse than the disease.
Inflation is a scourge, insidiously stealing wealth from those least able to protect themselves, and it benefits the least needy.
We hear all sorts of explanations as to why inflation is not the government’s fault: the RBA was too loose with monetary policy, AHPRA failed to regulate bank lending standards effectively; hell, even consumers themselves were blamed by former Governor Phillip Lowe.
But Lowe is gone now and the RBA board under Chalmer’s new darling, Michele Bullock, has continued to hike rates with a 25 basis point increase last week. It’s high time the government understood that fighting inflation is going to require some sacrifice of its own. As Dimitri Burshtein explained, more tax doesn’t make for better government; likewise, more government spending doesn’t curb inflation.
Dumb and Dumber
The RBA effectively only has one instrument to fight inflation – and that is to increase the cash rate, the thinking being that if borrowing becomes more expensive then demand will be sapped from the wider economy. Australia is a land of high household debt, and it’s largely mortgage holders who feel the pinch when rates rise.
Australia desperately needs synergy between the government and RBA on inflation
What is truly disappointing about the current economic climate is the complete lack of synergy among our central planners – and their approach to the drivers of inflation. The Government seeks to relieve cost of living pressures with subsidies, welfare and spending, while the RBA is slamming the brakes on. We also cannot hope to tame inflation if infrastructure spending remains at record highs and the bureaucracy continues to grow (Georgia shows what must be done).
Where credit is due
The ‘lender class’ are older Australians who have paid off their homes and are now seeking better returns on their investments – a higher cash rate delivers them higher returns (albeit reduced in real terms by inflation). Meanwhile, mortgage holders only see their costs rise as rates climb, squeezing their already tightening budgets. Downstream from this, renters are slugged as their landlords pass on higher mortgage repayments amidst low rental stock.
The ‘lendee class’ is getting smashed on two fronts – inflation on the cost of goods and services, while the RBA’s rate hikes squeeze them even more.
There has to be a better way.
Government to the rescue
The Federal Government needs to take three key steps to reduce the impact of inflation on the ‘lendee class’.
Reduce or remove excise tax on fuel, alcohol and tobacco
Measures that decrease the cost of items are needed, not inflationary welfare that only continues to drive demand. Fuel excise is particularly important due to its impact on the transportation costs of goods. Meanwhile alcohol and tobacco excise disproportionately affect lower income earners.
Reduce GST, or expand the criteria for exempt items
The Goods and Services Tax disproportionately affects lower income workers as the tax applies as a flat rate on all eligible items, many of which are essential. This will impact state government revenue but with many household budgets at breaking point, they too will have to learn to live within their means.
Inflation is a scourge, insidiously stealing wealth from those least able to protect themselves
Sensible energy policy
A thriving economy needs cheap and abundant energy, with energy being a key input across the supply chain, not to mention household budgets. Australia must abandon its 2050 net-zero and 2030 emissions reduction targets. We should welcome investment in coal fired power and natural gas, which we have in abundance. Longer term we must embrace nuclear power.
Not only would these policies provide genuine relief for those suffering the most from inflation, but they would actually reduce the costs of production and business, helping the RBA rein in inflation.
Australia desperately needs synergy between the government and RBA on inflation, and the attempts of Chalmers and co to direct public scorn onto the central bank in order to save face are a great shame. If Australian households are expected to do it tough for a while, it’s high time our government accepted the same responsibility. After all, it takes two to tango.
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
The Immigration Debate in Australia: Assessing Infrastructure and Policy for Sustainable Growth
Every few years, Australia has a major debate about immigration. Sometimes due to people arriving by boats and claiming refugee status, at other times by a public figure saying something about a ‘Big Australia’, it is a subject on which most people have an opinion.
The current debate is a bit different. The Covid border closures and lockdowns meant immigration ceased. With no immigrants, backpackers, foreign students or Pacific farm workers, some industries ground to a halt.
The debate now is not so much about whether immigration is needed, but whether our infrastructure can cope with the numbers.
Because governments are no better at setting prices than choosing immigrants, it could also use an auction system to set visa prices.
That debate is not helped by the fact that Australia does not have a coherent immigration policy. In the post-Covid environment, the Government is simply making short-term decisions to address immediate needs based on industry pressure. It is also deliberately boosting immigration to avoid a decline in GDP for two consecutive quarters.
From a libertarian perspective, immigration is one of the few issues in which governments have a role. While free trade in goods and services are no-brainers, the free movement of labour is not sustainable in a welfare state. The question is, how could a market operate?
The current approach involves the government not only deciding how many people the country should admit, but what kinds of people. This equates to central planning, with bureaucrats purporting to know what the economy requires. Needless to say, this is not remotely comparable to the employment decisions of hundreds of thousands of businesses and individuals.
A better approach would before the government to set broad parameters, while the market does the rest. This could be achieved by charging a significant fee for residence visas (there is a fee already but it’s just $4640) and then getting out of the way.
This idea originated from the Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker, who recommended it as a solution to the problem of illegal immigration in America and the UK. What he proposed is for the government to set a price (or prices) according to how many people it wished to admit, then allow everyone who can pay that price to come in apart from obvious exceptions like terrorists. That is, the government would not be picking and choosing who to admit.
Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker
He also suggests the program would reduce opposition to immigration by eliminating the sense that immigrants were getting ‘a free ride’. Fees would contribute to the cost of maintaining and renewing infrastructure that others had paid for.
Becker argues that as well as being a revenue raiser for governments, the policy would ensure that only the most productive and skilled immigrants would be attracted. Having paid the fee, the immigrants would be committed to their adopted country and keen to make a go of it.
Industries or employers short of workers could cover or subsidise the entry fees of those they wish to employ, while regions keen to boost their populations could do the same.
Fees could be reduced or waived for a number of bona fide refugees fleeing persecution, while those who support the entry of more refugees could raise funds to pay their entry fees.
Because governments are no better at setting prices than choosing immigrants, it could also use an auction system to set visa prices. This would allow the market to operate via the price mechanism.
From a libertarian perspective, immigration is one of the few issues in which governments have a role.
Importantly, payment of the fee should only allow for permanent residence. Access to welfare (unemployment, etc)should be reserved for citizens, with citizenship restricted to those who had established themselves over a number of years, share our values of freedom and democracy, and have demonstrated their desire to build a long-term future in Australia.
Those unable to find work may have their visa cancelled and be subject to deportation, although short term benefits might be justified on the grounds that it was covered by the fee they paid.
This system would ensure intending permanent immigrants were well aware of the need to gain employment.The most qualified and employable person in a family would be first to pay the fee and take up residence, working to save the funds for other family members. Over time, families would be reunited in Australia as they are now, except that each member would have made a valuable contribution to the economy.
Temporary immigrants (tourists, backpackers, seasonal workers, students, etc) would not be required to pay the fee unless they sought permanent residence (as many foreign students do.) This approach would apply market forces to the selection of immigrants. With markets infinitely better than governments at allocating resources, the outcome for Australia could only be positive.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
Philosophy #1: Living On Other People’s Money Is Unwise
When reading the news and opinion, I am frequently mindful of the idea of other people’s money and the perceptive words of French economist Frederic Bastiat, who wrote that “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”
I thought of Bastiat when reading a recent opinion column by Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. There really needs to be a better lexigraphy to reflect the differences between the economic writings of Bastiat and Gittins. After all, we don’t call plumbers aquatic surgeons.
Philosophy #2: Exploiting Other People’s Money Is Good
In Gittins’ latest, he again advocates for higher taxes, because “… paying tax is good and, for better government, we should pay more”. Evidence be damned, that ever more expensive government has delivered ever worse outcomes – from education, to health, to defence. But for some, it is axiomatic that we must tax other people’s money more.
Messrs Gittins and Keating: you are welcome to voluntarily pay higher tax. But until you do, please don’t demand that others are forcibly required to do so.
As long as it is other people’s taxes. The funny thing is that those who advocate higher taxes never seem to volunteer to pay higher taxes themselves. No doubt, the ATO would accept voluntary contributions, but that is not the game. Higher tax advocates don’t want to pay higher taxes themselves. They just want other people’s money so that they can “live at the expense of everyone else” as Bastiat predicted.
Call To Authority
Gittins starts his case with a call to authority saying that “former top econocrat did something no serving econocrat is allowed to do, and no politician is game to do: he set out the case for us to pay higher, not lower, taxes.” That former econocrat is Michael Keating (unrelated to Paul Keating) and he delivered his remarks at the Australia Institute’s revenue summit at Parliament House in Canberra. That’s the Australia Institute that has never found a tax or regulation they did not like.
Keating and Gittins are reflecting what is known as bureaucrat logic: that increasing input delivers better outcomes.
Classical liberal economist, Frederic Bastiat. He cautioned frugality with other people’s money.
Permit some definitions:
Inputs are resources going in – such as dollars.
Outputs are things that are produced with the inputs – such as patients treated or students graduated.
Outcomes are the results – such as healthy citizens and kids who can read.
But for some, it is axiomatic that taxes must be increased.
No Linear Relationship Between Inputs and Outcomes
Bureaucrats, econocrats and many politicians seem to believe that, despite evidence upon evidence to the contrary, there is a linear relationship between inputs and outcomes. Increase education spending and you get more literate kids. Huge increases in Gonski funding delivering worse education outcomes is just a bump in the road. Even more is required.
Messrs Gittins and Keating: you are welcome to voluntarily pay higher tax. But until you do, please don’t demand that others are forcibly required to do so.
As American writer Harlan Ellison said: “The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.” There seems to be a high concentration of both in Canberra.
Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.
Most of the recent increases in rents simply reflect that the prices of all things are going up. General prices have gone up by 5.4 per cent over the past year and rents have gone up by 7.6 per cent. If monetary policy had been implemented properly, general prices would have risen by around 2.5 per cent and rents would have risen by around 4.6 per cent.
Over the past decade the average annual rise in rents has been a measly 1.5 per cent.
Housing in Australia is becoming less crowded, not more. Over recent years the average number of people per residence has fallen slightly, and there has been little change in the average number of square metres per residence.
It may well be that we are in a homelessness crisis, given reports of increased demand for homelessness services throughout 2023. But this does not mean there is a housing crisis more broadly, or that we should be attempting to lower rents for everyone. Homelessness warrants policy tailored to those at risk.
Government should do nothing about housing.
Stamp duties, land taxes and local government rates should be abolished. Current negative gearing rules and CGT exemptions should remain.
Government’s slow release of residential land, and its restraint on urban infill, may be optimal.
Land holders do not currently own the right to build as high as they wish, or to build residential properties on land not zoned as residential. Effectively, these rights are owned by the general citizenry. It could be that the general citizenry wants agricultural land on the outskirts of cities to remain agricultural, and low-rise suburbs to remain low-rise. We could find out if development restrictions reflect the wishes of the general citizenry by introducing trading into our planning systems.
It is reasonable for local government to charge developers the full cost of infrastructure for a new suburb. After all, the alternative is for local government to go into debt and recoup these costs through taxation of future residents.
Governments should not provide public housing, as government has no inherent advantages in constructing housing or being a landlord.
Government should not subsidise housing, either through public housing or subsidies to private operators providing ‘affordable’ housing. Such subsidy arrangements inevitably deliver different degrees of assistance to people who are equally deserving, depending on the vagaries of waiting lists and where the public or affordable housing is offered.
Government welfare should not be delivered as rent assistance. Under current arrangements, if an individual moves from one rental property to a cheaper rental property, or to a property where no rent is charged, the individual receives less from government. Government should not discourage such economising.
When determining its policy on migration, government should not account for the impact of migrants on rents and house prices. These are impacts on private, voluntary transactions. We should remember that, when a migrant bids up a rent or a house price, more often than not this involves a benefit to an Australian landlord or home-owner. What migration policy should take into account is its impacts in the public realm, like the congestion on public assets like roads.
Housing in Australia is becoming less crowded, not more.
Finally, tax policy should be blind as to whether an asset is a housing asset or not.
Land taxes and local government rates should be abolished. Such taxes discourage improvements to the land itself, such as efforts to improve soil quality. These taxes also discourage housing improvements, as they inevitably stray into taxing what lies on the land. And like all wealth and income taxes, these taxes discourage working and saving more than broad-based consumption taxation.
Deductions should continue to be available when losses are made, whether these losses are from investing in rental property or from other investments. In other words, current negative gearing rules should be maintained.
Capital gains tax is a bad tax, so anything that reduces its application, including the capital gains tax exemption for owner-occupied housing and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for individuals, should remain.
The rise and fall of prices goes hand in hand with the allocation of scarce resources to those most willing to pay for them. This phenomenon is something to be appreciated rather than lamented.
In essence, the rents we see are the right rents. If governments were to adopt a ‘do nothing’ attitude to housing, we would be better off.
Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.
Li Keqiang, China’s former Prime Minister, passed away on 27th October 2023, at the age of 68. His death has plunged many in China and around the world into mourning, particularly those who supported his vision of greater economic freedom rather than increased state control in China, and towards more political diversity instead of ever-increasing centralised power.
Li Keqiang was widely regarded as a successor to Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening-up policy, favouring reform-oriented policies and continued economic liberalisation within the framework of the Chinese socialist market economy. Throughout his tenure he was a steadfast advocate for economic liberalisation, transparency, and international cooperation. His economic philosophy, often summarised as “Likonomics,” was characterised by avoiding large-scale government stimulus measures, focusing on reducing debt levels within the economy, especially in the shadow banking system and amongst local governments, and pushing for structural reforms to let market forces play a decisive role in the economy.
For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability.
Despite his concerted efforts, Li Keqiang faced an ongoing struggle with the more dominant state-centric approach favoured by Supreme Leader Xi Jinping. Li’s push for economic reforms often met with a level of centralised power not seen since the death of Chairman Mao. Xi aggressively consolidated power, even amending the Constitution of China to grant himself the potential for a lifelong presidency. Although Li sometimes seemed sidelined, his commitment to his reformist principles never wavered as he continued to advocate for economic modernisation and the growth of private enterprise within the confines of the prevailing political climate.
The passing of Li Keqiang carries weight that goes beyond the loss of a political figure; it symbolises the dimming of a progressive era in China’s storied journey toward modernisation. As a top-tier leader with a solid background in economics, he championed a new direction in Chinese policy – a route lined with broader economic and political freedoms. For the many Chinese who share his dream, his death sharply underscores the complex and often difficult political realities that shape the nation’s progression towards liberalisation.
During Li Keqiang’s time as Prime Minister, clashes between two opposing ideologies were occasionally evident – Xi Jinping’s assertive centralisation of power on one side and Li’s advocacy for economic decentralisation on the other. The 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, held in October 2022, signalled a decisive shift, affirming the dominance of Xi’s vision. It was a defining moment that resulted in the thorough marginalisation of Li and his fellow reform-minded colleagues, signalling the end of the reformist era they had supported.
Li Keqiang’s legacy will be recorded in the annals of China’s contemporary history as a testament to ‘what might have been’ in an era of tightened control. His consistent efforts to liberalise the economy—where private enterprise could operate with greater autonomy and where market forces were allowed a more decisive role — resonated with many who envisioned a China more integrated with the global economic system. As China’s second-in-command, Li’s voice for moderate reform provided a counterpoint to the prevailing trend of centralisation, offering a ray of hope for a middle path that might lead China towards a more open society and a more resilient economy.
For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability. The sorrow that has accompanied his passing goes beyond a simple tribute to a leader’s memory. It reflects a profound collective longing to preserve his vision for China – a vision of a balanced economy that supports both individual and economic freedoms in society. In the wake of his passing, his parting words resonate with particular poignancy: “While people work, heaven watches. Heaven has eyes.” These words, ultimately omitted from the official record, now take on a profound significance as the nation reflects on the end of his tenure and his life.
As the nation arrives at a pivotal juncture in its history, this period of mourning also presents a vital opportunity for reflection on how China will navigate the intricate balance between preserving internal stability, managing relations with Taiwan and the Western world, and confronting the myriad challenges posed by regional conflicts and global economic instability.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
Typically, when the Government is criticised for its interference in our private lives and businesses, it justifies this by drawing a comparison with European countries. Sure, Australia has unsustainable state and federal deficits, business closures exceed new businesses, there is increasing crime and homelessness, a housing affordability and supply crisis, plus a plethora of worsening social and economic statistics. But some of our taxes are lower than Germany, we are not as broke as Greece, and citizens are freer than in North Korea. Therefore, apparently, everything is fantastic.
The Government has a point, though. Looking at the nations of the G20, most are facing far bigger problems than Australia, and none are moving in a libertarian direction. All are increasing taxation, expanding the size and scope of the public sector, and raising the difficulty of operating a private business. There are almost no recent examples of a country achieving superior outcomes by moving in the opposite direction; except, perhaps, for the small nation of Georgia.
… first task was to cull the regulation that was facilitating the widespread corruption and strangling the Georgian economy.
Georgia was the birthplace of Joseph Stalin and formerly part of the Soviet Union. A decade after the Soviet Union’s collapse, it was a basket case. The government was insolvent; the country was rife with corruption, crime and poverty; the police force was essentially a mafioso street gang; infrastructure was crumbling; utilities such as power and water only functioned occasionally.
In 2003 there was a revolution and Mikhail Saakashvili was elected to the presidency. The usual gaggle of globalist socialist technocrats showered Saakashvili with the usual ruinous recommendations straight from the book ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’: take out impossibly huge IMF loans, increase taxation and impose ruthless austerity.
Shockingly, Saakashvili declined the loans and socialistc advice; incurring ridicule and disapproval from the EU, US and IMF. Instead, he immediately cut taxes by 70%.
Mikheil Saakashvili. Third President of Georgia. 2008-2013.
As a result, rather than deepening the country’s bankruptcy – as predicted by the IMF – tax revenue doubled in just the first year. Over Saakashvili’s two terms, the economy went on to quadruple in size while tax revenue increased 1200% and poverty decreased by 75%.
Saakashvili appointed a committed, renowned libertarian, Kakha Bendukidze, as the Minister of Economy and Reform Coordination. Bendukidze was no academic bureaucrat; he was a self-made multi-centi-millionaire. He had a degree in biology and made his fortune creating a chemical manufacturing empire in Russia.
Bendukidze’s first task was to cull the regulation that was facilitating the widespread corruption and strangling the Georgian economy. The head of every government agency was forced to justify their existence to him, like contestants on the TV show, Shark Tank. Bendukidze had authority to eliminate any agency on the spot.
Among the first of the Agencies to be eliminated was the police force. The force was determined to be so corrupt, and so distrusted by the populace, that the only solution was to fire everyone. So that is what they did. Somehow they managed to quickly form a new police force. The whole exercise earned the trust and respect of citizens, so the streets became safe. Within just three years Georgia was ranked among the top countries in the world for personal safety.
Shockingly, Saakashvili declined the loans and socialistc advice; incurring ridicule and disapproval from the EU, US and IMF. Instead, he immediately cut taxes by 70%.
In his first two months, Bendukidze slashed approximately 70% of regulations and the majority of government agencies. He and Saakashvili also instituted a policy that no new regulation could be added unless two existing regulations were repealed. In total they achieved a 90% reduction in regulations, resulting in Georgia being recognised as the top reforming country in the world by the World Bank, and leaping from 137th to 8th in the Ease of Doing Business rankings. It also went from ranking among the most corrupt countries in Europe, to 3rd least corrupt.
They not only cut tax rates; they cut the tax code down to just six taxes, and amended the constitution so that the only way to increase taxation was via a referendum. This gave confidence to the international investment community that Georgia’s reforms were stable and reliable, resulting in a quadrupling of the rate of international investment.
Georgia represents a compelling case study in contemporary politics and economics. It was brought to ruin by Marxism, then revived by the unapologetic application of libertarian principles and free market capitalism.
Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.
How does a country go from being highly investible to completely uninvestible? In many cases this seemingly happens overnight.
Prior to the Chávez administration, Venezuela was a highly investible country, with an economy that was the envy of their South American counterparts. Now, thanks to an unstable socialist government and unexpected legislative changes, no prudent investor would put their money anywhere near Venezuela. In finance, this concept is known as legislative risk.
AUSTRALIA: LEGISLATIVE RISK-OFF
In Australia, we have always prided ourselves on an economy that punches well above our geopolitical weight. Despite being a small and distant country, we have adopted a favourable attitude towards foreign investment and maintained an active foreign exchange market with minimal capital controls. This has earned Australia AAA credit ratings and favourable dispositions from international bodies and foreign investors – as well as local investors.
Simply put, legislative risk means we all must consider whether Australia is stable enough to be worth investing in – and not just financially.
However, I cannot help the feeling that things are starting to change. During Covid, it did not take long for Australia to revert to its isolationist ways. By slamming our borders shut and keeping them shut well beyond many other countries, we began destroying our service and education industries – Australia’s biggest exports outside of the mining industry. While tourists and students are slowly returning to our shores, other legislative risks are beginning to present themselves.
Tourists are slowly returning
LEGISLATIVE RISK BEYOND COVID
It is not just me that feels this way. Recently Binance, the biggest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, halted Australian-dollar deposits and withdrawals. It is evident their currency partner was simply unwilling to take on the growing risk of overburdening regulation in Australia’s financial sector. While Binance has assured Australian clients that Australian-dollar deposits and withdrawals will resume when they find a new partner, several months on they are all still searching. Is no one in the crypto space willing to touch Australia?
The danger of unexpected legislative change is a concept West Australian farmers are all too familiar with. While the WA Labor Government has backed down from requiring farmers and regional landholders to consult with indigenous communities regarding any changes they wish to make to their land or farming practices, more subversive versions of this legislation are on their way. Had the Voice to Parliament become a reality, this may have been something we all have to learn – and it may well still be via state and territory legislation.
Australian firearms owners and shooters have experienced legislative risk for decades, even if they were not aware of the term.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN
Simply put, legislative risk means we all must consider whether Australia is stable enough to be worth investing in – and not just financially.
Is it worth pursuing higher education if the job you are studying for might be regulated out of existence?
… other legislative risks are beginning to present themselves.
Is it worth buying property in Australia, whether you’re a buying your first home or you’re a foreign investor, if you are not sure how long it’s going to be before you’re paying indigenous rent?
Is it worth starting an alternative media platform if you are not sure how long it will take until you are shut down and fined by the Ministry of Truth?
These are just some of the questions we all must ask ourselves before we start a business, pursue a degree or start a family in Australia. They are certainly questions I find myself asking more and more frequently.
While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.
An Australian was on holidays in the south of France.
Strolling along outside his hotel, the Aussie was suddenly attracted by the screams of a young woman kneeling in front of a small child.
The Aussie knew enough French to determine that the child had swallowed a coin.
Seizing the little boy by the heels, the Aussie held the boy up and gave him a few good shakes and out popped the coin.
“Oh, thank you sir, thank you,” cried the woman.
“You seemed to know just how to get that coin out of him, are you a doctor?”
“No madam,” replied the man, “I’m with the Australian Tax Office.”
In my last post, Prison Break, I spoke of rights and responsibilities.
… when taxation rates are reduced revenues do not fall.
Regulations that prevent people from working under terms and conditions which suited them, was, I said, an infringement on liberty, freedom and dignity. It violated a person’s right to get a job and their responsibility to provide for their families.
I will now add a further hazard – it prevents them from paying tax to cover the many services the state provides to that person.
Rights … responsibilities … and tax. They are all linked.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Finance Minister to King Louis XIV of France, famously declared that “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”
A modern finance minister might rephrase this as, “The largest possible amount of revenue with the smallest possible amount of economic and political damage.”
Which brings me to a man called Arthur Laffer.
I had the privilege of meeting the famous US economist in Parliament House in 2015. Dr Laffer was in Australia on a speaking tour.
Arthur Laffer is of course most famous for his Laffer Curve.
It is self-evident that tax revenue would be zero if tax rates are set at 0% (bottom left corner of the graph).
Revenue would also, of course, be zero if rates were set at 100% (bottom right corner).
Starting at 0%, as tax rates rise, revenue also rises until at some point on the graph it starts decreasing as it heads towards that 100% point.
Eminent Australian and UK economist Colin Clark once said economic growth declines if taxation is more than 25 per cent of GDP.
It’s also been said, “When the taxes of a nation exceed 20% of the people’s income, there is a lack of respect of government. When it exceeds 25%, lawlessness.”
In Australia it is close to 30%.
Take one example of this lawlessness – the cash economy, currently estimated at 15 percent of GDP, one of the largest in the developed world. An underground economy of that magnitude requires the involvement not only of a lot of businesses, but also of millions of consumers.
As we know, laws only work when people believe in them and clearly, they have no respect for our tax laws.
It’s also been said, “When the taxes of a nation exceed 20% of the people’s income, there is a lack of respect of government. When it exceeds 25%, lawlessness.” In Australia it is close to 30%.
Despite what many advocating tax increases would have us believe, the total tax take in Australia is quite high. They say that compared with other developed economies, Australia is a low tax country, and that workers and companies could comfortably pay more. Not so.
When it comes to taxing incomes, Australia is up there with the Europeans and is way ahead of most of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region.
A paper published by the Adam Smith Institute stated, “If you look at the experience of those who have introduced a single-rate flat tax, and also the tax reforms of the 1980s which took place in Britain and America, reducing tax rates causes revenues to rise.”
As Arthur Laffer showed, and as has been demonstrated many times, when taxation rates are reduced revenues do not fall. When the Australian company tax rate was cut from 39 to 30 percent, revenues went up, not down. The famous Reagan tax cuts from 70% to 30% in the 1980s produced a $9 billion increase in revenue when a $1 billion shortfall had been forecast.
When Sweden halved its company tax rate from 60 per cent to 30 per cent, company tax revenue tripled.
Nobody enjoys paying taxes, but in the 1950s and 1960s relatively low taxation and a comparatively simple set of tax rules meant that most people paid what was due without too much complaint.
Today, however, the Government and the ATO find themselves locked into a destructive relationship of repression and resistance with ordinary taxpayers.
Where people can avoid tax by exploiting loopholes, they will do so; where they can’t eg PAYG taxpayers, they become resentful at the unfairness of it all.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
As Australia grapples with a crisis of housing supply and affordability, the ‘M’ word is rapidly re-entering the lexicon, this time from both the conservatives and progressives. Yet I can’t help but wonder whether and how much Australia’s current levels of migration influences issues such as housing affordability. I believe this is a red herring that has allowed proper scrutiny of resource allocation within Australia to be lazily sidestepped.
Everyone – from economists to politicians and everyday Australians – loves simple solutions to complex problems. The so-called ‘housing crisis’ is no different, and this time the primary culprit appears to be immigration. In the midst of skyrocketing costs and severe shortages of materials, new housing construction is far from meeting growing housing demand.
Not only do we have an unrealistic image of what type of dwelling or location we need to live in, but both taxes and regulation act as a disincentive to the type of nimbleness that a housing ‘crisis’ demands.
The affordability of houses and land has long been an economic challenge in Australia and, as Bob Day pointed out, vested interests tend to keep it that way. High house prices are politically popular given many Australians own their homes, but they also form the backbone of state budgets through inflated stamp duty and land taxes.
There is another angle here too – Jobs and Skills Australia reported last month that a whopping 36% of occupations in Australia are experiencing a worker shortage. An economic vacuum exists that can only be filled in the short term by migration – yet apparently there is nowhere to house them.
Or is there?
Let’s take a look at a couple of graphs …
What this shows is that the most common type of dwellings in Australia have three or four bedrooms, yet the most common household sizes are single or two occupants. There is also a trend towards rates of single and two person households that has slightly accelerated in recent years. Do we have a ‘housing crisis’? Or do we have a ‘misallocation of housing crisis’?
It sounded callous and out of touch when ex RBA Governor Phillip Lowe told Australians to rent out an extra room or move in with mum and dad if cost-of-living was beginning to bite. But perhaps he was right. Maybe it’s not a case of Australia lacking the space for migrants, but that we lack the capacity to house each single or two-person household independently in their own dwellings. An attitude shift might be necessary.
This is highlighted by the fact that migrants on the whole – particularly the international students who anti-immigration economists have in their sights – are in fact adapting to the housing crisis much better than existing citizens. Housing researcher Dr Zahra Nasreen found that the majority of Sydney’s shared house accommodation was filled by international students and other migrants, along with young professionals.
Along with the drip-feeding of land supply, which artificially inflates prices, the difficulties in construction, the regulatory burden that stifles higher density infill, and the migration program, misallocation is a substantial contributor to our housing shortage.
Do we have a ‘housing crisis’? Or do we have a ‘misallocation of housing crisis’?
A major reason for this is stamp duty, which is an insidious block on housing mobility – punishing home-owners financially for up-sizing, down-sizing, or moving closer to employment opportunities. If we are to utilise our existing and future housing stock to its fullest capacity, we must abandon this tax.
Another reason is that family homes are not taken into account when assessing eligibility for welfare payments such as aged and disability pensions. This creates an incentive to remain in homes that, if sold for something smaller, would create surplus funds and threaten eligibility.
So far governments around Australia, particularly in Victoria, have simply targeted landlords, holiday home owners, short stay accommodation providers and empty land owners with new taxes and regulations. It is about time we had a serious conversation not only about how to increase our housing supply but how to maximise use our existing stock.
Not only do we have an unrealistic image of what type of dwelling or location we need to live in, but both taxes and regulation act as a disincentive to the type of nimbleness that a housing ‘crisis’ demands. Before we as libertarians abandon important principles such as freedom of movement and succumb to the allure of protectionism, we ought to ensure migration really is the problem they say it is.
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
The Albanese government manufactures political support using sacrificial lambs. One lamb lined up for sacrifice is the live sheep export industry. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website currently states that “The Australian Government has committed to phasing out live sheep exports from Australia by sea”.
Labor demurred when questioned pre-election, but the WA Labor platform clearly articulates the party’s position: “WA Labor recognises that there are strong economic, jobs and animal welfare reasons for transitioning from the live export trade to domestic processing of animals for local consumption and the chilled and frozen meat trade.”
Farmers Forced to Cull
Due to the La Niña system of the past three years, Australia has an excess of approximately 640,000 sheep. The incoming El Niño weather system will bring warm dry conditions, impeding feed growth. A recent report by Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences states that Australia’s agricultural sector will shrink by 14% in 2023-24. Simultaneously, Labor is pushing ahead with its live sheep export ban plan.
Both have contributed to the mutton price dropping from $100 per head in January 2023 to a devastating $1 per head over the last couple of months.
The government has played the live sheep export industry for a fool.
Trucking sheep to sales yards is particularly expensive currently, and there have been cases of unsold sheep returned to the farm at the producer’s expense.
In the face of this terrible confluence of factors, some farmers have been forced to shoot their sheep. A heartbreaking waste of life, work and resources.
World-class Sheep Welfare
Australia’s live sheep export is conducted by two exporters based in Western Australia. Sheep are sourced from across the state. An entire industry supports the complex logistics involved in this supply chain.
Throughout the live export process, sheep welfare is subject to rigorous oversight. Of over 100 countries that export livestock, Australia is the only one requiring adherence to specific animal welfare regulations for exported livestock, including after arrival in the importing country. These regulations include:
Farmgate to the ship: Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock 2021; and
Importing countries: Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) 2011.
On board the ships, sheep are accompanied by an Australian-accredited veterinarian. Vets complete three rounds of the decks per day. In addition to this, sheep are inspected before, during and after their journey by additional accredited animal health professionals. To ensure exporters are compliant with Australian welfare guidelines, each part of the supply chain across Australia and importing countries are also audited by independent, qualified entities at least once a year. Auditors review:
Animal handlers and their techniques; and
Facilities: ports, transport vehicles, feedlots, abattoirs.
Treacherous Memo
Known for its world-class standards, Australia raises robust and sought-after sheep. For multiple reasons, both cultural and economic, the countries in the Middle East prefer live export over chilled meat.
Formerly, Saudi Arabia was Australia’s prime sheep market, reaching one million sheep annually until trade ceased in 2012 due to that country rejecting Australia being involved in welfare once the sheep have arrived. Efforts have been underway to reopen live sheep exports to Saudi Arabia, compliant with Australian standards, through a revised health protocol. This would significantly boost the Australian sheep industry and potentially more than double current exports.
The Federal government states that access to the Saudi market is open, subject to meeting Australian requirements and ESCAS regulations. However, this statement is in direct contradiction to its own actions. Documents obtained via freedom of information state that bureaucrats advised Agriculture Minister Murray Watt in a department memo in January of 2023 that they were ending negotiations with foreign governments regarding new live export agreements.
Australia’s agricultural sector will shrink by 14% in 2023-24. Simultaneously, Labor is pushing ahead with its live sheep export ban plan.
This was months prior to Watt deploying his panel to consult on phasing out live export. The Department announced this in spite of interest in live sheep export agreements from multiple countries including Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Kuwait. The government has played the live sheep export industry for a fool.
Kuwait has indicated it regards Australia’s live export ban policy as hostile. Kuwait’s Commerce and Industry Minister, Mohammad Othman Al Aiban wrote to Minister Watt stating the ban will imperil relations between Australia and importing countries.
Farmers
On the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website, the government assures us that, “The phase out will not take place during this current term of the Australian Parliament.” This attempt at reassurance rings hollow, considering the department’s memo on ceasing negotiations.
The treacherous actions of the Department, and lack of a specific timetable, means that farmers have no way of planning for the future. Agriculture carries a high level of unpredictable risk, including droughts, floods and bushfires. The Labor government has heaped an unnecessary burden of risk and uncertainty on the industry.
Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.
Human history is replete with apocalyptists. People who believe that the end of world is nigh and that only complete power, in their hands of course, can save the world.
A famous bet was made in September 1980 that challenged this thinking. In 1980, economist Julian Simon challenged biologist Paul Ehrlich to a bet based on their opposing views on the scarcity of natural resources.
Ehrlich was the author of the 1968 book The Population Bomb, where he warned of overpopulation and resource depletion, predicting dire consequences for humanity in the coming decades. One can easily predict the policy recommendation of Ehrlich to manage human over population.
One of the most important lessons from this bet is the power of markets which, when unbothered by the dead hand of government, can efficiently allocate resources and incentivise conservation.
Soon after Ehrlich’s book was the establishment of the Club of Rome, which in 1972 published The Limits to Growth. This book was based on computer simulations that predicted resource depletion would lead to the end of economic growth and global conflict. Peak oil and all that.
Simon, on the other hand, believed that human ingenuity would lead to technologic innovation and development. And that the market mechanism, not totalitarian government, would result in greater availability of resources and human flourishing. Norman Borlaug and dwarf wheat and all that.
Resource DepletionHuman Flourishing
Their bet was whether the inflation-adjusted price of five specific metals would be higher or lower at the end of a ten-year measurement period. The metals were copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten. Simon bet that the prices would fall due to innovation and the price mechanism. Ehrlich predicted they would rise due to scarcity and depletion.
In the end, the inflation adjusted price of ALL five metals decreased. Simon won the bet, and Ehrlich sent him a cheque for the difference in the prices.
One of the most important lessons from this bet is the power of markets which, when unbothered by the dead hand of government, can efficiently allocate resources and incentivise conservation. When prices rise due to resource scarcity, it encourages producers to find alternatives or develop more efficient extraction and production methods.
Resource Depletion v Human Flourishing
More than 50 years after Ehrlich’s book and the Club of Rome, there are significantly more people on the planet than ever, and fewer starving people than ever. Humans have never lived longer and healthier lives. Meanwhile, Paul Ehrlich and his fellow travellers continue to preach that the end is nigh and that every environmental issue is an existential crisis. Ehrlich even once suggested that he “would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
As H.L. Mencken pithily wrote: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” And it is for this purpose we have governments.
Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.
There are plenty of things you cannot do with your own land.
Sometimes you can’t chop down a tree, plant a blackberry bush, or start a bonfire. In heritage suburbs you might not be able to knock down your house, or paint your current one any colour you like.
Regardless of where you are, you cannot add as many storeys as you like, possibly because of the shadows you would cast or the views you would block.
In urban areas you can’t have roosters as they would wake everyone up; nor can you set up a mosque and blare out a call to prayer. And after certain hours at night you can’t play loud music.
Sometimes you can’t hire out part or all of your house for short-stay accommodation, set up a brothel next to a school, set up a school next to a brothel, or develop a housing estate on land that is zoned for agriculture or conservation.
Dispute resolution would involve less of the opacity and potential corruption of bureaucracy, and more of the hard-nosed deal-making of markets.
To me, some of these restraints are reasonable and some are not. I suspect you would also judge at least some of these restraints to be reasonable – even though we might judge particular restraints differently.
Currently numerous decisions about what you can do with your land, like set up a brothel, are made by the State.
It is as if the State keeps in a vault, alongside the piece of paper showing you own your land, a separate piece of paper saying that the State owns the right to set up a brothel on that land. Only if both owners agreed can a brothel be set up.
In fact, every limitation on what you can do with your land can be thought of as a property right held by the State.
I propose that we take that imaginary situation, where pieces of paper in vaults define distinct property rights concerning what can be done with your land, and turn it into reality.
Here’s how.
If the State’s planning authority is about to reject a development application, it should make an offer to the land owner: the planning authority will rule in favour of the owner, if the owner agrees to create a restrictive covenant relating to the things the owner wants to do to the land, and to gift that covenant to the owner’s neighbours.
So instead of being banned from doing something, you would have to give the right to do that thing to your neighbours, as a tradable property right.
If the planning authority objected to your development application to add an extra storey to your house, your neighbours would end up with a property right to build that extra storey. If the planning authority objected to your development application to set up a brothel on your land that’s next to a school, the right to set up that brothel would end up being owned by the school.
I propose that we take that imaginary situation, where pieces of paper in vaults define distinct property rights concerning what can be done with your land, and turn it into reality.
The advantage of this arrangement is that the right could then be purchased from the neighbours, if an acceptable price is offered.
A banned development would instead become a potentially expensive development.
A disadvantage of this approach is that it would increase your neighbours’ incentives to complain to the planning authority about your development plans. And the planning authority might end up approving fewer development applications, sending an increasing number of potential developments into the world of deal-making over covenants.
But the advantages would exceed the disadvantages. There would remain hope after a planning authority’s objection to your development, unlike currently where such an objection kills all hope. Dispute resolution would involve less of the opacity and potential corruption of bureaucracy, and more of the hard-nosed deal-making of markets. You’d be dealing directly with your neighbours – real people with real concerns. And, on occasion, mutually beneficial deals would be done, making all parties better off.
Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.
In 1946, Viktor Frankl, Holocaust survivor and renowned author of the book Man’s Search for Meaning, proposed that the Statue of Liberty on the east coast of America be complemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the country’s west coast. He was later joined in this endeavour by Stephen Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. The dream was to bookend the nation with two equally inspiring statues – one representing rights, the other responsibilities.
Both men have since passed on, but their dream is being kept alive by an organisation called Statue of Responsibility.
The dichotomy of rights and responsibilities is often raised during public policy debates.
Indigenous leader Noel Pearson, a key advocate for the Yes campaign, in discussing his work on rights and responsibilities in Cape York, has said:
Noel Pearson
“Until we take responsibility, there’ll be no turnaround in closing the gap.
“You think my mob like it when I talk about responsibilities?
“They love it when I talk about rights and how they’ve been victimised. They don’t like it, however, when I say take responsibility for your children – nobody’s going to save you until you get your family together.”
Can’t argue with that.
This is unquestionably an infringement on liberty, freedom and dignity. It violates a person’s right to earn a living and it violates their responsibility to provide for their families.
It must follow, therefore, that if people are going to be held responsible for their actions, they should have the right to decide how they live their life. Rights – responsibilities.
The first question I asked as a newly elected Senator in 2014 went something like this:
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Eric Abetz.
I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement on 28 May this year when he said, “People are more than capable of making decisions based on what is best for them”, and also to the statement by the Minister for Social Services when he said, “The best form of welfare is a job”.
If both those statements are true, why then can an 18 year old in my home State of South Australia
• get married
• have children
• drive a motor vehicle
• fly an aeroplane
• buy a house
• take out a mortgage
• enter into a mobile phone contract
• travel to some of the most dangerous places on earth
• smoke cigarettes
• drink alcohol
• enlist in the armed forces and shoot enemy combatants
• and, of course, vote
but NOT enter into an employment arrangement which, and I again quote the Prime Minister, “is best for them”?
Former Senator, Bob Day
It is customary for crossbenchers to send Ministers advance notice of questions they propose to ask during Question Time. I did so on this occasion. I also took the liberty of sending the Minister the preferred answer I would like to receive.
The Minister duly acknowledged my courtesy in sending him the question in advance and also informed the Senate that this was actually the first time he’d also received a suggested answer.
Humour aside, the answer I was looking for was, “Senator Day is quite right, this government is committed to putting in place employment arrangements which, as the Prime Minister has often said, ‘is best for the people making those decisions’. Accordingly, this government will, in due course, be tabling a simple, one sentence bill to be called the ‘Free to Work Bill’. The Free to Work Bill will state the following:
‘Notwithstanding the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, any contract of employment between a corporation and a natural person shall be lawful’.
That is all that is needed. Needless to say, that’s not the answer I got.
I have argued that a person could be unemployed, living at home rent-free, with no (or very low) cost of living and would be willing to work at a starting pay rate of say $20 an hour (which is a lot higher than they would be getting on Centrelink), but because penalty rates on weekends or public holidays are around $40 an hour they are not allowed to take these jobs. They stay unemployed, the business stays shut, and the customer doesn’t get what they want to buy.
It’s been said that any place you can’t leave is a prison. Australia’s present workplace regulation system is a prison, trapping a person in thousands of pages of regulations. When I ask why we lock people up like this, I am told “Oh it’s for their own good – we don’t want them to be exploited.”
… if people are going to be held responsible for their actions, they should have the right to decide how they live their life. Rights – responsibilities.
But where’s the outrage when these same young people end up on drugs or get involved in crime or suffer poor health or become pregnant or become recruits for bikie gangs or even commit suicide?
If those claiming to protect the unemployed from exploitation really cared as much as they say, then why do they do not stop them from doing a hundred and one other things that have a far bigger and more permanent impact on their lives than getting a job – like smoking or drinking alcohol or getting covered in tattoos or getting married, or having children, or backpacking through South America. At least with a job you can quit any time.
This is unquestionably an infringement on liberty, freedom and dignity. It violates a person’s right to earn a living and it violates their responsibility to provide for their families.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
“We know that there is a growing pot of wealth, sitting in the hands of older Australians that will be passed on in coming decades.”
Gosh, that sounds juicy. What government could refuse the temptation to take a slice of that pie?
However, that sentiment speaks to the fundamental flaw in the approach of our policy makers towards balancing our books – always trying to increase revenue without doing much to cut spending.
While it would take a brave government to set their sights on inheritance as a potential source of tax revenue, comments from incoming Productivity Commission boss, Danielle Wood, indicate the wrong question is being asked.
Structural Budget Pressures
Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who is arguably among Labor’s more agile and pragmatic front-benchers, has flagged the NDIS and aged care as key budgetary pressures going forward. While high commodity prices are currently keeping the wolves from the door, the rapidly rising cost of Government funded services and a forecast drop in revenue over time has even the typically Keynesian Labor camp concerned.
Australian Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. Are death taxes next on the agenda?
Although Labor has denied plans for an inheritance tax are on the agenda, Danielle Wood’s comments and the wider conversation nationally on debt and deficit are clearly not focussed on fixing the most glaring issue facing the budget – spending.
Out of control spending
For example, since its inception in 2013, the NDIS has grown astronomically and now accounts for the biggest cost of any social program the Federal Government runs – $30 billion last financial year. Originally designed to help those with genuine disabilities, the NDIS faces many unforeseen challenges. Its expansive criteria means that over 500,000 people now use the NDIS, participants don’t leave the program as quickly as first envisioned, and up to 20% of NDIS payments are estimated to be fraudulent!
Aged care is not immune either – one of the key recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission was to establish a ‘blank cheque’ style funding model. This would ensure outcomes remained uncompromised by ‘fiscal challenges facing the government of the day’. With attitudes like that, it’s no wonder social programs are growing at such a speed and are open to rorts – the government is being told the cash tap can never be turned off! What message does that send to users or providers? Of course, the first proposed solution to the issue of funding was to slap a levy on taxpayers – in other words, more tax.
Cutting through
Dramatically reducing the size and scope of all government programs would be a more ideal solution (Caroline White knows it!), but at the very least Chalmers and the relevant ministers could begin with more palatable reforms in the service sector. For example, a user-pays model for aged care services – reducing the share paid by the general tax-base and increasing accountability for providers. Meanwhile the NDIS could benefit greatly from increased scrutiny of payments made and more stringent eligibility criteria.
The government is being told the cash tap can never be turned off!
While governments fear the political ramifications of being seen as ‘gutting’ social services, perhaps the issue needs re-framing. The Australian Taxpayers Alliance found in 2021 that a Victorian worker earning an average salary costs about $73,000 to employ. Of that amount, 55% is taxed! Our lifestyles, our productivity, our time and our future are being gutted – and all for what? So that whatever we have left when we finally kick the bucket can be taxed one last time?
We can only hope that one day governments will attempt some introspection, but it doesn’t look likely just yet. Apart from talk of scrapping the Stage 3 tax-cuts, aged-care levies and death taxes, Jim Chalmers has also flagged that he expects future nation-building funding to fall at least partially on the super funds.
At what point will we finally see the leadership required to start treating the problem of spending rather than the symptom of revenue?
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
Now deceased American comedian and actor Robin Williams used to tell a story of being interviewed on a German talk show. As a guest, Williams was asked why people aren’t funny in Germany? In reply Williams said, “Did you ever think that you killed all the funny people”.
A similar response can be offered to the question of why Australia has so little innovation and why small business is in decline. Did you ever think that Australian governments killed all the innovative businesses?
Every now and then, the Growth Lab at Harvard University prepares the Atlas of Economic Complexity. The Growth Lab says their analysis rankings “assess the current state of a country’s productive knowledge, through the Economic Complexity Index (ECI). Countries improve their ECI by increasing the number and complexity of the products they successfully export.”
So, what was Australia’s Economic Complexity ranking in 2021? It was 93rd; bookended between Pakistan at 92 and Uganda at 94. Even New Zealand came in at 52. Ten years ago, Australia was ranked 81st. So a ten-spot decline.
Why is this so? Well, in large part because Australia has become the quarry of the world, exporting lots of unprocessed resources. Over 56 percent of Australia’s exports in 2021 were of four commodities – iron ore, coal, natural gas, and gold. Approximately 22 percent was from the export of coal and gas.
Consider some recent market interventions, putting aside the daily assaults on super profits and evil business. Things like actual price caps on coal and gas. Threats of rental price caps. Threats of increases to capital gains taxes.
Every time this complexity study report comes out, it provides a platform for members of the central planning industrial complex to argue for more government money and intervention in markets. Here are a few samples from a quick internet search:
Ed Husic, Minister for Industry and Science, said in August of this year that “Australia’s narrowing industrial base shows the economy can’t be left solely to market forces”.
Someone, unnamed, from the University of Sydney said in 2021 that “If (infrastructure) investment of this scale was redirected towards the promotion of advanced manufacturing, enormous possibilities would lie ahead.”
Kieran Parker from the Australian Centre for Robotics said in April 2023 that “We believe a comprehensive national investment in robotics research, development and translation, structured in a manner that supports industry adoption would likely have the highest return on investment (ROI) of any such science industry related initiative.”
Could it be, just maybe, that Australia’s low complexity is a consequence of government policy? Of high taxes, excessive regulation, and incessant market interventions?
Consider some recent market interventions, putting aside the daily assaults on super profits and evil business. Things like actual price caps on coal and gas. Threats of rental price caps. Threats of increases to capital gains taxes. What about the market design mantra of Treasury Jim Chalmers in his 6,000-word Capitalism After the Crisis essay where he wrote earlier this year that “with coordination and co-investment – recognising that government, business, philanthropic and investor interests and objectives are increasingly aligned and intertwined.”
And of course the recent words of Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones, who said about the Qantas protection racket that “instead of having two carriers we will design our markets in a way which will make it unsustainable for the existing Australian-based carrier.”
Stephen Jones
Why would anyone in their right mind risk their time and capital to develop a sophisticated and complex business in Australia when all that would happen would be more taxes and regulations?.
Another term for market design is central planning. And another title for the central planners is commissars. And we have seen the results: in the Soviet Union, in Cuba, in East Germany, in North Korea.
So next time you hear some one asking why Australia has low innovation, low business creation, low entrepreneurship, low economic complexity, you might suggest, as Robin William’s did, that maybe it’s because it’s government policy.
Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.
Red tape is a productivity-sapping and innovation-destroying virus on business. Australia is feeling the effects of a generation of governments that believe any problem in the world can be solved with another little rule, constraint or compliance requirement.
Australian business is suffering death by a thousand cuts.
There are too many rules to actually know and obey.
It’s worse than a mere harmless intent though. Too many politicians and bureaucrats cannot help but paint business as the bad guy, an evil that needs to be contained.
There are enforcers of the rules in all three levels of government. Workplace regulations, tax, superannuation, industrial relations awards and so on are dictated by the Federal government with their powerful agencies, particularly the ATO. The State governments are the most interventionist, with licensing, WHS, regulation and compliance of premises and properties, payroll taxes, stamp duties. These are enforced by an army of bureaucrats from scores of agencies. Then finally our dear local councils look over us to make sure we are operating according to their codes and plans, their rangers constantly on the lookout to catch us out. Sadly, they are aided and abetted by many citizens who see it is their duty to dob-in the smallest misdemeanour.
The Liberal Party are as bad as the left leaning parties, full of party careerists with little real-life experience. They talk of removing red tape, but the track record of recent Liberal governments has been to pile on more. They are incapable of addressing the problem because they do not genuinely believe it’s a problem.
The system is so complex, many small businesses do the same as mine. We do enough to get our business open and what we can grow and prosper, despite the myriad of regulations we are knowingly or accidentally breaching. But there are too many rules to actually know and obey. Ignorance of the law may not be a legally valid excuse, but ignorance is virtually inevitable when the law regulates almost every aspect of life and business. We are all commonly breaking the law because it is impossible not to.
So, what would I do about liberating business from this byzantine morass of red tape? How do we unscramble the omelette?
First, all new laws should have a sunset date of 5 to 10 years. The law lapses automatically if it isn’t extended.
Second, we sunset all existing laws over the next 5 to 10 years. Yes, every single law would be assigned a sunset date to lapse. This can be a random date; it doesn’t matter. As long as the law is reviewed or lapses.
Thirdy, we halve all fines and penalties. We remove incentives and rewards for the government to seek out non-compliance and confrontation. We reduce the size of the government to get rid of the people imposing the rules and bleeding off our hard work.
Finally, we abolish and cut taxes. Abolish payroll tax as it taxes job creation and discourages investment. Cut company and personal income taxes to remove the disincentives. Australia’s company tax rate should be 15% to more closely align with our trading partners. Income taxes should be reduced to a top rate of 25%, so the best and brightest want to come to Australia.
Caroline is a mother who owns children’s dance schools in Melbourne and Japan. Frustrated by the corruption in our political system and led by a desire to provide her community with trustworthy leadership, she began running as a candidate. Caroline’s most recent political foray was as an independent, where she placed third.
At a recent Senate Estimates hearing, Greens Treasury Spokesman Senator Nick McKim asked outgoing RBA Governor Philip Lowe, “On the supply/demand issue, are you aware of the work of economist Cameron Murray stating, at current rate of sales, there are twelve years of vacant land in Australia already zoned as residential?”
This question goes to the very heart of the problem – a total lack of understanding of how markets (in this case, housing) work.
There may well be twelve years supply of vacant land at current prices – over $400,000 per allotment.
If that is the criteria, then why not double the price and there’ll be 24 years supply!
If, however, land prices were what they should be – $100,000 per allotment – and there is no reason they should not be that price, how many years supply would there be?
I suspect it would be all sold in twelve months, not twelve years.
Recent tokenistic rezoning and land releases by some state governments – to great media fanfare – will no more make land affordable than the discovery of a new diamond mine will make diamonds more affordable.
The land development industry of course welcomes the new lode because they know how to manipulate and drip-feed finished allotments (like diamonds) to the market, keeping prices sky high.
So why does this zoned residential land cost upwards of two million dollars a hectare, when adjacent, agricultural land costs less than a tenth of that?
Government zoning anomoly. Adjacent agricultural land is normally valued less than 10% residential land.
The reason is that whenever there is money to be made, opportunities to do business with governments present themselves – particularly in tightly controlled markets like land. Relationships between businesspeople and governments is as old as regulation itself.
What gives these relationships real potency is called the ‘Baptists and Bootleggers’ phenomenon.
The term ‘Baptists & Bootleggers’ was coined during the 1920s Prohibition era in America. Makers of illegal liquor – ‘Bootleggers’ – made donations to elected officials (and to the ‘Baptists’ campaign to have alcohol banned) in order to maintain the ban. That led to sky high prices for their product. Members of Congress justified prohibition by publicly supporting the moral cause of the Baptists.
Over the past 100 years, rent-seekers have perfected their dark art of extracting money from taxpayers and consumers.
They are everywhere – energy, superannuation, higher education, land development, indigenous groups, public transport, manufacturing – you name it. They are a scourge. They tarnish the political process, distort the market and in the case of so-called ‘renewable energy’, distort the entire economy.
Renewable energy rent-seekers have leapt onto the climate change bandwagon and are raking in billions of dollars gaming the system, raising energy prices, impoverishing consumers, destroying jobs, and fleecing taxpayers.
Along with unions and superfunds, pharmaceuticals and health, universities and higher education, these Australian oligarchs have limitless amounts of money to both shore up their own positions and resist anyone who might try to challenge them.
Previously, entrepreneurs went to the marketplace to make their fortunes. Today the public purse is the mother lode.
When the NDIS was announced in 2012, it was forecast to cost $14bn a year. In April 2022, actuary firm Taylor Fry estimated that by 2030 the cost will blow out to $64bn a year– a $50bn a year increase.
How did this happen in such a short period of time? Simple – professionalised politics and sophisticated rent-seeking.
So, back to land development. MPs receive donations from rent-seeking property developers. MPs then publicly support urban planners who rail against the so-called evils of urban sprawl. That leads to restrictions on urban growth which force people into high density housing developments in the inner suburbs – a classic example of the Baptists and the Bootleggers phenomenon at work.
It is also well-known that MPs themselves hop onto the property-owning bandwagon with numerous ‘investment properties’ of their own. Keen to maintain their wealth, they publicly support urban planning laws. Let’s call it ‘the monetisation of urban planning’.
The problem is, of course, that the younger generation of home buyers end up paying for all this. They are forced into overpriced apartments and prevented from achieving their primary ambition – a free-standing family home of their own.
Bootleggers have stolen both their wealth and their future.
For land to become affordable, the government should – as was the case with older suburbs – allow the development of basic serviced allotments – water, sewerage, electricity, stormwater, bitumen roads, street lighting and street signage. Additional services and amenities – lakes, entrance walls, palm trees, bike trails, etc – can be optional extras if the developer wishes to provide them and home buyers are willing to pay for them.
The government should also abolish up-front infrastructure charges and so-called ‘developer contributions’ imposed by local and state government departments. All infrastructure services should be paid for through the rates system – pay ‘as’ you use, not ‘before’ you use.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
Jim Rickards, an esteemed American investment banker and author with expertise in finance and precious metals, recently brought to light an intriguing prediction regarding the BRICS+ countries:
“I recently revealed that the so-called “BRICS+” countries will announce the creation of a new currency at its annual leaders’ summit conference on August 22–24. This will be the biggest upheaval in international finance since 1971 … the world is unprepared for this geopolitical shock wave. It appears likely that the new BRICS+ currency will be linked to a weight of gold. This plays to the strengths of BRICS+ members Russia and China. These countries are the two largest gold producers in the world, and are ranked sixth and seventh respectively among the 100 nations with gold reserves.”
Understanding BRICS+
BRICS+ is a group of states consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. “BRIC” was coined in 2001 for fast-growing, potentially dominant forces in the global economy by 2050. South Africa’s later inclusion expanded it to BRICS+.
Over 17 years, BRICS+ has endeavoured to become a counterbalance to western hegemony. Its institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB) and Contingent Reserve Arrangement are alternatives to the World Bank and the IMF.
This alliance boasts:
Combined economic influence and abundant resources
Seven countries in the membership queue, with 13-14 awaiting consideration
Come August, Saudi Arabia’s inclusion will mark:
50% of the global population within BRICS+
30% of global landmass
54% of global GDP
Two top oil producers: Russia and Saudi Arabia
15%-20% of global gold reserves.
Moreover, an amalgamation involving the Eurasian Economic Union and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation seems on the horizon.
After their first formal meeting in 2009, BRICS+ asserted the necessity for “a stable, predictable, and diversified international monetary system.” Rickards postulates that BRICS+ is gearing up to unveil its currency.
BRICS+ Currency
Recently, Rickards gave a fascinating interview on the YouTube channel Wealthion. In this interview, he was adamant that the BRICS+ currency, (which he termed a BRIC, for convenience), “is not a gold standard”.
“The value of the BRIC is not determined with reference to any other currency. It is determined with reference to gold, by weight of gold”.
The implication of the BRICS+ currency being tied to a weight of gold means that, regardless of anything else going on financially and economically in the world:
1 unit of BRICS+ currency = specified weight in gold
Trade between 50% of the world’s population will transition to BRICS+ currency, which will be defined in gold, so half the world’s trade will be transacted in BRICS+ currency.
Gold’s Unwavering Stature
Warren Buffet, an investment giant, once opined on gold: “Gold…has two significant shortcomings, being neither of much use nor procreative.”
Despite Buffet’s scepticism, gold’s reputation as a store of value has persisted for 5,000 years. He is missing the point of gold. Gold is not an investment, it is real money, unlike the 600 odd fiat currencies in the history of the world that have gone to zero.
Gold fulfills money’s 6 characteristics:
Durability
Portability
Divisibility
Uniformity
Limited Supply
Acceptability.
BRICS+’ gold linkage suggests, in the medium to long term, a potential for spikes in gold demand and the nominal currency price of gold.
A Waning USD?
Let’s take a look at the world’s current world currency, the U.S. dollar. The USD does not fulfill the attributes of money.
The U.S. dollar’s decline is palpable. In 1913, when the US Federal Reserve was established, the fixed price of gold was US$20.67. President Nixon infamously broke the gold peg that was US$35 in 1971. Today, gold hovers around $1,914 per ounce. The dollar’s worth is now 1.8% of what it was in 1971, a staggering 98% fall over 52 years.
Rickards’ analysis paints a bleak dollar future, in contrast to the BRICS+: “This is a bet that the dollar is going to collapse against you over time. I think that’s a very good bet … this is not a three-month forecast … you want to launch this new currency and you say hey long term the dollar is going to collapse in terms of gold. I’ll hook my horse to this wagon called gold by weight, and I’ll just reap the benefits.”
Libertarian Lens
The essential question for libertarians is “What can we do, so that we and our families survive and thrive?”
As Murray Rothbard insightfully shared, “I see a great future for gold and silver coins as the currency people may increasingly turn to when paper currencies begin to disintegrate.”
Allowing for one year’s living costs in cash, keep spare gold in hand (not as ETFs or in banks, which carry counterparty risks). Then, you have a store of value that has well and truly proven itself over millennia.
Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.
Recently, Commonwealth Education Minister Jason Clare announced plans to overhaul Australian universities to reduce their reliance on international students. In making his announcement, Clare said “That’s the power of education: it changes lives.”
In many respects Clare is correct; education does changes lives. But what doesn’t change lives is administration.
The Group of Eight (Go8) represents Australia’s “leading research-intensive universities”. But looking at the financial accounts for the Go8 members, one might wonder what these universities are really about. Based on the most recent financial accounts of these 8 universities (sadly, ANU is yet to lodge their 2022 accounts), almost half of their salary expenses have nothing to do with academics – the people who conduct the research and teach the students. On average, 48% percent of salaries are expended on “non-academic” personnel. That’s over $4.3 billion a year; on average $11,800 for each of the 365,000 full time equivalent students attending these institutions. A breathtaking amount.
To put this into context, imagine if a bank spent 50% of its salaries on “non-bankers”, or a construction company spent 50% of its salaries on “non-construction workers”. The core purpose of a university is to teach students and to undertake research, yet near 50% of its salary expenses are not for this purpose.
According to the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, our governments provide about $14,000 in funding per public school student. At the same time, $11,800 is spent on administration per university student.
No doubt some public school funding is consumed on “non-teaching” resources, but if it was of a similar proportion to that which Universities spend, education outcomes would be even worse.
If Minister Clare wanted to reduce the reliance of universities on foreign students, he should first look at ways to reduce their reliance on administration.
Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.
Recently I attended the Australian Medical Professional Society’s Curing the Corruption of Medicine event in Melbourne. The keynote speaker was British cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra.
Double vaccinated with Pfizer, Dr Malhotra initially supported the vaccine rollout and encouraged the vulnerable to take the injection on national TV in January of 2021.
His stance soon changed when, amongst other concerning research and reports, his father, also double vaccinated, died suddenly of a heart attack. With a strong understanding of his medical history and current health condition, Dr Malhotra couldn’t comprehend how his father’s coronary arteries were shown in the autopsy to have narrowed so quickly.
After some of the world’s top scientists published an independent reanalysis of the original Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data, which found that patients are more likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccine including hospitalisation, disability or a life changing event than what they are to be hospitalised from Covid, he now believes ”these (mRNA) vaccinations should never have been approved for use in a single human”, and is calling for their suspension.
Governments across Australia have spent hundreds of millions of dollars frightening the pants off our population, promoting and enforcing Covid 19 vaccinations with no end in sight. Despite AstraZeneca having been quietly pulled from the shelves earlier this year and ATAGI no longer recommending Covid 19 vaccines for healthy under 65-year-olds, the government is still relentlessly promoting vaccination to young, fit, healthy adults. There are taxpayer funded, daily reminders to get your jab on TV commercials, Youtube ads, and road signs on main arterials – nearly two and a half years on.
There is just no reprieve from the Covid mania.
Covid 19 mandates ravaged the foundations of the medical industry. I had a local GP tell me they were making a mockery of his profession. Informed consent ceased to exist with a paternalistic approach as patients were coerced into a medical procedure without being informed of potential risks or able to make a decision based on their individual circumstances. Bodily autonomy and medical privacy were disregarded and doctors who dared to raise concerns were threatened with deregistration.
Robust discussion was censored as the government intruded into the doctor patient relationship. We were even denied basic health benefits such as vitamin D due to government restrictions that had us locked in our houses for 23 hours a day. Any ounce of trust I had left for Big Pharma and the government has been completely eroded as a consequence.
During Dr Malholtra’s nearly one-and-a-half-hour-long talk, he outlined policy making as a main factor in improving the current state of play. You know we have a serious problem when even the wokest journalist from The Age (who felt virtuous getting his 5th booster) is questioning why government policy sees Covid 19 vaccines given away to young people at the expense of the taxpayer.
The idea of the government staying out of people’s medical decisions is rooted in the concept of individual liberty. Here are my policy ideas for reform –
Whistle blower protection for the healthcare industry. Doctors should be able to speak up without fear of losing their job.
Stop Covid 19 vaccine and mRNA manufacturing subsidies. All over the world highly vaccinated countries are recording uncommonly high excess deaths. Dr Malhotra is of the opinion, and the data suggests, that Covid 19 vaccines have a role to play. Pending further investigation, the mRNA vaccines should be suspended. The government should also stop subsidising mRNA manufacturing.
Ban taxpayer funded spend on advertising pharmaceutical products. If Big Pharma wants to make a profit by selling products that are not properly tested, surely they can afford to pay for their own promotions.
Remove remaining mandates & get our unvaccinated workers back in the work force immediately. With the current staff shortages, particularly in healthcare, it’s unconscionable that unvaccinated workers, police officers and firefighters are unable to work, with compliance still taking precedence over the safety of our community.
Big Pharma companies fund compensation schemes, not the Australian taxpayer. It’s absolutely ludicrous that Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for damage and deaths caused by pharmaceutical companies.
Caroline is a mother who owns children’s dance schools in Melbourne and Japan. Frustrated by the corruption in our political system and led by a desire to provide her community with trustworthy leadership, she began running as a candidate. Caroline’s most recent political foray was as an independent, where she placed third.
Who would have thought that quacking geese could help save the Roman Republic from a Gallic horde in 390 BC?
It prompts the question: could a stirring speech on liberty help save Australia from its government in 2023 AD?
The Roman Republic was born when a warrior gathered his family from the ashes of Troy and founded a city destined to become one of the greatest civilisations in history. But its emergence was not without repeated struggles.
Grappling with rapid growth and accumulated power, the Republic was in danger of being crushed by Gallic invaders. Rome had conquered most of her neighbouring Italian lands, but chronic infighting among the Senate and Tribunes distracted it from the rising threat outside the empire.
The ancient historian, Livy, in The Early History of Rome, wrote of a warning which was ignored because it came from a plebeian of no consequence.
“The Gauls are coming!”
And they were. Gallic armies decimated vast swathes of Roman territory.
In a final siege to sack Rome, Gallic troops climbed the Citadel wall, which was minimally defended as an exodus to neighbouring provinces had occurred. The people slept. Not even the dogs were alerted; it took the screeching of sacred geese to wake the people from their slumber and quickly act to repel the enemy.
Australia in 2023 is facing its own enemy at the gate. It goes by the name of Government.
While we don’t suffer from screeching geese in our parliaments – albeit some may like to draw a comparison – our representatives are in a prime position to sound the alarm.
The government’s surveillance tentacles are reaching so far into our lives that we soon may not be able to breathe without its consent. Citizens are facing censorship of their thoughts, speech, and actions with the impending ACMA Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, a direct threat to our democracy.
In the Parliament of New South Wales, on 28 June 2023, one newly elected MP laid down the stakes for liberty, delivering a rousing endorsement of the natural rights and abilities of the people, and a scathing assessment of government interference.
In his maiden speech, John Ruddick articulated the essence of free market capitalism:
“We believe in the inherent morality of capitalism simply because, that is what people will spontaneously do when left alone. The worst atrocities of history were not the result of drought, flood, pestilence, or plague but of big government throwing its weight around like an elephant stomping on ants.”
One would think such a passionate defence of liberty would be welcomed in a democratic nation.
Alas, YouTube swiftly took it down.
Was it the mention of “anarcho-capitalism” that offended the senses of the censorship tzars? Perhaps too radical an idea for our modern and progressive world to embrace. Sadly, this term is misunderstood. Where it is demonised as being violent in meaning and action, it is really the opposite.
As Mr Ruddick said:
“Anarcho-capitalism has a favourable view of human nature and an unlimited belief in our potential. I am increasingly attracted to the view that we will tap humanity’s highest potential via a government-free voluntary-based society.”
Great speeches won’t save a nation from ruin, but they can affect how people begin to consider the world around them.
Livy tells us that “Destiny had decreed that the Gaul’s were still to feel the true meaning of Roman valour.”
Let our citizens record that the enemy of liberty is still to feel the true meaning of Australian spirit and enterprise.
Sacred geese did not prevent Rome from being invaded by the Gauls, but their screeching put Romans on notice.
Perhaps Mr Ruddick’s speech will serve as a warning for Australians in the face of monumental government overreach, reminding them of the value of our inalienable individual rights and freedoms, and how voluntary associations and agreements are by far the preferred mode of human interaction.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
In his excellent Liberty Itch post Golden Years last week, Max Payne writes, “By the time today’s young people are finally ready (or allowed) to retire, they may find they face a double challenge. First, their superannuation funds might have been ransacked by previous generations; second, the availability of quality care may be limited due to the challenge of delivering high-standard care without a large tax-base – especially in times of slowing productivity.”
In their hit song My Generation, English rock band The Who – Pete Townshend on guitar, Roger Daltrey on vocals, John Entwistle on bass, and Keith Moon on drugs – err, I mean drums – sang, “…things they do look awful cold …. hope I die before I get old.”
It is reported that German economists are baffled by reports from Australia that rising house prices are deemed to be ‘good news’. In Germany, inflation in house prices – like inflation in energy prices or food prices – is considered to be just the opposite.
“How can it be good news?”, they ask, “when it takes two incomes to support a mortgage when previously young couples could buy a home and raise a family on one income? Or that homebuyers will pay many hundreds of thousands of dollars more in mortgage payments and government taxes and charges than would otherwise be the case?”
Why has housing become so expensive in Australia? Motor vehicles, whitegoods, kitchen appliances, widescreen TV sets, personal computers and mobile phones are consumed in abundance around the world, yet prices remain low. Why is a house, which like other manufactured goods is made from readily accessible components, so much more expensive than other consumer products?
No doubt demand stimulators like high immigration, low interest rates, capital gains concessions, negative gearing and first home buyer grants have increased demand for housing. However, increases in demand do not, of themselves, cause prices to rise. The exponential increases in demand for mobile phones, laptops and digital TVs did not lead to increases in their prices. In fact, the opposite occurred – prices fell – in some cases by more than half, due to increases in supply. The 1950s and ‘60s population explosion – the ‘baby boomer’ generation – likewise saw massive increases in demand for housing, yet house prices remained stable during that time because supply was able to keep up with demand.
So, what has gone wrong in recent years?
As most people know, over the past 20 years or so the actual cost of building a new house in Australia has roughly kept pace with inflation. Land prices, on the other hand, have skyrocketed.
By restricting the amount of land available on the urban fringe, state governments have sent the price of entry-level housing through the roof.
Land is the problem.
On the fringes of our cities there is more than an adequate supply of cheap, unzoned land.
Cheap land attracts not only home buyers but commercial interests as well, leading to more employment opportunities.
So why are houses and commercial developments not being built on this cheap land?
In short, manipulation of zoning laws.
(For Part 2, click https://libertyitch.com/2023/08/22/talkin-about-my-generation-part-2/)
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
“Perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanise them”.
Hannah Arendt.
The Royal Commission report into the Robodebt scandal has shone a spotlight on the leviathan that is now the Australian government. Not surprisingly, the Albanese government has distanced itself from the findings, portraying the ill-conceived scheme as a failure of their political opponents. Most of the media frame it as a failure of the Coalition government.
In neither case is the integrity and generosity of government as an institution ever questioned, nor its proper role in society. Bill Shorten made this clear when he said: “There is an ethos in Australia that the Government always has its people’s best interests at heart and, in legal matters, is a model litigant.”[1] From his perspective the Coalition betrayed this ethos.
It is a belief in which the Australian government represents the pinnacle of virtue. Not mere mortals pursuing their own self-interests, but a congregation of the anointed ones.
This ethos of government as inherently good is pervasive and has allowed it to become impervious to failure.
Yet we don’t have to look back too far to find a pattern of systemic government blunders, with substantial human and financial costs. Let us remember just a few within recent memory:
Green Loans Program (2009-2010). Thousands of assessors who invested their time and money were left with unfulfilled work promises.
Home Insulation Program (2009-2019). The death of 4 young installers sparked a Royal Commission which concluded it was a “serious failure of public administration”.
Building the Education Revolution (2009-2011). A $16.2 billion ‘stimulus package’ resulting in hugely inflated construction costs and waste.
Vocational Education and Training FEE-HELP Loans (2012-2016). Hundreds of vulnerable Australians were left with large debts for courses they never completed or started.
Jobactive Employment Services (2015-2022). Delivered high profits for job agencies and a bureaucratic nightmare for job seekers.
Much can also be said about the NBN rollout, the NDIS, Snowy 2.0 and the ongoing PwC tax leaks scandal. Time after time a series of scathing, damning, blistering reports, inquiries, audits, and Royal Commissions have analysed the reasons for each successive failure, the lessons learned, and the specific details that need to be corrected to ensure the good intentions of central planners are not botched by implementation mistakes.
In the wake of the Robodebt report there are calls for a change in the culture of the Australian Public Service: a renewed Code of Conduct and Values with an emphasis on stewardship and a primary focus on the people the APS is meant to serve.
Kathryn Campbell. The senior bureaucrat who implemented Robodebt, an algorithmic system which issued illegal social security debt notices.
Missing from the report and the discussion is the one recommendation that would ensure that Services Australia cannot continue to harm vulnerable Australians (especially in the age of AI): dismantle it.
Human tragedies, large and small, have been enabled by bloated centralised bureaucracies throughout history. The more concentrated the power structure, the bigger the tragedy. Hannah Arendt, reporting in 1961 on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a major Holocaust perpetrator, observed: “the court naturally conceded that such a crime could be committed only by a giant bureaucracy using the resources of government.”
In the context of a more dispersed power structure, a giant Australian bureaucracy is still capable of causing severe harm as we have seen with Robodebt and numerous other cases. The response should be to reduce the source of this harm to its minimum expression, not to defend it or reform it.
The fundamental mistake is to endow government with high moral values, higher than those of private citizens. A fair and just society is not built by abdicating social responsibilities and delegating them to an external agent, one with coercive powers and a perverse incentive structure.
Governments are not benign. In reality, “the individual bureaucrat is not attempting to maximize the public interest very vigorously but is attempting to maximize his or her own utility just as vigorously as you and I.”[2]
Acknowledging the primacy of self-interest is not incompatible with a natural tendency to help others and engage in charitable activities or mutual aid.
Australia has a proud history of friendly societies that provided vital financial and social support to many communities before they were crowded out by government welfare[3].
At the beginning of the twentieth century nearly half Australia’s population was connected to a friendly society[4]. How much good could civil society do today with a fraction of the resources removed by a confused bureaucracy mostly concerned with finding its own soul?
Despite being pushed aside and distorted by the expansion of government, Australia’s strong volunteer tradition never disappeared. We see it all around us, in the selfless actions of millions of people, each with their own unique talents, experiences, and circumstances.
Lionel is an IT engineer with more than 20 years’ experience developing enterprise applications in the private and public sectors. He completed his computer science degree in Venezuela in 2001. Then in 2002, Lionel moved to Australia after obtaining an international internship in Canberra. He became an Australian citizen in 2008.
The combination of an ageing population, lack of children being born and an unquenchable thirst for public spending on ever-expanding social services has the potential to wring the tax-base dry as a chronic demographic distortion unfolds.
Although the mainstream media and most of the public are concerned about increasing population levels, an emerging demographic threat concerning the composition of the population should be attracting much more attention.
Simply put, the world is ageing. Much of the world is experiencing birth rates below replacement levels. If it continues, this could have devastating cultural, societal and economic impact on Australia and the rest of the world.
The aged care royal commission’s final report was handed down in early 2021. Despite a 200% increase in the sector’s budget allocation from a decade ago, the report claims even more funding is needed to deliver higher standards and more personalised care. Furthermore, it claims such funding should be insulated from the broad fiscal and budgetary challenges the Federal Government faces.
Yet as Centre for Independent Studies head of research Simon Cowen notes, the NDIS and childcare sectors are already subject to the same blank cheque-type model – one that supposedly increases the quality of care but in practice only maximises the cost.*
An ageing population is not unique to Australia. But when coupled with lower birth rates and the impact of a subsequently smaller tax-base, it raises the question as to how a higher standard of aged care could possibly be funded.
Population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming
If self-funded retirement is to be a solution, superfunds and retail investors need to navigate the issue of liquidity with the funds being withdrawn by retirees not being replaced by new capital.
In essence, our superannuation system is built on the concept of new money replacing the old – yet without population and productivity growth, this new money simply will not be coming in. So how will the superfunds maintain valuations? How will people fund their retirements?
What is most alarming is that there is no obvious solution to this challenge. As we live longer, the cost of managing chronic disease and unhealthy lifestyle factors are growing steadily across the developed world, placing greater pressure on government-funded health services. With inflation sticky, generational wealth gaps expanding, the size of government increasing and a rising cost of living, young people are choosing not to have children.
Economists, politicians, and young people need to begin seriously thinking (and talking) about this issue.
Policymakers risk burdening young Australians with a lifetime of servitude to generations before them that enjoyed more freedom, prosperity, and quality of life.
Moreover, by the time today’s young people are finally ready (or allowed) to retire, they may find they face a double challenge. First, their superannuation funds might have been ransacked by previous generations; second, the availability of quality care may be limited due to the challenge of delivering high-standard care without a large tax-base – especially in times of slowing productivity.
In a current climate of simmering unease at the fault lines between younger and older generations of Australians, these concerns risk pushing society into an even more fractured state. But it is no use merely complaining. Rather than call for more socialism, taxation and ‘social justice’, young people need to claim back their liberty and financial future from the politicians that are pandering to an ageing voter base.
Young people today are concerned about their future in the context of climate change, but the threat of an ageing population and low birth rates should be a more pressing concern. If our youth don’t consider this, they risk losing their own ‘golden years’ after having spent their working lives funding the golden years of their parents and grandparents.
* Aged care cost blow-out won’t be solved by higher taxes, S. Cowan, 17 June 2023, Centre for Independent Studies
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
The public health industry is a menace and remains a threat to Australia.
It comprises people who believe we all require their guidance because, unlike them, we are incapable of making the right choices for ourselves. We must be nudged, cajoled, taxed, and supervised to ensure we get it right. And if that doesn’t work, compelled by force of law.
The Covid pandemic exposed this in stark terms. The authoritarian wave that engulfed us, while mostly authorised by spineless politicians, originated from the public health people behind them. And in almost every case, they got it profoundly wrong.
The result was countless businesses failed, careers ruined, relationships destroyed, and education missed, with worse health outcomes than Sweden. Even the current inflation is primarily a consequence of propping up the economy with borrowed money whilst “flattening the curve”.
In terms of sheer ineptitude, it is difficult to go past the Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) in the states and Commonwealth. Paraded as experts and fawned on by the media, they proved to be foolish control freaks.
Kerry Chant. NSW Chief Health Officer.Brett Sutton. Vic Chief Health Officer.Jeannette Young. Qld Chief Health Officer.Andy Robertson. WA Chief Health Officer.
CMOs ought to be expert at public health, since their focus is on the health of everyone rather than individual patients, and up-to-date with both the scientific literature and international developments. While not necessarily researchers or experts themselves, they should be well aware of who the researchers and experts are and how to contact them.
Yet repeatedly, the policies they recommended and endorsed were contrary to science, to experience, or both.
It started on day one. Australia’s rational and proportionate pandemic plan was simply abandoned in favour of China’s panicked lockdown model.
Covid-19 is a respiratory corona virus, a well-studied category. It was well known that these viruses are highly vulnerable to sunlight and short-lived outside the body, relying on person-to-person transmission. Outdoor transmission was never likely, yet beaches and parks were closed, and gatherings prohibited. As for indoor spread, what was all that “deep cleaning” about? And why is ventilation only being mentioned now? It’s a no-brainer in the veterinary world.
Once it was obvious that only the elderly were in danger, it was unconscionable to maintain the pretence that everyone else was. Children were never at risk, except from vaccine side effects, yet schools were closed and parents terrorised.
In early 2021 when, contrary to expectations, it became apparent the Covid vaccines did not prevent either transmission or infection, the campaign to vaccinate everyone should have ceased. A statement from a CMO that the unvaccinated presented no danger to anybody else would have ended it. Yet vaccination certificates acquired the status of internal passports in the Soviet Union, and countless people lost their jobs for refusing to be vaccinated.
Ivermectin was being used to treat cases in multiple other countries with clear evidence of its value, yet it was banned from therapeutic use in Australia. How many lives might have been saved if CMOs had learned from what was happening overseas?
From the very beginning, the CMOs knew masks were useless at stopping respiratory viruses. Even Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Adviser to the US President, said as much. Yet despite zero data to prompt a change, they somehow became a symbol of compliance; a sign that we were worshipping at the Covid altar. Even now there are poor neurotic souls who continue to wear them (and even some medical facilities that still require them.) The CMOs simply allowed the stupidity to continue.
Their advice was at times foolish, even idiotic. The Chief Medical Officer in South Australia, for example, told spectators at a football match to avoid touching the ball. And South Australia was put into lockdown based on a rumour that a man had contracted Covid from a pizza box.
South Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier
The Covid panic might be over, but the public health industry remains unscathed. The bureaucrat behind Melbourne becoming the world’s most locked down city, where playgrounds were closed and fishing banned, curfews imposed and all manner of other idiocy imposed, was made Victorian Of The Year despite his state recording the highest Covid death rate in Australia. In Queensland, where closing the border with NSW caused enormous suffering, the CMO was promoted to governor.
Much of the harm resulting from the Covid control measures could have been minimised, if not avoided entirely, if the CMOs had stuck to the science. Even if they had thought they were doing the right thing, they could have published their advice to governments so that others with relevant expertise could comment. Of all the CMOs, only Nick Coatsworth has showed any signs of regret.
It is only a matter of time before we are again subjected to their mindset. Even if there are no more pandemics, they will continue to impose their views on issues like smoking, alcohol, sugar and obesity.
The public health industry perpetually worries that we might enjoy ourselves in an unapproved manner. Having succeeded far beyond their expectations with Covid, they remain a clear and present danger to society.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
As Australia faces a rental crisis, the Greens are agitating for rent control. Chief among their voices is Adam Bandt, whose clarion call is: “Unlimited rent increases should be illegal.”
The Greens and their cheer squad claim rent control protects tenants from excessive rent increases and provides affordable housing options. Such policies would be implemented in response to affordability concerns, shortages, and displacement risks in gentrifying areas. Advocates assert rent control maintains community diversity, prevents homelessness, promotes tenant stability, and offers security against sudden and drastic rent hikes.
Introducing rent control scores politicians quick points. However, the policies are vociferously opposed by the majority of economists.
Mr Assar Lindbeck was a Swedish professor of economics, a contributor to a Nobel Prize for Economics, and a socialist. Sweden also has the most restrictive rent controls of all OECD countries. Lindbeck wrote:
Assar Lindbeck
“In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”
Lindbeck’s quip on rent control highlights a rare consensus among economists. Across all persuasions (neo-classicals, Keynesians, Austrians and socialists), economists agree that rent control is a proven failure.
This is shown by the “Rent Control Survey” 2012 conducted by IGM (Initiative on Global Markets) Forum. To the question: “Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them” – 81% of economists decisively answered ‘Disagree’.
Rent control manipulates supply and demand dynamics, corrupting markets and causing inefficiencies.
It has a blighted history of unintended, negative consequences and can permanently affect rental housing markets. Contrary to the intended purpose as an anti-poverty strategy, poor families suffer worst of all.
As housing quality and availability declines, the middle class can often find alternatives. Poor families cannot. Higher-income households can also benefit under rent control, by receiving greater subsidies. In 2018, San Francisco city staff presented their first ‘Housing Needs and Trends Report’ and ‘Housing Affordability Strategy’ to a meeting of the city’s Planning Commission. A few notable admissions included:
Households that moved into rent controlled units are much more likely to be higher income than in the past.
Housing cost burdens worsened for all but the highest income households.
The city struggled to substantially improve housing affordability for low and moderate‐income households, and does not have a comprehensive picture of how various policies and resources work together to achieve affordability outcomes.
Decreased profit margins incentivise landlords to prejudice tenant selection based on income and credit history. This disadvantages young, low-income families, especially single-parent households. It also impedes racial and economic integration by discouraging tenant mobility. In his study ‘Rent Control, Rental Housing Supply, and the Distribution of Tenant Benefits’ 2002, Dirk Early states “If landlords believe that larger households headed by young persons lead to quicker depreciation of their units, the rationing of units by landlords would lower the probability of larger and younger households finding rent regulated units.”
Rent control unfairly burdens housing providers, by forcing below-market rates of return. This effectively transfers income from property owners to occupants of rentals. Understandably, landlords and investors are reluctant to accept this. In his study “Rent Control Effects through the Lens of Empirical Research” 2022, Konstantin A. Kholodilin reviewed 60 studies from 18 countries. Over 50% demonstrate rent control’s negative effects on new residential construction. All the studies confirm rent control policies adversely affect quality of housing as decreasing rent revenue diminishes funds for maintenance and refurbishment.
Such proven, unintended consequences of rent control policies highlight the need for communities to explore alternative solutions for poor and middle-class housing. The libertarian solution to housing affordability and availability is elegant in its simplicity. Enable the free market to increase housing supply.
In 2011, councils across Perth, Western Australia were given individual infill development targets by the state government. By 2016, 94% failed to achieve their targets. More than half had not reached 50% of their goal.
Belmont, ‘City of Opportunity’, was one of the success stories. The city was proactively open and receptive to the market for over a decade. This encouraged robust investment. Belmont has maintained its infill development and continues to attract a wide range of families and businesses to live, work and invest in the city.
When considering rent control, it is worth reflecting on the adage attributed to Mark Twain “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. Government enforced rent control predictably delivers negative outcomes.
The free market is the only proven means by which to solve Australia’s rental crisis.
Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.
In his famous three-volume masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the frozen wastelands of Siberia where political prisoners and dissidents the Soviet state considered dangerous were held (for their speech, not their actions). A gulag was a Soviet prison; an archipelago is a string of islands; hence the term ‘gulag archipelago’ – a string of camps, prisons, transit centres, secret police, informers, spies and interrogators across Siberia.
Today, people are frozen out of society in more subtle ways. The authorities no longer bash down your door and haul you off to a gulag for espousing the ‘wrong views’; instead, they silence and freeze you out of existence in other ways.
No-one describes the current situation better than Scottish commentator Neil Oliver in his Essentials of Life video clip here. More about that shortly.
Divide and conquer
As we know, the Left’s chief weapon is division. Unite the disaffected groups and those with grievances, and then ‘divide and conquer’ the rest of us. Divide along racial, generational, sexual, religious or economic lines. Any line will do.
What may have started as ‘the workers vs the bosses’ – ‘the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie’ – and ‘supporting the poor’, became just a ruse to gain power. Workers and the poor have long since been abandoned by the Left who now find other ways to divide and conquer.
In his excellent book, Democracy in a Divided Australia, Matthew Lesh writes:
“Australia has a new political, cultural, and economic elite. The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers. This divide is ripping apart our political parties, national debate, and social fabric.
Inners are highly educated inner-city progressive cosmopolitans who value change, diversity, and self-actualisation. Inners, despite being a minority, dominate politics on both sides, the bureaucracy, universities, civil society, corporates, and the media. They have created a society ruled by educated elites – that is, ruled by themselves.
Outers are the instinctive traditionalists who value stability, safety, and unity. Outers are politically, culturally, and economically marginalised in today’s graduate-dominated knowledge society era. Their voice is muzzled in public debate, driving disillusionment with the major parties, and record levels of frustration, disengagement, and pessimism.“
For over a hundred years, Australia fought to remove race from civic considerations. Yet now we are being asked to permanently divide the nation by entrenching an Indigenous Voice into our Constitution. By the ‘Inners’, of course.
In the workplace, politicians are still treating workplace behaviour like a game of football. Australia’s employers (‘the bosses’) are on one team, and Australia’s employees (‘the workers’) are on the other. The game is then overseen by a so-called ‘independent umpire’ called the Fair Work Commission. But of course, this is not how workplaces operate at all. The ‘game’, if you even want to call it that, is played not by two teams of employers and employees, but by hundreds, even thousands of different teams, competing against hundreds and thousands of other teams of employers and employees.
Mark Twain observed, “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example”.
Here’s one – the infamous Dollar Sweets dispute where unions were picketing Fred Stauder’s confectionery business. Other confectionery businesses were approached to support Fred but were rebuffed saying, “Why should we care if Dollar Sweets goes down? It will mean more business for us.” So much for ‘bosses vs workers’.
While paying lip service to free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law and smaller government, the Liberal Party in Australia has all but abandoned these ideals in practice. As has big business, which, truth be known, was never on the side of free markets. Corporations have always wanted markets they can dominate, and to eliminate the competition. If that means aligning with the Left or doing the government’s bidding, so be it.
Which includes – and here we return to our ‘new gulags’ theme – closing a person’s bank account, destroying them on social media, or excluding them from employment. Business is right on board with this.
The Left will keep pushing its woke agenda until it is stopped. And it will not be stopped with facts, figures, logic, evidence or reason. It doesn’t care about any of that. It will only be stopped with political power.
Holding conferences, writing opinion pieces, producing podcasts and YouTube interviews in the hope of persuading people have, I’m afraid, had their day. The ‘Inners’ now rule.
Stopping the relentless march of the Left will require political power. Seats in parliament. Which means like-minded people and parties forming alliances and working strategically and tactically together to win seats.
In Neil Oliver’s video clip, he says, “When it comes to the state, that which it can do, it certainly will do” and “What can happen to anyone, will soon happen to everyone”.
So, if you belong to a think-tank, lobby group or centre-right political party, and want to stop the woke Left further ruining our country, then please encourage your organisation to place less emphasis on winning arguments and more emphasis on winning seats – as previously outlined here and here.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
Although commonly attributed to Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, the expression “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” long predated him.
In fact, it described the practice of saloons (bars) offering a “free” lunch to patrons who purchased at least one drink. The luncheon was generally high in salt (cheese, salted crackers, nuts), enticing patrons to purchase generous volumes of high-priced beer. If you weren’t paying attention, and fell for the trap, you wound up paying much more for the “free lunch”. The exploitation of a cognitive bias leads to over consumption (eg cheap and poor quality food) and over payment (eg through purchase of excess beer).
Which brings us to Australia – the land of the free and home of the expensive. Not free as in freedom, but free as in government delivered services including healthcare and education that are perceived to be free. And as with the salty food, there is over consumption and excessive cost. Like the free lunch, Australians do not get free healthcare or education. Every single one of us pays; just in a different way.
Healthcare is funded through the Medicare levy and general taxes at the State and Commonwealth level, including income tax and GST. So, whether you are a billionaire or on welfare, you are paying taxes that fund healthcare. And because healthcare is presented as “free”, there is inevitable overconsumption and waste.
Prof. Milton Friedman
Referencing Milton Friedman again, he observed that there are essentially four ways to spend money:
You can spend your own money on yourself.
You can spend your own money on someone else.
You can spend somebody else’s money on yourself.
You can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.
When you spend your own money on yourself, you are very careful because you are looking for value. You won’t be as careful when you spend your own money on someone else, but you will look for value.
When you spend somebody else’s money on yourself, you are more interested in making your life comfortable than achieving value, but you will at least expect to gain a benefit.
Healthcare falls into the fourth category, of spending other people’s money on somebody else. There is no incentive to pursue value at all.
While we pretend healthcare is free, in reality it is bureaucrats in offices spending other people’s money on others. That includes finding new ways to expand their domain.
Consider the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. According to its 2021-22 annual report, at 30 June 2022
It employed 5,154 persons – up from 4,450 the year prior,
These staff cost $697 million – up from $559 million the year prior, and
Its operating expenses were $1.3 billion – up from $1.1 billion the year prior.
All this and yet the department did not operate a single hospital or aged care facility.
According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (a government body), in 2020-21, total health spending in Australia was over $220 billion of which over 70% was government (Commonwealth, State, and Territory). That does not sound very free.
A government commissioned review also found that perhaps 10% of the Medicare program was subject to waste and fraud. Why? Perhaps because governments are spending somebody else’s money on somebody else.
This is not to suggest that there would be no government health expenditure if this charade of free healthcare was ended. It might however lead to a much more responsive and cost-efficient system. Consider how much lower taxes could be, or how much higher pensions might be, but for the inefficiency and waste of Australia’s “free” healthcare system.
We are told by Professor Duncan Maskell, the Vice-Chancellor (CEO) of the University of Melbourne, that “one of the most important radical changes that could be made to facilitate this would be once more to make education free to the Australian domestic student”. Australia already has an over-production problem of university graduates, and Maskell’s proposal would make it even worse. Why? Because universities would be spending somebody else’s money on somebody else.
To make university education “free to the Australian domestic student” would require someone else to pay for it, including those who do not and will never attend university. It wouldn’t be free; it would just be paid for by someone else.
If Professor Maskell, who is reported to be on an annual salary package of $1.5 million, really wants to make university cheaper and/or free for students, he should first look in his back yard. According to the Melbourne University annual report, in 2022 it had approximately 53,000 students and employee related expenses of $1.6 billion. That’s approximately $31,000 per student. It would certainly make the cost of education much lower if Professor Maskell and all his staff worked for free.
Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.
A libertarian friend called me at 6.30am last Tuesday whist I was riding the train to work. “How do you start a community bank?” he asked. My friend lives in rural NSW and as they say in the country, he is “jack” of the major banks.
“The banks are closing one after the other and the ATMs are disappearing too. Which means cash is disappearing. We need to get our own bank around here”.
This issue is fast becoming mainstream, reported in media outlets including the ABC, News, and Sky in the past seven days alone.
Rural folk love their cash for practical reasons. Libertarians love it for ideological ones, which some might find ironic given many libertarians also advocate the end of fiat currency and its replacement with gold or crypto.
But here is why libertarians hold cash dear:
1. Financial Privacy Cash transactions provide anonymity and privacy. You can do your business without a centralised authority monitoring your every move. Electronic payments can be tracked and monitored by banks, governments, or other third parties, potentially compromising your financial privacy.
2. Vulnerability To Surveillance Electronic payment systems create a digital trail of transactions, creating an incentive for governments and corporations to collect vast amounts of data on your purchasing habits, preferences, and of course personal information.
Cash means you can do your business without a centralised authority monitoring your every move.
3. Government Tyranny A shift toward electronic payments can give governments greater control over our financial activities. They can potentially freeze or confiscate funds, impose restrictions on transactions, or even manipulate the monetary system to suit their own interests. This would never happen, right? Ask the Canadian truckers or Nigel Farage.
4. Vulnerability To Cyber Threats Relying solely on electronic payments increases the risk of cyber attacks and fraud. Carrying cash comes with its own risks, sure, but cash can’t be hacked. Major corporations are getting hacked left and right. Who is safe?
5. Exclusion of Marginalised Communities Not everyone has access to electronic payment methods. Not all communities have the same infrastructure as large cities. Denying communities which rely on cash for their daily transactions is surely discriminatory.
6. Dependency On Intermediaries My economics professor used to say, “the more you cut up the cake, the more of it sticks to the knife”. Electronic payments typically require intermediaries, none of which provide their service for free. And for every intermediary in the transaction chain, there is another point of control and vulnerability as users become subject to the policies and regulations set by these intermediaries. Look what happened when Israel Folau tried to raise a ‘Go Fund Me’ for his legal fees.
7. Limitations On Personal Choice Cash provides individuals with a tangible and universally accepted form of payment that can be used freely and without restrictions.
8. Infringement On Property Rights Cash represents physical ownership. You hold it in your hand. It’s yours. Property rights are infringed when you are forced to rely on electronic representations of money stored at the pleasure of others.
9. Impact On Small Businesses Cash transactions offer certain advantages to small businesses, reduced transaction costs and the ability to avoid credit card processing fees for a start. Denying small businesses the opportunity to trade in cash makes it harder for them to compete with their corporate counterparts. Libertarians believe in free markets, not markets distorted in this way.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
Libertarian principles support free labour markets, highlighting the benefits of voluntary transactions and flexible negotiations for driving economic growth. However, excessive government intervention can restrict labour market freedom and limit economic opportunities, leading businesses to resort to offshoring as a cost-saving measure.
This article does not criticise offshoring itself; instead, it explores the unintended consequences of government policies that result in a highly leveraged workforce. Similar to the risks and benefits of high levels of debt to a household, leveraging the domestic labour force with an offshore workforce can have parallel effects on an economy.
When a family home carries a high mortgage, it brings prosperity when interest rates are low, employment is abundant, and house prices rise. In such conditions, debt can contribute to personal wealth. However, if one or both parents lose their jobs, they may be forced to sell their home in a depressed market, erasing their financial wealth.
Similarly, excessive financial leverage within businesses can be perilous during a recession. As economic conditions worsen, companies burdened with high debt may struggle to meet their financial obligations, leading to layoffs and business failures.
Could an economy’s reliance on offshoring be as dangerous during a recession as high financial leverage for households or businesses? Are there parallels? Before delving into these questions, it’s important to note that no study or discourse has compared offshoring as workforce leverage to financial leverage, nor quantified the extent of workforce leverage in Australia.
Offshoring often results in job losses within the domestic labour market as companies move operations abroad to reduce costs. This leads to higher unemployment rates, reduced consumer spending, and a contraction in the local economy. Moreover, heavy reliance on offshoring creates a dependency on foreign labour markets, making the domestic workforce more vulnerable during a recession.
Offshoring can contribute to economic imbalances within a country. When a significant portion of a nation’s industries or sectors are offshored, the domestic economy becomes overly reliant on a narrow range of activities. During a recession, a downturn in these offshored industries can have knock-on effects and cause an economic downturn that affects the broader population.
Drawing a parallel, when leverage against an asset is high, it is the equity that is most at risk. In the case of the family home, if parents have borrowed $800,000 against a $1,000,000 property and the market experiences a 20% decline, the asset loses only 10%, but the equity of the parents is halved (10%/20%).
In the event of a recession, the “equity” in the workforce equation is our domestic workforce. Cost-cutting measures are likely to begin with expensive Australian workers rather than cheaper offshore workers, especially when the offshore workers are not subject to the same regulations as the domestic workforce. As a result, a small percentage drop in the combined workforce (onshore and offshore) could lead to a much larger decline in the local workforce, similar to how a downturn in the property market disproportionately destroys a homeowner’s equity.
Libertarian Solution: Free Labour Markets:
Libertarians propose that free labour markets, unrestricted by excessive regulations, provide a more sustainable solution to reduce the need for offshoring. Here’s how free labour markets can positively impact the economy and reduce the risks inherent in a highly leveraged domestic workforce:
1. Optimised Operations and Increased Productivity:
A free labour market encourages domestic businesses to focus on optimising their operations and improving productivity. By reducing regulations and bureaucratic barriers, companies can compete more effectively, leading to increased domestic production, job creation, and economic growth.
2. Incentives for Investment and Innovation:
Free labour markets foster an environment that incentivises investment and innovation – domestically. When businesses can freely negotiate wages and working conditions with locally domiciled workers, they are more likely to invest in research and development, adopt new technologies, and enhance productivity. This promotes economic resilience and reduces the need to offshore operations to access lower-cost labour.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
It goes without saying that rules and sanctions should be clearly specified in advance so people know how they are supposed to behave and what will happen to them if they don’t. Also, importantly, rules must apply equally to everybody.
But the rules governing tax liabilities have become so tangled and complex that nobody can be sure any longer what they are or how they will apply in any given case. And behind the vast volume of laws – the actual legislation – looms an equally massive array of ATO public determinations, public rulings, bulletins, interpretative decisions, policy papers, circulars, administrative guidelines and practice statements. Some of these are supposed to be binding on ATO officers, and in general ATO staff rely on them rather than on the legislation. In practice that gives them something close to the force of law.
But the ATO no longer simply implements a known set of rules; it develops and amends the rules case by case. In effect, the ATO makes its own rules. As a consequence, we have tax laws which have lost their intelligibility, certainty and predictability. It is not real law as we’ve come to understand that term.
The resulting attitude of many taxpayers is to treat the law and the courts as irrelevant. “Forget legal advice, just give me an ATO ruling that will protect me from penalties or prosecution,” they say. Many taxpayers, of course, just surrender and pay up.
Systems which are complex in their application, debilitating in the sense that the more you earn the less of each dollar you keep, and unfair and unreasonable in the sense that people feel penalized for working, are destined to fail in the long term.
Take Australia’s cash economy, estimated at 15 percent of GDP, one of the largest in the developed world. An underground economy of that magnitude requires the involvement not only of a lot of businesses, but also of millions of consumers. As we know, laws only work when people believe in them; clearly a lot of Australians have no respect for our tax laws.
Despite what many advocating increases in tax would have us believe, the total tax take in Australia is quite high. Some say that compared with other developed economies, Australia is a ‘low tax’ country, and that workers and companies could comfortably pay more. This is ridiculous. When it comes to taxing incomes, Australia is right up there with the Europeans and way ahead of most of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region.
High tax rates undermine enterprise and destroy the will to work.
You don’t have to be a Laffer Curve true believer to accept that behavioural response is a reality. When you add to this the corrosive effect on the moral relationship between the state and its citizens, the case for fundamental tax reform becomes even more compelling.
There comes a point when the prospect of giving up half or more of any additional earnings leads people to decide that it is simply not worth it.
Taxation then starts to produce gross inefficiencies as people stop working as much or as hard as they used to, and governments find their taxes are not producing the revenue they expected. Politicians and bureaucrats who lack real world experience and an understanding of how an economy and markets work are drawn into a vicious spiral, jacking up tax rates to try to compensate for the falling revenues that their high tax demands have created.
Similarly, many on welfare reject opportunities to work because of the punitive effect that small earnings and high tax rates have on the security of their benefits and the value of extra work.
And people on very low incomes fare worst of all, for as they increase their earnings, higher rates of income tax combine with the loss of means-tested benefits deprive them of up to 80 cents of every extra dollar they earn.
If we are to extricate ourselves from this dysfunctional system, the goodwill of the public needs to be restored by getting tax levels back to something which most people would see as reasonable. To achieve this, we need to remove one of the most significant tax avoidance avenues and align personal tax rates with company tax rates.
There is certainly a pressing need to reduce the current company tax rate (25% for companies with turnover below $50m, 30% above that). I accept it can’t be done overnight, but the Government would do well to start cutting the rate by one percentage point in this Budget, and then announce its intention to make a similar reduction every year while in office. That would hold out the prospect of a 20 per cent company tax rate and, if it is really serious about an internationally competitive tax system, a 20% personal tax rate.
Nobody enjoys paying taxes but in the 1950s and 1960s, relatively low taxation and a comparatively simple set of tax rules meant that most people paid what was due without too much complaint. Today, however, the Government and the ATO find themselves locked into a destructive relationship of repression and resistance with ordinary taxpayers. Where people can avoid tax by exploiting loopholes, they will do so; where they can’t eg PAYG taxpayers, they become resentful at the unfairness of it all.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
In some ways, the debate about productivity is like discussing the weather: everyone agrees it’s a problem, but nobody does anything about it.
In theory, productivity is simple: it is a measure of the rate at which goods and services are produced per unit of input (labour, capital, raw materials, etc.)
Growth in productivity is important; it’s what drives long-term improvement in living standards. As productivity improves, working hours fall, leisure time increases and goods become cheaper and better quality.
The Productivity Commission says the average Australian worker produces about as much in one hour today as it took a full day’s work to produce at Federation in 1901.
It gives the example of a bicycle which, in 1901, would have required several months of work to afford but now requires less than a day of work (for a basic model). Moreover, even the lowest quality new bicycles are much safer and easier to use than those produced then.
Early bicycle factory, derivative of agricultural works (left). Modern bicycle assembly line (right).
The problem is, productivity needs to constantly increase, yet growth in productivity in Australia has been low for at least two decades and may even have been zero in the last few years.
Both sides of politics know this and periodically declare they intend to do something about it. But when they discover what that means in practice, they find it a lot easier to just talk.
There are various factors that affect productivity growth: technological improvements, economies of scale and scope, workforce skills, management practices, changes in other inputs (such as capital), competitive pressures and the stage of the business cycle.
The two big ones are technology and labour. Personal computers, for example, gave productivity a boost because it transformed office work. The productivity of the wharves was raised when Patricks was able to implement labour reforms in 1998.
Changes like these are few and far between. Far more often, governments adopt policies that stifle productivity. There are many examples.
When the ACCC blocks the takeover of one firm by another on the grounds that it might lessen competition, this usually also prevents a productivity boost. If the takeover occurred, the firm would shed surplus staff and assets; those staff would be redeployed (ie hired by someone else), and the assets would have a new owner and be used more productively.
It is the same when the government props-up firms through tariffs, import restrictions, subsidies, soft loans, extended tax payment terms, and the like. Firms that would otherwise go out of business or change what they are doing are kept going, soaking-up capital and labour while blocking the growth of more innovative and nimble firms.
Governments also constantly raise the cost of doing business. A good example – the increasing cost of electricity. From dairy farms to tattoo parlours, prices must increase or profitability fall. Higher interest rates have the same effect. And reporting to the government on workplace gender pay, anti-slavery and emissions reductions does nothing for the business. Indeed, the whole ESG charade is a net cost.
Productivity would increase considerably if businesses could adjust their workforce to suit variations in conditions.
But with complex awards and enterprise agreements, unfair dismissal laws, bogus harassment claims and go away money, it is anything but efficient. Many use contractors and labour hire to meet variable needs, but the Government’s attack on contractors and ‘gig’ workers, the so-called “same job same pay” legislation, will severely restrict that. Then there are restrictions on workforce participation due to barriers to work, which also inhibit productivity.
The growth of credentialism, with qualifications required for almost everything, is yet another factor. A certificate is needed even for serving alcohol in a bar. All of this contributes to a decline in business dynamism (as evidenced by a decline in firm entry and exit rates), which slows the rate of innovation and technology adoption by firms and inhibits the reallocation of resources to the most productive firms.
When it comes to the public sector, productivity is rarely considered. The growth in public servant numbers diverts resources from the private sector, which has a negative impact. And although service delivery is increasingly online, which might slightly help, this is rarely accompanied by a reduction in public servant numbers or an overall reduction in red tape.
Once understood, it is easy to see why governments prefer to talk about productivity than act. It is not easy to fix within the constraints of existing policies, particularly on labour. That explains why they periodically decide the solution lies in technology and will throw taxpayers’ money at a new idea that takes their fancy. Of course, that rarely ends well.
But despite their similarities, the weather and productivity are quite different. So far, the Government has not found a way to make the weather worse.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. It is impossible.”
Those were not the words of an Australian Commonwealth Treasurer but rather of Winston Churchill addressing the House of Commons in 1925 arguing against a proposed increase in taxes.
Winston Churchill. Economic liberal and twice UK Prime Minister.
Almost 100 years after Churchill’s comment, Treasurer Chalmers presented his second Budget, in May 2023. It showed yet another record amount of tax collected and sums spent. For the coming 2024 financial year, the Government expects to collect $668 billion (25.9% of GDP) to fund $684 billion of spending (26.6% of GDP).
Of course, spending is higher than revenue so yet again there is a deficit to add to the national debt pile for our children and grandchildren to pay.
Of the $684 billion of spending, it is estimated that $356 billion or around 52% will be spent on health and welfare.
And within the social security and welfare line is the following:
From a standing start around ten years ago, assistance to people with disabilities, ostensibly NDIS, is now the second largest Commonwealth government program.
Over the life of the budget (FY23 to FY27), the average annual increase in spending on the aged pension increases by 6.5%, but the average annual increase in spending on the NDIS is 7.9%. Both increases are faster than economic growth and the average annual increase in receipts (3.7%).
Like much of the developed world, Australia is experiencing an ageing population. It could be reasonably expected that spending on aged pensions might increase, but so much for superannuation.
Yet given the rapid growth of NDIS spending, one might conclude that Australia is also experiencing a dramatic increase in disability.
Maybe there is something in the water. Or perhaps the education system.
Parked near the back of the budget papers is an analysis of real per-capita spending and taxing: per-capita to adjust for government activity increasing due to population increases; real to adjust for inflation over time. And in these numbers, the true state of budget disrepair is evident.
On a real per-capita basis, in the 2024 financial year:
Commonwealth receipts are expected to be $18,102;
Commonwealth payments are expected to be $18,479; and
Commonwealth net debt is expected to be $15,574.
Impressive. From an average four-person household, the Commonwealth expects to extract $72,408.
But here is the interesting part. Thirty years ago, in per-capital real dollars:
Commonwealth receipts were $8,866;
Commonwealth payments were $10,110; and
Commonwealth net debt was $11,364.
So basically, in the space of 30 years, on a per-capita basis, we are paying double the amount of tax, the Commonwealth is spending almost twice as much, and debt is 4.5 times larger in real terms. And 30 years ago was 1983-84, when Bob Hawke came in inheriting a national economic basket case.
It is worth noting that the inclusion of historical real per-capita data in the budget papers is owed to the negotiation efforts of former Senator David Leyonhjelm. Such important government finance transparency highlights the value of a strong classical liberal voice in Australian parliaments.
Improved budget reporting. Legacy of former Senator, David Leyonhjelm.
During the 1980 US Presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan asked the (rhetorical) question: “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?” Here is a question for Australians. Is Australian government better than it was 30 years ago? Given the doubling of taxing and spending, are services better? Is Australia safer? Are we healthier or smarter?
Perhaps Churchill was only half right. A nation can’t tax itself into prosperity, but Australia is trying to tax itself into welfare and disability.
Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.
In May of 1973, a year before the first incarnation of Medicare became law, the Australian Medical Association sent a letter to its members warning about the dangers of socialised medicine. They were concerned about the “interference by governments in the relationship between doctor and patient“[1] and highlighted key freedoms that they said should be protected:
No barrier separating the patient from free choice of specialist or hospital.
Minimum intrusion between doctor and patient by governments.
Freedom and opportunity to practise on a fee-for service basis without threat of coercion or compulsion.
Freedom to provide a personal service based on personal responsibility within a system based on quality rather than quantity.
They were concerned about the “interference by governments in the relationship between doctor and patient“
The AMA abandoned these goals long ago and now merely lobbies Governments for favours. But 50 years later, their worst fears have become a reality: an impossible melee of item numbers, rules and coercion stands between Australians and their doctors.
Consider the case of Dr. Andre Leong in WA. Dr. Leong was harassed for billing a series of item numbers more frequently than other GPs. His training and experience (including leading a medical team in Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami) prepared him for performing operations that most GPs do not. Other doctors frequently referred patients to him to perform these procedures. He stood out and was subjected to lengthy audits and investigations until ultimately forced to stop billing these items. He retired altogether shortly after. There is overwhelming community support for him online.
Dr Andrew Leong. Audited and then forced to stop practising particular medicine in which he had expertise.
47% of GPs report they either avoid providing certain services or claiming certain rebates due to Medicare compliance fears, while 61% report that the complexity of Medicare is something that worries them outside their workday. [2] Many choose to under-bill, fearful of compliance action, claiming 20-minute consultations despite spending up to 45 minutes with a patient. This pressure on doctors to quickly finalise a consultation is a common experience for patients.
Some doctors are fed up: ‘We have had enough of the coercive control, of the abusive relationship that is Medicare’[3], they protest. To add insult to injury, doctors are constantly accused of rorting The System. It is no surprise there is a shortage of GPs.
The situation with mental health is even more depressing. The number of hoops you have to jump through, and the fight you have to put up, can make anyone give up and surrender to their daemons. In a way it is reassuring when you realise that GPs, psychologists, psychiatrists, and nutritionists are all as confused and perplexed by The System as you are. I once spent 3 hours on the phone with Medicare, explaining to them the difference between related mental health items, the corresponding mental health plans, and the review process of these plans. All to convince them to pay me the refunds they were supposed to. It is absurd, demoralising and abusive.
It ought to be so simple. You go to a doctor (of which there would be many more), you pay, you receive the care that is right for you, and you form lasting relationships with your healthcare providers. No man in the middle setting arbitrary barriers and obstacles.
If we really are an egalitarian society that genuinely cares for the less fortunate, why would anyone think that without the Government we would just leave people to die on the streets? Despite losing half their income to the different levels of Government[4], Australians still donate generously to charity.
Not-for-profit organisations like the Little Company of Mary, which run the Calvary Hospitals, demonstrate society’s responsible concern. But like all monopolistic predators, Governments react to competition by trying to shut it down. That is the case with the Calvary Hospital in Canberra, now subject to a hostile takeover by the ACT Government. What then is the opportunity cost of this socialised experiment? How many foundations have not been created, how many research labs, how many hospitals?
And yet, calls to protect “our health system” are made repeatedly with a quasi-religious fervour. Protecting The System takes precedence over any individual’s best interest. It is the main reason why, for example, bringing your parents from overseas to live in Australia can cost up to $70k. Their old age is too big a threat to The System. The (involuntary) contributions you have made to fund it matter very little.
The overriding of your individual best interest by a collective abstraction which the Government claims to represent was in full display during the pandemic years.
It is clear that protecting The System is more important than going to see your dying mother, your job, your business, your wedding, your graduation, your first big gig; anything meaningful in your life can and will be sacrificed on the altar of the collective good.
Medicare, the crown jewel of Australia’s universal healthcare system, is an immoral, ruthless, conniving partner that manipulates Australians into paying for and celebrating their own abuse.
Lionel is an IT engineer with more than 20 years’ experience developing enterprise applications in the private and public sectors. He completed his computer science degree in Venezuela in 2001. Then in 2002, Lionel moved to Australia after obtaining an international internship in Canberra. He became an Australian citizen in 2008.
With the Commonwealth Budget due to be presented later today, Australians should reflect on the words of Winston Churchill, who wisely observed that “there is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place.” Such clarity seems missing from our contemporary economic and public finance debates.
There is a myth, even an attempt at deception, perpetuated by the tax and spend industrial complex that Australia is a low tax jurisdiction. (Hint – it’s not). And, based on this myth, that there is capacity for further tax rises in Australia to fund existing and new programs. (Hint – there isn’t).
In its recent report titled ‘Back in Black?’, the Grattan Institute presented a chart and commented that “Total tax collections across governments in Australia represented 28 per cent of GDP in 2019, about 5 percentage points lower than the OECD average of 33 per cent”. The clear implication is that there is capacity for government to increase (tax) revenues.”
Sadly, for Australian taxpayers, this is not an accurate representation. Once other State, Territory and local government receipts are added, Australia’s tax to GDP rate represents approximately 36 percent. When further adjusted for superannuation contributions, as other countries tax for social security, then Australia’s effective tax to GDP rate is approximately 40 percent. Significantly above the OECD average.
Add in the hidden taxes imposed by the massive and highly complex regulatory and compliance edifice that is pushed onto the private sector, and Australia’s tax to GDP rate starts to look very Scandinavian. But without the competence and efficiency of the Scandinavian public sector.
Those advocating for more taxes to fund more spending seem blind to the consequences. The more national resources are transferred from production to government and quasi-government activity, the lower will be productivity and economic growth. Given the MASSIVE expansion of government in Australia over the past 20 years, it should surprise no-one that GDP per capita is flat to declining. Just at the Commonwealth level, spending as a percentage of GDP has increased from about 18 per cent in 1972 to about 23 per cent in 2000, to just under 28 per cent in 2020.
What is required is a fundamental assault on Government spending, not new schemes to increase taxes.
It can start at the Commonwealth public service which has a workforce of over 250,000 public sector employees, despite the vast majority not providing front line services. That includes 10,000 employees within the Departments of Education and Health and Ageing Departments, which do not operate a single school, university, hospital or aged care facility.
The wages and salaries of Commonwealth public sector employees totalled $24.5 billion in 2022 and would increase by $5 billion if the CPSU’s claim for a 20 percent pay increase is successful.
All eyes on team Chalmers and Gallagher today
Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher need to embrace the legacy of Paul Keating and Peter Walsh and undertake the hard but necessary work to bring Commonwealth Government spending back under control. Better yet, they should learn the expression Just Say No.
Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.
In my last piece, Remembering Frederick Douglass, I discussed the evils and folly of centralised wage-fixing which, amongst other things, prevented people – young people in particular – from getting a start in the workforce; a foot on that first rung of the employment ladder.
Today, we look at centralized wage-fixing’s partner-in-crime – tariff protection. The other side of the micro-economic coin, if you like.
It was Bert Kelly (1912–1997) who once said, ‘The really bad ideas never go away’.
Bert Kelly. Member for Wakefield (Lib, SA). Leading advocate for free markets.
Along with centralised wage-fixing, protectionism is another of those really bad ideas.
The Australian settlement of 1900 was based on five key principles – two were economic, two were social and one was the imperial benevolence of the mother country.
The two social principles were the White Australia Policy and State Paternalism.
The two economic principles were regulated labour markets and tariff protection. These two went hand in hand. As centralised wage-fixing delivered arbitrary pay increases, thus increasing the cost of production, the price of the goods rose commensurately. As a result, imported goods became more competitive. In response, an import tax – a tariff – was placed on these imported goods to ‘protect’ Australian jobs from competition.
By the late 19th century, NSW had prospered under its free trade regime and had overtaken protectionist Victoria, becoming the continent’s leading colony. Following the collapse of the gold-rush, and to sustain its economy, Victoria borrowed heavily in the British capital markets but soon found itself impoverished and losing population – the consequences of 30 years of protectionism. NSW political leaders such as George Reid speculated that Victoria was desperate for federation so that its economic problems could be shared with the other colonies!
By the early 1920s, the newly-formed Country Party under Earle Page – influenced by the rural export industries of wool, meat and wheat – was officially opposed to protection, yet supported the Scullin Government’s belief that tariffs on imports would help restore employment during the Great Depression (1929–1932) by handing out tariffs virtually on demand. It didn’t work.
In 1930, Australian historian Keith Hancock had published his book Australia which contains this memorable reference to protectionism in Australia:
‘Protection in Australia is more than a policy: it is a faith and a dogma. Its critics, during the second decade of the twentieth century, dwindled into a despised and detected sect suspected of nursing an anti-national heresy. Protection is interwoven with almost every strand of Australia’s democratic nationalism. It professes to be a policy of plenty, but it is a policy of power.’
Bert Kelly arrived in Federal Parliament in 1958 as the Member for the South Australian seat of Wakefield and from then until he left the Parliament in 1977 fought a long and often bitter campaign against protectionism – first against a very powerful Deputy Prime Minister and Country Party Leader in John ‘Black Jack’ McEwen, and then against the strongly-defended populism of ‘protecting Australian jobs’.
Bert Kelly was opposed to protectionism because, like centralised wage-fixing, it was not only economically foolish, it was also morally wrong. It was wrong, he said, because it created a situation in which governments granted favours to some, who became greatly enriched, at the expense of others, who were at best impoverished and at worst, ruined.
On a parliamentary delegation to India, Bert visited a factory making bed sheets which wanted to sell in Australia but was unable to do so due to the high tariff (import tax) placed on imported bed linen. It was the same at an Indian shirt factory.
For example, a shirt made in Australia cost $50 to buy. An imported shirt $20. By imposing a $30 tariff on the imported shirt, consumers were told they had to pay $50 for a shirt to ‘protect Australian jobs’. If there were no tariff, however, and consumers were able to buy a shirt for $20 instead of $50, that would give them Bert argued, $30 to spend on something else. And it is that something else that is the catalyst for emerging industries.
Tariffs support declining industries, free trade supports emerging industries.
Bert also learned that Indians were desperate to buy Australian milk powder for their children but did not have the foreign exchange – Australian or US dollars – due to the insurmountable tariff on their textile goods entering Australia.
Thus, both India and Australia suffered. To quote Bert Kelly:
‘Australian dairy farmers can’t sell their skim milk powder, Australian families have to buy expensive ‘Australian-made’ sheets and shirts, Indian children don’t get milk and Indian factories can’t make textiles. A lose-lose situation if ever there was one. All this brought to you by our good and wise government’.
At the same time, Australia was giving aid money to India.
Bert spoke frequently in favour of Community Aid Abroad but against aid being given with no strings attached. ‘Trading with poor countries is a far better way to help them than giving them aid,” he argued.
With the union movement’s new friends in Canberra, expect to see more on the wages/tariff front.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
After three long years of covid lockdown-induced solitary confinement, a loyal Liberty Itch subscriber cut loose, left Australia for South-East Asia and found herself in Vietnam.
Animated by what she saw, I started to receive her much-welcomed dispatches about daily life there.
Now, if you read any 1960s and 1970s history, you know Vietnam is communist. But what my friend’s streetscape dispatches reveal is that daily life is anything but centrally-controlled. In fact, what she witnessed felt more like the hustle and bustle of enterprise or, as our intrepid adventurer pithily described …
“official communism, sure, yet with a je ne sais quoi libertarian, freewheeling spirit, small-scale capitalist at every turn.”
I’ll step out of the way. These are her words …
There are no rules, Kenelm. It’s fend for yourself. Even these communists realise capitalism is the way to go. Free markets and small business. It feels like what I imagine 1880s London or 1980s Hong Kong to be. Free. Laissez faire. Taxes are low. 5%+ for residents. 20% flat tax for foreigners. The communists simply don’t have the money for bureaucrats. They’ve taken themselves out of the game and let people live their own lives.
There’s genuine economic development here. It’s booming.
There is little of government here to save you. You save yourself or drown, which isn’t an option.
So, family is very important. Your family takes care of you in your old age, not the government. You know, like we used to do in Australia.
Prices are so low.
Petrol is a mere 37 cents a litre. No fuel excise. Can you imagine?
Food is cheap.
At the end of a long, hard day, cocktails are $2.50.
Road rules? The only rule here appears to be there are no rules, almost anarchy. Yet it works. A loose framework exists where thousands stop on a red light. But only when it suits them. Lanes on the road? Only use those if you absolutely must. It’s better to weave right, left, and even preferrable to pit your life against a semi-trailer coming from the opposite direction, because you absolutely must overtake the vehicle in front of you.
Pedestrian crossings? A mere piffle, an abstract idea where someone thought stripes of white paint were to beautify the road. The pedestrian who stands at one end expecting the traffic to stop for her, hah! She is the pedestrian who never returns home alive. As one local said to our observer, “If you don’t move, you’ll die. You need to move. Not too fast. Not too slow” … to which I replied, “Oh, you mean the Goldilocks effect”. The harrowed local muttered “Who is Goldilocks?” under his breath. Big tip! It’s best to wait for a small gap in the traffic. Walk whilst praying to God the entire time that He will see you safely to the other side.
Footpaths? You know, for human feet? A figment of an idea, I tell you. They are just another lane for bikes to scoot down in the gridlocked peak hour traffic. Footpaths are places to park, to open your front gate, to wheel your dolly-trolly, to sell your wares for the day. All day and every day. The pedestrians are after-thoughts.
Did I mention $3 Singapore Slings?
There aren’t suffocating regulations about, say, straws. Yes, you can get a decent plastic straw in Vietnam!
Communism, lurking in the background somewhere, OK. But the streetscape looks what I imagine laissez faire to be. It’s a rambunctious, rollicking, throbbing freedom, not that poor imitation back home. It’s every man for himself. As the saying goes, “It’s the quick or the dead” around here. Maybe that’s because the communists simply can’t make central planning work to feed people. Maybe they gave up that aspiration long ago. Everyday people her feed themselves and their families through good old-fashioned free trade.
This is what Australia is competing with! Enterprising, self-reliant people. Low prices. There’s a lot of manufacturing being exported. They value add. It’s not a big quarry like other economies we’re familiar with!
The West is on the precipice of losing something incredibly precious.
In comparison to Vietnam, we need to wrap society in cotton wool and legislate for every possible scenario that might make us sick, kill or injure us.
We’ve left the realm of common sense, we’re stifled and soft-pruned by a socialist bubble bath. Individuals can no longer assess risk with any degree of rationality. Individuals are increasingly absolved of all self-responsibility and that power is being placed into the hands of faceless bureaucrats and legislators who make decisions on our behalf. It’s not needed. It’s not in our best interests. Vietnam proves it.
Remind my fellow Liberty Itch subscribers, as I often remind my friends, none of us are getting off this planet alive! We need to take back our autonomy, before it’s too late.
To all of which, I can only say to my friend, hear hear!
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Some thirty plus years ago, a fellow by the name of Kerry Packer appeared before a House of Representatives Inquiry into Print Media.
Kerry Packer. Appeared in the House of Reps Inquiry into Print Media in 1991.
The context of the inquiry was that the owner of the main metropolitan newspapers and classifieds, Fairfax, had gone broke. And with Fairfax having gone broke, Packer was trying to buy into the re-floated business.
This was a time before the Internet, when newspapers actually made money and lots if it from their classifieds business. Fairfax’s classifieds business was referred to as the ‘rivers of gold’.
There is a tale to tell here around Malcolm Turnbull who was previously Packer’s in-house lawyer and who, by this stage, had moved on and was representing the junk bond holders of the broke Fairfax. But that is for another time.
Businessman Kerry Packer with future Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.
For his masterclass in its entirety, see the video at the end of this article.
There are some much younger looking folk in it, including one Peter Costello. However, this is not to delve into the issues of media, but rather the diversion that took place late in the piece when Packer spoke about the risk to Australia from the constant meddling of Australian parliaments and the risk to investments into Australia. It was a Packer masterclass and should be shown in every school and every parliamentarian induction session.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Highlight 1 – when Packer says to ALP curmudgeon John Langmore:
“You seem to be completely unaware of the Constitution of Australia.”
Highlight 2 – when Packer points out that in his lifetime, tens of thousands of laws had been passed but that Australia was not a better place for all those new laws. He also suggested that for every law passed, another law be repealed. Packer said:
Every time you pass a law, you take someone’s privileges away from them.
Highlight 3 – again when Langmore accuses Packer of minimising his tax. To which Packer replied:
I don’t know anyone who does not minimise their tax. If anyone in this country doesn’t minimise their tax, they want their heads read, because as a government, I can tell you that you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!
Which brings me to superannuation wars 2023 when Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones flagged yet more changes to superannuation taxes.
The proposal is couched in fairness, but the truth is that like drug addicts, the government is in desperate need of more money.
A retiree earning $100,000 a year in super fund investment returns typically pays no income tax, whereas a wage earner receiving the same amount pays $23,000 tax
This is neither fair nor just. But the Government’s problem, as with the same problem for the Coalition, is that they have no credibility when it comes to tax changes and tax reforms. This because they won’t do the work of demonstrating that what is currently being spent is being spent efficiently and effectively.
Instead, piles of money and political capital are being expended to generate what will likely be less than $1 billion per annum of additional taxes.
Talk about perverted priorities.
There is much wrong and distortionary with the Australian tax system. It is a train crash. But until government does the fundamental and hard work of spending reform, tax reform will be seen for what it is. Just an attempt to pump more water into a leaky bucket.
According to the ABS, for the 12 months to June 2021, the 3 tiers of Australian government managed to generate $810 billion of revenue. But they spent $970 billion or near half of GDP generating a combined deficit of $160 billion.
Our governments don’t have revenue problem. They have a spending problem. Message to Labor, Liberal, National and Greens governments, as Kerry Packer said quite well and clearly:
“you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!”
Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.
During the Australian Government’s covid overreach period, its gross debt increased from $534.4 billion in March 2019 to $885.5 billion in April 2022. This is the highest it’s been relative to GDP since the 1950s when the country was still repaying debts from WWII.
In 2007, the first Rudd Government introduced a debt ceiling of A$75 billion to demonstrate its supposed economic credentials. A cap on debt. You can’t be more fiscally responsible than that, right?
What happened next won’t surprise you if you’re a long-time observer of government.
The same government then increased the debt ceiling to A$200 billion, then to A$250 billion, then A$300 billion. Complete economic vandalism!
But that’s OK. To the rescue comes the Coalition, right? Wrong. In 2013, the Abbott Government lifted the cap to A$500 billion.
You get the picture.
Then, tired of the recurring process of increasing the debt ceiling again, the Liberal Party colluded with the Australian Greens and abolished it altogether.
Yes. You read that correctly! Labor instituted a debt ceiling. Liberals and the Greens removed it.
So now the Federal Government can rack-up any sized debt it can get away with.
As Liberty Itch has said here and here, the general modus operandi is that conservatives conserve. They have a tendency to retain what they are given. It takes classical liberal zeal to adopt muscular forward-looking policies.
In this context, it was actually Labor playing at being fiscal conservatives with the introduction of a debt ceiling but they started the process of increasing the limit, wolves in sheep clothing.
So what did the conservatives in the Coalition do? They conserved the pattern they inherited and followed suit, lifting the limit too. Up and up it went. They simply conserved the new system they were given.
We small government Milton Friedman types watched aghast.
So, what would have been a better solution than a debt ceiling? What would a classical liberal government have actually tried?
The social welfare statists love a referendum. Let’s fight back and do more than resist …
Answer: a balanced budget and debt repayment enshrined in the Constitution.
The provisions would say something like this, with apologies to all the gifted constitutional draftsmen out there:
The Balanced Budget Provision
The Commonwealth Government shall prepare its annual appropriations bill for parliamentary approval such that, except in times when a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and Senate has made a Declaration of War, the expenditure shall not exceed taxation receipts.
Declarations of War Provision
Declarations of War, which require a two-third majority of the joint siting, shall only be voted on if Australia or its allies are under direct military threat from a foreign power. Declarations of War automatically expire on surrender of the foreign power or 12 months, whichever is the sooner, and may be renewed as required.
The Debt Repayment Provision
In the event that the Commonwealth Government has inherited a national debt from previous years, it shall ensure all subsequent annual expenditures are at least 10% less than taxation receipts, and that the difference be applied to extinguish the debt.
The only time a debt could be incurred is the one inherited when the Constitution is changed and during and after war.
I’m negotiable on the 10%. It could be 5% or 7% or 2%. I don’t mind.
However, the principle should remain, which is that government must pay past debts in regular, predictable timeframes and, once that’s done, budgets must balance except in times of existential threat.
A debt ceiling is now unnecessary. There’s no more ratcheting debt skyward and heading ever further towards mega-sized government.
Best of all, these provisions are enshrined in the Constitution so are hard to remove.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Well, it was mischief-making in the sense that I like to sharply define the line between liberal and conservative and then, with all the goodwill in the world, provoke people to think and explore these differences.
There is a difference, you see.
So I posted a video clip between American commentators Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. They had opposing views of how to handle inevitable job losses caused by driverless trucks. It illustrated the difference eloquently.
Then I challenged you to vote whether you agreed with Tucker Carlson or, by inference from his question, Ben Shapiro.
The results are in:
37% Tucker Carlson; and
63% Ben Shapiro.
If you agreed with Tucker Carlson, you are a conservative.
If you agreed with Ben Shapiro, you are a liberal.
As I repeat ad nauseum, conservatives wish to conserve. Here, Mr. Carlson would be happy to conserve current industry development rather than advance it. He’d be happy to keep truck drivers in jobs for which technology has a more efficient solution, the driverless truck.
By inference from his question, Mr Shapiro would prefer to let the free market take its course, permit the technology and have truck drivers migrate into related freight work or even redeploy into other industries.
There’s a big difference in approach.
Liberals and conservatives are not the same.
You’re an optimist if you’re a liberal (or if you must, a classical liberal or libertarian, they all mean the same thing!) You believe in people, in their ability to innovate and in their ability to adapt to change. In the case of driverless trucks, you fully embrace this new technology and you want to encourage the creators of that innovation by allowing it to be unleashed on the market. No restrictions. And you have faith truck drivers, given appropriate notice, are more than capable of finding new work. You are confident they aren’t simply going to sit and bemoan the loss of one type of occupation. Rather, you know they’ll have to find other work to feed their families, as we all do.
You’re a pessimist if you’re a conservative. You believe, as Mr Carlson even said, that you don’t want high school educated men let loose on society without a job. He assumes that high school educated men would suddenly become helpless and even dangerous. That’s the inference.
Blimey!
Talk about loss of faith in our fellow citizens. It’s a nanny state attitude. What evidence is there for this? None that I can find. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence high school educated men are adaptable.
Take 1980s Newcastle. A city bustling with blue collar men busily working the steelworks. Now look at 2020s Newcastle, a lifestyle, health and university town. What happened to these steelworkers? Was Newcastle ravaged by idle high school educated men wreaking havoc across the city? No. Some of these men were due to retire, some moved to the Wollongong works, some stayed in Newcastle moving into value-add niche industrial enterprises, some stayed in the large industrial companies but worked from home as the companies left, some started their own businesses using their skills in new ways, some simply moved into new industries altogether, some retrained, some took early retirement to enjoy life.
Take my grandfather. He grew up and apprenticed as a wheelwright at the tale-end of the old wooden spoke and hub horse-drawn carts. Then as his career developed, wood gave way to steel spoke and hub wheels. Then steel plates came in. What a transition!
Further, when a conservative says ‘let’s restrict technology’, what does that signal? It’s the same as saying to every inventor and innovator, every scientist and engineer, to every entrepreneur and free thinker that their fresh, new ways of solving old problems are unwelcome.
As I say, conservatism’s tendency to oppose change can be helpful. However, if that’s all we on the Right do is oppose and conserve, we end up sliding to the Left. Opposition and conservation are insufficient to fight the Left.
We must treat our innovators with respect and let them advance society. We must not be conservative and stand in the way.
We must treat our fellow citizens with respect, have confidence in them that they can cope with change. We should not mollycoddle them.
Don’t be a conservative like Mr. Carlson.
Be a classical liberal like Mr. Shapiro in this debate.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
I’m normally beavering away, sharing my opinions with you.
Today, though, you’re in the driver’s seat. I’d like to hear from you.
Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro exploring their philosophical differences.
So this is what we’re going to do together …
I’ll give you a short video to watch. It’s only 1:54 minutes long;
You watch it. It’s a discussion between Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. They talk about the impact of technology on jobs, taking two very different approaches;
I’ll ask you a question about it;
You then answer that question in the poll below; and
Next week, I’ll let you know what your answer says about your political philosophy.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
I put it to you that the story of Henry Kable and Susannah Holmes is reason enough to celebrate Australia Day on 26 January.
Henry and Susannah arrived in Australia, an unmarried couple of convicts with an infant son, on 26 January 1788. They sailed on board of the Friendship as part of the First Fleet. Both had been sentenced to death for burglary some years before in Norfolk, England. They met and started their relationship in jail where Susannah gave birth to their first son. Their sentences were commuted to transportation to the Americas but the destination was later changed to the newly proposed colony of New South Wales.
After the long voyage, as the ships unpacked onto the shore, Henry and Susannah received but a few of their scarce personal belongings. Somewhere along the way, their luggage had gone missing.
By July 1788, the first case of civil law in Australian history was being heard in a court. Even more remarkably, the Kables, now married, were awarded £15 in compensation. In England, and just about everywhere else in the world, convicted felons didn’t enjoy such rights and all their possessions were simply ceded to the state.
The Kable court case was not a fluke. It was a direct consequence of the thoughtful planning of Lord Sydney, Thomas Townsend who, as Home Secretary just months before the First Fleet set sail, rejected the idea of using martial law in the penal colony as it was originally intended.
Lord Sydney, Thomas Townsend, after whom Australian city Sydney is named
Lord Sydney was not about to send hundreds of prisoners to a remote gulag but instead had a vision for a free society based on separation of powers, property rights and the rule of law.
He entrusted Governor Captain Arthur Phillip with the task of implementing his vision on the ground. It was Governor Phillip who responded to the complaint by our convicted couple Henry and Susannah Kable about their missing luggage.
The broader challenge for Phillip was enormous. Putting Lord Sydney’s seemingly fanciful ideals into practice was no easy feat. After all, it took thousands of years for these ideas to develop and mature. It was only during The Enlightenment period that they were framed in a way that could be adopted as the basis of government.
Captain and later Admiral Arthur Phillip, 1st Governor of New South Wales
It is a childish characterisation of human history to pretend that we could have arrived at our modern understanding of universal rights with a sudden stroke of virtue.
Arthur Phillip himself believed that Aboriginal people had the same rights as everyone else.
Chances are, put in that same position, you wouldn’t have. In any other time in history, you would have had slaves if you could. If you think you are simply better than that, then you understand very little about the human condition.
We take the ideas of individual property rights and an impartial rule of law to enforce them for granted today but they are not the natural way of things. These ideas had to be envisioned, explained, understood, misunderstood, questioned, tried, rejected and envisioned again. It took brave and critical thinkers like Sydney and Phillip to set them into motion.
A free society for all, with all its flaws and contradictions, was part of the fabric of Australia from the very first moments of the Nation.
That is what arrived in Australia, together with Henry Kable, Susannah Holmes and Arthur Phillip, one 26th of January 1788.
Lionel is an IT engineer with more than 20 years’ experience developing enterprise applications in the private and public sectors. He completed his computer science degree in Venezuela in 2001. Then in 2002, Lionel moved to Australia after obtaining an international internship in Canberra. He became an Australian citizen in 2008.
First, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced her resignation effective, at the latest, early in February 2023. (Yes, New Zealanders need to endure her for a few weeks more!)
Second, I put out this short tweet yesterday together with a video of the Prime Minister, and it went viral. In a mere 180 minutes, it was seen by 67,400 people and was still swishing around the globe as I wrote this. After 8 hours, 165,000+!
Jacinda Ardern set a couple of records. She was the youngest female prime minister ever in 2017. Further, she gave birth whilst in office.
Of course, neither of these have anything to do with political achievement.
To be fair, we can probably agree that Jacinda Ardern is expressive.
Some went so far as to say she showed great empathy.
I think it more accurate to say any apparent empathy was self-consciously dispensed and exclusively to beneficiaries of her bias.
Any praise for expressiveness and empathy needs much closer scrutiny. It’s what she expresses that so confounds civil libertarians like you and me. And, if you don’t mind me expressing myself here dear reader, she showed a distinct lack of empathy for many during covid lockdowns, victims of which are generations not yet born as you’ll see. So read on.
Instead, what we observed was a smiling socialist, a Daughter of Davos, instinct over intellect, all feeling and no financial finesse. In short, she was a classical liberal’s nightmare.
Just look at the legacy she leaves after six reckless years in office:
Frequent meddling with the free market. The results: distortions in housing prices and a generation of first home buyers shut-out of their ownership aspirations;
A backlash against over-zealous covid restrictions and loss of personal freedoms, including creating a medical-apartheid defined by vaccination-status. See the video tweet above;
Conscientious objectors and the vaccine-hesitant were shunned socially, denied mobility, prevented from earning a living and targeted by government in ways the Stasi would have relished in Soviet-era East Germany;
Consequential increasing crime rates in the island nation;
Inflation sitting at 7.2%;
Food prices spiking 8.3% compared with the same time a year earlier;
Successive interest rate increases from New Zealand’s central bank;
A monstrous public debt! When she took office, the public debt was approximately $60 billion USD. Projections are that, based on all data currently available reflecting the decisions of her government, that the national debt will balloon to $151 billion USD by 2027. If the figure proves higher or lower than that, it will be the result of her successor’s policies, but you can see the economic vandalism on her watch. Put it this way, she led a government which racked-up triple the debt of all previous New Zealand governments combined. She went way over the credit card limit and left someone else to pick up the bill. Funny, right?;
For a country with a population the size of Boston, it will take three generations at least to bring that debt to heel. We are talking inter-generational theft which will crush Zoomer Kiwis’ standard of living, their children and their grandchildren. That is to say, on the day after you, I and Jacinda Ardern meet our Lord and Maker, New Zealanders will be dealing with the Ardern Economic Catastrophe for another two generations thereafter;
Many of them will flee New Zealand and hollow this beautiful jewel of the South Pacific. They have been emigrating anyway, mainly to Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States;
A strategic flirtation with the Chinese Communist Party. Her Labour Party has long shunned our liberal democratic ally, America. It was a natural progression from that to openly calling for greater integration with the communists, a weak-kneed strategy in favour of firebrand authoritarianism with a chequebook over the cleansing-balm of liberty;
Consistent with that predisposition towards authoritarianism, civil liberties in New Zealand were shattered under her Governments. Emergency powers poised to be invoked again at any time are left in place;
Chinese Communist Party infiltration of New Zealand consulates and banks;
She openly lied about the efficacy of covid vaccines. “If you take the vaccine, you’ll still get covid but you won’t get sick and you won’t die” was a claim she made during the height of an hysteria of her own making, and contradicted by the science and the manufacturer. Don’t believe me? Watch this …
More government restrictions on the access and use of water;
Crushing regulations on agricultural emissions;
Further shifting of the goal posts with hate speech laws without any safeguards as to who adjudicates what ‘hate speech’ actually is.
The adulation and applause had faded about a year ago. The shadowy World Economic Forum’s simping seemed impossibly distant now. Jacinda Ardern had to face the people of New Zealand imminently and the prospects weren’t promising.
With polling numbers in decline and the sparkle now tarnished, the Prime Minister did what all faithful authoritarians and central-planners do when their number is up. She spoke sweetly, smiled nervously, then scurried to the nearest exit hoping that the rule of law she undermined holds firm for her.
I was shocked my tweet went viral. I shouldn’t have been. Countless everyday people across the West, people like you and I, have had a gutful.
The Daughter of Davos was a symbol of all that has gone wrong over the last 3 years. So of course you cheered her departure.
I don’t think we’ll have to wait long before she re-emerges with an ostentatious job title and global brief somewhere in the world. “Poverty Ambassador-At-Large, World Economic Forum”, on $820,000 per annum, Davos chalet and chauffeur the obligatory perks on top sounds about right.
And when that happens, you and I can both smile knowingly that at least here she won’t have harmed anyone further. On her departure from the Land of the Long White Cloud, she will increase the average IQ of New Zealand, and not decrease that of the World Economic Forum.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
‘Itch’ (noun) “… an irritating sensation on the skin that makes one want to scratch the affected part”.
What may have started as ‘an irritating sensation on the skin’, regrettably has developed into a full-blown cancer affecting the nation’s vital organs.
I am talking about authoritarianism.
Shortly after World War II, George Orwell published his novel ‘1984’. The story was set in a country ruled by ‘Big Brother’, a supreme dictator in an all-powerful, one-party state. The central character, Winston Smith, whose job it was to re-write the nation’s history books to fit the current narrative of the state, was continually tormented by his task. The department in which he worked was called ‘The Ministry of Truth’.
Orwell’s novel exposed the true nature of authoritarian governments which hold on to power by generating fear, distorting facts and censoring alternative views. For a book published in 1949, his description of surveillance technology to track and trace citizens is downright spooky.
“Know everything in order to control everyone,” said Adam Weishaupt.
Technology and mass surveillance allow governments to do just that – know everything.
‘The long march through the institutions’ is nearing completion.
More government, more spending, more taxes, more regulation, more state power, more state control. Income tax, payroll tax, land tax, petrol tax, the goods & services tax, stamp duty, excise duty on alcohol and tobacco, power company dividends, water company dividends, the River Murray Levy, the Emergency Services Levy, the Regional Landscape Levy, the Solid Waste Levy, the Medicare Levy, Council Rates and many, many more. Local, state and federal governments taxing us at every turn.
And of course, that most pernicious of all taxes – inflation tax. Pernicious because it so disproportionately affects those who spend a higher percentage of their income on food, petrol, electricity and gas, which are more susceptible to price rises.
Naturally, the government blames everyone else for the price rises – greedy businesses, supply chains, Vladimir Putin … anyone but themselves.
As US economist Peter Schiff puts it, “Inflation is caused by governments spending money they don’t have, accompanied by compliant central banks who not only forsake their mandates to keep inflation under control by putting up interest rates and punishing governments who overspend, they instead indulge governments by printing the money for them!”
Following the 1980s excesses, the Reserve Bank of Australia increased interest rates to 17.5% and the Hawke-Keating government copped a mountain of pain. Yet, despite massive deficit spending over the past three years – the highest in the nation’s history – the RBA last month lifted interest rates to just 3.1%.
So, what happens when spending is not accompanied by revenue measures to pay for it? Where does the money come from? Inflation. Instead of higher taxes, consumers pay higher prices.
The bad news is it is going to get worse.
And when it does, the Albanese government will again try to blame greedy businesses and introduce more price controls on them – like the recent coal price cap. Not good times ahead.
Then there’s the government’s bagmen accomplices, the rent-seekers – companies that base their business models on providing goods and services to consumers that are either paid for by the government or the government prevents or limits competition. It is another layer of taxation which disproportionately affects low-income families – those who can’t afford to install solar panels on their roofs, for example.
These rent-seekers are now everywhere – energy, superannuation, pharmaceuticals, higher education, land development, indigenous groups, public transport, manufacturing – you name it. They are a scourge. They tarnish the political process, distort the market and in the case of so-called ‘renewable energy’, distort the entire economy.
Renewable energy rent-seekers have leapt onto the climate change bandwagon with unbridled zeal and are raking in billions of dollars gaming the system, raising energy prices, impoverishing consumers, destroying jobs, and fleecing taxpayers.
Along with unions and industry superfunds, these new Australian oligarchs have limitless amounts of money to both shore up their own positions and resist anyone who might try to challenge them.
Previously, entrepreneurs went to the marketplace to make their fortunes.
Today the public purse is the mother lode.
When the NDIS was announced in 2012, it was forecast to cost $14bn a year. In April 2022, actuary firm Taylor Fry estimated that by 2030 the cost will blow out to $64bn a year– a $50bn a year increase.
How was this allowed to happen in such a short period of time? Simple – professionalised politics and sophisticated rent-seeking.
The story is told of a forest that was continually shrinking – but the trees kept voting for the axe. The axe, you see, was very clever; it was able to convince the trees that because its handle was made of wood, it was one of them.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
Federation University’s Verity Archer discovered a letter written in 1975 by Sir Donald Bradman, the greatest cricket batsman ever to play with an unparalleled average of 99.94, to newly elected Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.
The 1975 federal election was undoubtedly a fiercely contested battle. Emotions were high. As any citizen was and is entitled to do, Bradman took a side and wrote:
“A marvellous victory in which your personal conduct and dignity stood out against the background of arrogance and propaganda indulged in by your opponents.”
Bradman next makes a prediction, which you would have to say history shows to be prescient:
“Now you may have to travel a long and difficult road along which your enemies will seek to destroy you.”
Cricket was a sport for amateurs in The Don’s day. Big money had not yet influenced the sport. Players therefore had to develop a career independent their sporting masters. They were tough men on long, self-funded tours, most unlike some knee-bending virtue-signalers and sandpaper betting-agency grubs you are more familiar with from more recent periods. In Sir Donald’s case, he was an accomplished and successful stockbroker in his own right with an advanced understanding of the regulatory framework of his time. Writing about regulations on capital, Bradman consequently wrote:
“What the people need are clearly defined rules which they can read and understand so that they can get on with their affairs.”
Seems fair enough. Sounds like Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS) rules decades later. He then adds:
“The public must be re-educated to believe that private enterprise is entitled to rewards as long as it obeys fair and reasonable rules laid down by government. Maybe you can influence leaders of the press to a better understanding of this necessity of presentation.”
There are four points in that paragraph:
Belief in private enterprise. This is straightforward enough of an idea. It’s the basis of our Western, capitalist liberal democracy;
Gaining the rewards of its initiative. Yes. Private enterprise offers goods and services to the public in return for a profit. This is basic economics. Got it;
Some fair and reasonable rules. Well, let’s not have any rules if possible but, if we must, light-touch and easy-the-understand, sure;
Explain this to the media. Not a bad idea for a government to share with the press the direction it would like to take the country. All good.
What’s to disagree with here?
Yet, out come the socialists and 1975 ancient historians with an axe to grind:
Broadcaster Phillip Adams wrote, “Sad. Lost letter from Bradman to Fraser after Whitlam’s dismissal reveals ‘the Don’ to be a RWNJ.”
Unaccustomed to shorthand slurs from journalists, I had to find what RWNJ meant: right-wing nut-job, apparently.
To some boomer-era, battle-axe activists-come-journalists, supporting free-enterprise, light-touch regulation and transparency with the media is radical. Apparently these positions are extreme, wild enough to be branded a right-wing nut-job!
At what point in Australian progress did free enterprise become a dirty word?
Or can we say Mr. Adams is the radical one for slandering a long-deceased Australian sporting icon because he believed in free enterprise.
Or …
… maybe, just maybe, Mr. Adams has another axe to grind. Perhaps he just hates supporters of Malcolm Fraser over the Political Crisis of 1975.
All Liberty Itch says in response is:
Mr. Fraser won in a record landslide still not bettered today. Mr. Adams is surely not saying the vast majority of Australians including Sir Donald were RWNJs, is he?
Mr. Fraser’s successor, Bob Hawke, thought highly enough of Mr. Fraser to appoint him to the Eminent Persons Group to tackle racism in Apartheid-era South Africa. Mr. Adams is surely not saying Bob Hawke was a right-wing nut-job as well for supporting Mr. Fraser, is he?
Like you, dear reader, I was taught never to speak ill of the dead.
It seems Mr. Adams wasn’t.
Long after Mr. Adams meets the Lord, free enterprise and Western liberal democracy will prevail.
I do hope though that the practice of throwing mud at men long dead and unable to defend their reputations will cease, for Mr. Adams’ sake you understand, dear reader.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
You could be forgiven for feeling despair at the state of Australian politics right now.
Ditto for the West as a whole.
Unfortunately, despair doesn’t take us where we need to go.
There are four forces pulling us in the wrong direction at the moment. The quick summary is that the Liberty-Authority war is raging but Liberty is losing too many battles, our politicians don’t know how ‘mixed’ our mixed-economy should be and so are preferencing Authority in that war, there’s a kind of matrix hanging over us which makes things hard to change, and we aren’t giving our parliamentarians the right incentives to stop.
What we urgently need is clear-thinking on these four forces, an action plan to counter them and a lot of good people like you to follow the plan.
This article will give you the clear-thinking and the action plan.
Read what follows then decide whether you’ll join the fight.
LIBERTY-AUTHORITY WAR
First, the Liberty-Authority war is raging but Liberty is losing too many battles.
There are two extremes in government: 100% Liberty and 100% Authority.
Total Liberty is a utopia, which can only fleetingly exist before Authority is needed to stabilise it. At 95% Liberty and 5% Authority, stability is possible. Imagine 1880s London or 1980s Hong Kong. In this light-touch government, the enterprising individual flourishes to produce a dynamic, Liberty-loving productive society. Individual independence, live and let live lifestyle, free-trade, creativity, flair, ambition, initiative, vision, self-reliance, energy, innovation and self-actualisation abound. The society throbs with entrepreneurial instinct.
Total Authority is a dystopia, which inevitably collapses from the murder, starvation or flight of millions. It is frequently reformed out of necessity. At 95% Authority and 5% Liberty, the Liberty manifests as a barely-tolerated, hardscrabble barter just to ward-off widespread starvation. Imagine 2020s North Korea or 2020s Eritrea. The economy is small and centrally controlled. Basic needs are unmet. In this despotic, heavy-handed government, enterprise is crushed, initiative regarded with suspicion and people cower in fear and repression, forced into a life of misery. There is no spark in its people, no verve, no passion, no striving, no vivacity.
Australia sits nowhere near these two ends of the spectrum, of course. It would be feeble-thinking however to surmise that we are exempt from the Liberty-Authority war. All societies are subject to it, Australia included, and Liberty is losing.
Consider Authority’s recent wins:
Border closures
Vaccine mandates
Emergency power legislation enshrined and ready for reactivation
Job terminations over mandates
QR codes to track your movements and bar entry
Elected politicians denied entry into parliament
Peaceful citizens shot in the back with rubber bullets
Home detention of the population
Laws requiring employers to gather private medical data
Secrecy over vaccine purchase terms
Door-to-door visits for covid vaccine rollout
Opaque health information about vaccine injuries
Construction of covid detention camps.
Think that’s the end of it?
First, none of these powers has been removed as covid wanes.
Second, at the time of writing, there were 122 bills before Capital Hill, Canberra. This figure obviously changes but you can review the list at anytime yourself here.
I want you to think of the Commonwealth Parliament as a school of ravenous piranha. Every time a new law is passed, your personal and financial Liberty is being thrown in the legislative pond for thirty seconds. You scramble out with razor cuts all over your bloodied body. Then you’re pushed back in by errant leaders and the populist mob for another gasping swim. Again and again, the body politic is attacked, your Liberty weakened with every new law passed.
During my frantic attempts to call MPs during the covid overreach, part of my epiphany that the Liberal Party – far from being an agent for small government – is complicit in this process was a question I posed to an MP. I asked this person to find out from the Parliamentary Library how many Commonwealth statutes are active. The experts couldn’t come up with a number. We are suffocated with so many laws, we don’t know how many there are!
We’ve fought 121 years in Australia over whether we need more economic and personal Liberty on the one side, and whether we need more Authority and protection on the other.
Authority is winning.
One of the issues is that our fellow citizens are increasingly expecting government to be an end-to-end solution to every risk we face in life. What we demand of our governments is that they increasingly manage the risks of life which we have handled privately in the past. Fear is a powerful motivator.
We have to make our politicians understand that we don’t expect them to carry all the risks in our lives.
As Lord Jonathan Sumption said in a recent trip to Australia:
“If we hold governments responsible for everything that goes wrong, they will take away our autonomy so that nothing can go wrong.”
I think he’s being optimistic about ‘nothing can go wrong’ but you see his point.
MIXED ECONOMY
Second, our politicians don’t know how ‘mixed’ our mixed-economy should be and so are preferencing Authority in that war.
Throughout time immemorial, we have sought to balance these competing but innate needs. On one side, creative, independent, self-actualising Liberty and, on the other side, risk-avoiding, dependent, protective Authority.
Democracy, coupled with its ‘mixed-economy’, tries to navigate between the two. That is, there is constant tension within a mixed-economy democracy to balance Liberty and Authority.
How are each enabled?
The general rule of thumb is that the bigger a government’s budget, the greater the means by which our leaders can impose Authority.
Big government budget means more Authority and less Liberty.
Small government budget means more Liberty and less Authority.
So, what’s the trendline in Australia.
If we use government expenditure as a percentage of GDP as the litmus test since Federation in 1901, we see an obvious trend. I’m going to use cut-offs at the end of each Liberal government (or its predecessor equivalents) since centre-right Liberals are reputationally supposed to be the small government, pro Liberty advocates.
Here’s what we discover:
Deakin (third government): 5%
Menzies (second government): 17%
Fraser: 26%
Howard: 37%
Morrison: 45%.
The trend is clearly from Liberty to Authority.
We need to jettison this old Keynesian term ‘mixed economy’. It’s an umbrella phrase which masks intent. An economy set at 90% Liberty and 10% Authority is a mixed-economy of a sort. So is 10% Liberty and 90% Authority. Even comparing Alfred Deakin’s 5% government economy versus Scott Morrison’s 45% government economy, the two look nothing like each other.
Using the term ‘mixed-economy’ gives licence to the Authority-lovers to execute socialism-creep.
During our lives, government is becoming ever larger and the piranha are being fed. Government has the growing means to intervene, coerce and limit our Liberty by a thousand imperceptible cuts over time.
And the truth is that the Liberal Party has been completely unsuccessful over 121 years in reversing the trend.
Why?
TOCQUEVILLE’S MATRIX
Well, third, there’s a kind of matrix hanging over us which makes things hard to change. I call it the Tocqueville Matrix.
The answer is that we’re in a system bigger than ourselves. We can laugh at analogies with the film The Matrix all we like. However, the reality of our predicament today was well uncovered, not by the hacker Neo in that movie but, 187 years ago by the classical liberal philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in his celebrated essay “Democracy In America”, the result of a fact-finding mission for France.
Alexis de Tocqueville. 1805-1859. Classical liberal.
Though published in 1835 on the other side of the planet, it was highly relevant to Australia at the time. The free-settled Province of South Australia was just one year from proclamation. A mere fifty-four years later, Sir Henry Parkes delivered his famous Federation-rallying Tenterfield Oration in which he said “Surely what the Americans have done by war, Australians can bring about in peace.”
Here’s what Tocqueville witnessed of the new American republic, at this point only two generations old. As you read his words, pay attention to the creaking tension between Liberty and Authority, and the ongoing, overall impact of democracy on its people:
“The protecting power of the state extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of Man is not shattered but it is softened, bent and guided. Men are seldom forced to act but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy but it prevents existence. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates and extinguishes. It stupefies a people until each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals to which the government is the shepherd.”
Dare tell me this is not Australia in 2022.
I’ve shown you our legislative losses. I’ve revealed the legislative agenda in progress. I’ve shared that we don’t even know how many laws are on the books. This is Tocqueville’s ‘complicated rules, minute and uniform.’
Further, who are our ‘most original minds and the most energetic characters’? We may not be shattered as a people. But who will deny we are ‘softened, bent and guided’?
The word ‘enervates’ means ‘to make a person drained of energy or vitality.’ If this is how you feel right now about politics, it’s the Tocqueville Matrix of democracy working you over! Resist it. Let your innate self-reliance and self-actualisation radiate.
I could have sworn Tocqueville was in Australia from 2020-2022 when writing that last sentence.
If you feel that your fellow citizens exhibit foggy thinking, if you believe they make terrible electoral choices, then take heart. We know why …
Australia, like all Western liberal democracies, has placed an apparatus over its citizens. This apparatus of uncountable statutes and a million regulatory miscellany soften, bend and guide us. Initiative, vigour and swashbuckling verve are all discouraged as is self-reliance. Our innate creativity, independence and self-actualising Liberty has been dampened. We are less Errol Flynn, Sir Charles Kingsford Smith and Sir Douglas Mawson, and now more a half-thwarted version of our true selves.
Sir Douglas Mawson OBE FRS. 1882-1958. First to climb Mount Erebus and reach South Magnetic Pole.
Authority has taken over Liberty as the primary force in Australia. We accommodate too much. We fund too much. We have power-hungry, entrenched legislators. Our fellow Australians are too prone to expect government to manage all the risks of the world.
PARLIAMENTARY INCENTIVES
Fourth, we aren’t giving our parliamentarians the right incentives to stop.
Our politicians, specifically the ones housed in the seat-holding incumbency parties of Labour, Greens, Liberals and Nationals, often spend ten to twenty years working towards preselection. They aren’t going to rock-the-boat once in power after that investment of time.
We need term limits. We also need the hard work within party preselection processes to turnover long-time incumbents.
Another issue is that we, as a people, are simply unpractised to tell a politician ‘no’! We advocate for spending on our pet projects and our politicians say ‘yes’ to everyone. It’s unsustainable. And when we argue for cuts, we are vulnerable to the ‘what government program are you going to end?’ We need a coherent, well-practised push-back to this. Citizens can’t keep acting like toddlers asking for more and politicians need to be disciplined in saying ‘no’.
We are terrible at applying constant pressure on our representatives between elections. They rarely hear from us after a poll. We need to visit them, form relationships with them, lobby them, guide them and, yes if necessary, threaten them with electoral backlash.
In fifty-four years, I’ve not seen one protest outside an electorate office by citizens angry about the MPs big spending tendencies. Not one.
We aren’t giving them the right incentives to correct.
AN URGENT ACTION PLAN
So, here’s what you need to do.
For Liberal and National members:
Action 1: Gather fellow members and advocate for a three-term limit. Make clear to an MP in his or her third term that this is it. Say it’s not personal, it’s a systemic position about renewal. Encourage challenges if the MP won’t budge.
Action 2: Make clear at State Council that you demand budget reductions in government. Educate MPs on the importance of reducing budgets. Ask for their game plan to achieve this. Embarrass elected officials who lack the courage to reduce the size of government. Normalise talk of smaller government. As a group or faction, make clear you will be targeting MPs who don’t work towards this.
Action 3: Gather fellow members and internally advocate for policy not tactical preferencing. Discourage tricky tactics which ultimately splinter the centre-right. Shame and seek the removal of any state director or parliamentary leader who supports tactical preferencing to Labor or the Greens ahead of the more Liberty-friendly emerging parties.
For members of the Liberal Democrats, the United Australia Party, One Nation, the Nationals outside coalition, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers and the Democratic Labor Party:
Action 4: Write to the local MP. Meet and lobby the MP. Educate the MP. Make clear that you want the next budget to be less than the current one. Make clear you want government expenditure as a percentage of GDP to be 40%, then 35%, then 30% and so forth year by year
Action 5: Advocate for a formal coalition and joint tickets. Joint tickets are important. They plug the preference leaking so prevalent on the centre-right. Work towards agreement that each emerging party gets to lead one upper house race. This is a near-guaranteed strategy for a bloc of six senators.
Action 6: Organise in vulnerable Labor lower-house seats to perform what I call the Purple Flip. This is Teal but in reverse. Identify and draft well-known local leaders to run as independents, perhaps tradies or sports figures, who project their working-class background but, due to their success, lean centre-right for its aspirational, social mobility message. Publicly appeal to aspirational voters in these Labor electorates, say they’ve been forgotten by Labor, and privately convince the die-hard but never electorally successful Liberals and Nationals in the seat to vote tactically for the independent.
The simple truth is that, if you don’t take these actions in concert with like-minded centre-right people, that big government trendline will continue to 50%, 57%, 63% and so on.
In democracy, you have to fight for the right balance between Liberty and Authority. Liberty is losing the battle for dominance. We are fast heading to an Authoritarian Australia. Covid overreach surely taught us that. Looming issues of digital passports, facial recognition systems and digital currency are facing Liberty-lovers right now.
You must act. The alternative is that you live, as Tocqueville pointedly wrote, as a ‘timid and industrious animal’ or we just continue to scratch-around in the political wilderness.
We can do better. Let’s steel ourselves now for the battle ahead.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
To be clear, I don’t know who’s going to win the Victorian election later tonight, 26 November 2022.
How can I or any of us?
However, I’m going to make a prediction as I write this at 3:20pm ACDT 26 November 2022, and have the prediction published just minutes before the polls have closed so you know I’ve not had any input from the counting of the votes. There’s my accountability, dear reader, to you.
Labor will win!
If my prediction is wrong, take all future predictions from me with a grain of salt. Throw tomatoes and rotten eggs at me. I’ll deserve it.
Right now, I’m quietly confident in making this prediction, however ghastly it may be.
And here is my reasoning. Hear it through …
Heavens know, Dan Andrews and the Labor Government he leads in Victoria has been revolting.
Who can forget the litany of failures …
Rubber bullets in the back, pregnant woman arrested in her pyjamas for a Facebook post, the world’s longest lockdown, businesses crushed, women and children manhandled for not wearing masks, family nest-eggs shattered, MPs arrested and denied access to their democratically elected seat in Parliament House itself, elderly citizens having their pelvis fractured as they are slammed to the ground by overzealous police, churches ordered to close at the point of police intrusion into sacred spaces, and a once vibrant city – the envy of the world – hollowed of its sparkle.
There will be a long-tail to this shocking overreach. Early figures are indicating that the rates of men aged 18 to 44 presenting with myocarditis, a long-term heart condition, have doubled. Yes, 2X. Men in their prime, cut low.
Most devastating to the soul was the sight of a young man, hitherto mentally healthy, taking his own life on a Melbourne street by setting himself ablaze whilst in the grip of a lockdown-induced depression. The depravity of this Government’s policies is chilling.
Free people have a right to be free. Free people have a God-given right to practise their religion. It’s part of our Christian-informed civil libertarian culture. And our Faith gives us Grace. It’s who we are. It’s how we cope with a world of sin.
And Dan Andrews failed as a standard bearer of those freedoms.
Why then do I predict this tyrant will be returned to office?
Why do I put my predictive reputation on the line and call the election for Labor even before the polls have closed?
The answer is that people don’t vote for “anyone would be better than” candidate X.
Our good citizens require an informed choice, a differentiation upon which they can decide.
And I’m afraid to say it but the Liberal Party’s leader, Matthew Guy, has failed to differentiate his Party.
How could he?
He’s limp, insipid, hardly the embodiment of inspiration and action!
Beyond the personal characteristics of the leader, the seeds of the Liberal Party’s failure in this election were planted in 2020. Throughout the entirety of the covid pandemic, if that’s what it was and is, the Liberal Party played a small target, Labor-lite game.
The Liberal Party could have weighed multiple harms to the community of Labor’s draconian covid measures, things like job loss, depression and endless racking-up the State debt for future generations to absorb, instead of robotically following bureaucratic health advice to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Liberal MPs didn’t. That would take differentiation, a knowledge of John Stuart Mill, the fortitude to use the minds our Lord gave them, and the courage to avoid groupthink.
The Liberal Party could have heeded the warnings of the worst civil liberty abuses in 100 years, passionately articulated in the Victorian Bar Association’s extraordinary and unprecedented open letter from sixty-four Queens Counsel.
Liberal MPs didn’t. That would take differentiation through a bedrock of principles.
The Liberal Party could have rallied the churches, giving cover and much needed support to pastors and priests throughout the State, stunned that worshipers were to have doors slammed in their faces.
Liberal MPs didn’t. They aren’t Christians, most of them. That would take differentiation through Faith.
At every opportunity, the Liberal Party Opposition Leader has looked politically anemic. You don’t win by hedging. You don’t win by staying small. You don’t win by cloning yourself using a tyrant as the mould.
You win by standing for something. You win by inspiring people for a better tomorrow. You win by giving people hope. You win by serving others in practical, helpful ways. You win by differentiating yourself from the tyrant.
None of this was done by Matthew Guy and his Liberal Party in Victoria.
I therefore don’t need to watch the election coverage tonight.
Labor will be returned.
Lack of differentiation and beliefs will be the reason.
Pray for the people of Victoria.
And if my prediction is wrong, pray for the people of Victoria anyway.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
First, free enterprise in a competitive market does 95% better in servicing the needs and desires of citizens than government. Better efficiency, better service delivery, better products, better time-frames, more innovation and less waste.
Second, the free markets aren’t perfect. Businesses with whom you trade may become insolvent. Sometimes fraud occurs. At the very least, customers can sometimes be dissatisfied. It can take time, often not long, for the markets to self-correct. More efficient companies replace the defunct, reputation self-check fraud, and word-of-mouth handles companies with bad service or defective products.
Third, the remaining 5% for government – and in my view its only role – is to adjudicate and protect fair dealings in the market. Government should be an umpire to maintain the free-wheeling clearing-house that is the aggregation of buyers and sellers. That’s it. Not a participant. An umpire.
Fourth, the more of your hard-earned money the government taxes, the bigger government becomes by definition and the more it encroaches beyond the role of umpire. With ever larger budgets, government starts to become a player, even a team of players, as well as the referee! Your money, or more accurately your acquiescence to government taking it, provides the means for that encroachment, the loss of our original concept of government in a liberal democracy and, ultimately, the loss of liberal democracy itself.
And fifth, there is a kind of sliding scale between 100% free market, laissez faire and, its opposite, 100% socialism. That large undefined region between these two poles has been called a ‘mixed economy’ in the West, starting with the introduction of ‘Keynesian economics’, the ‘welfare state’ and, later, the ‘central banking system’ which untethered our money from assets backing it.
With me so far?
Now the term ‘mixed economy’ gives our leaders a wide berth. An economy comprised of 95% private buyers and sellers with 5% government money to act as a referee to maintain the market is mixed of a sort. It’s like a drop of salt water in a fresh-water lake. But what happens if our leaders use your money to put their thumb of the scale? Let’s say, 90% private and 10% government. What about 75% private and 25% government? Take it further. What does an economy start to feel like at 51% private and 49% government? This is a mixed economy too. Now what was a pristine fresh-water lake is now brackish. Every second transaction has all the inefficiency of a government department. Now imagine 25% private and 75% government. Three out of four transactions in the economy start to look and feel like you’re in a call-centre queue with the Australian Taxation Office or, in America, the IRS. Then they really stand on the scales: 5% private, just enough to sell a tentative surplus from your backyard vegetable garden, if lawlessness hasn’t destroyed it because those without a garden are starving.
We cede far too much ground accepting a Keynesian ‘mixed economy’.
The territory is too vast, ranging from one notch past efficient laissez faire to one notch short of Yugoslavia in 1981.
You and I need a scorecard, in business-speak a key performance indicator, to judge where we are on this vast sliding-scale.
And I have it.
It’s called Government Expenditure as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product.
To put it another way, it’s that part of the entire economy which is not sourced from free enterprise, the percent not generated by the efficient free-exchange of private buyers and sellers satisfying their own needs and desires. It’s the proportion of the economy in which government intrudes, displacing private transactions which would naturally and otherwise occur between you and me.
It’s the economic cancer which ultimately kills a lively, flourishing society!
So, let’s have a look at the statistic.
And to make things interesting, let’s look at it over a long period, say since Australian Federation in 1901, and to really spice things up, let’s take the measurement at the end of each of the major ‘liberal’ governments. Once you see the figures, you’ll understand why I query their ‘liberal’ credentials.
(Before I share this with you, understand it took 5 hours of research. These figures aren’t handed to you by government on a platter!)
· Alfred Deakin (end of his third government): 5%
· Robert Menzies (end of his second government): 17%
· Malcolm Fraser: 26%
· John Howard: 37%
· Scott Morrison: 45%.
You read that correctly.
We’re all sitting in a saucepan of the slow-boil, simmering-ever-closer-to-socialism kind.
A couple of thoughts. Alfred Deakin’s 5% was sufficient to build Australia’s navy, from nothing to formidable middle-power in two years. That’s Deakin doing the work of the umpire, protecting a free society from external threat. All good! Contrast that with today’s procurement bungles.
Alfred Deakin. 2nd, 5th and 7th Prime Minister of Australia
Further, the Whitlam, Hawke and Gillard governments must certainly have contributed a lot to this creep with general expansionism, Medicare and NDIS respectively.
Liberty Itch will find out with year-on-year figures, so hold on to your subscription!
In a sense though, it doesn’t matter.
Had the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments wanted to reverse Labor overreach and get back to the Howard days of 37%, they could have. Had team Howard-Costello wanted to reverse possible Hawke-Keating expansion to return to 26% Fraser days, they could have. So on and so forth.
The timeline is too long and the trend all in one direction to excuse any of them.
All governments have been complicit.
I’ll therefore make this bold and daring prediction. You can hold me accountable for it.
By the time this Labor administration concludes, private will be less than government in our ‘mixed economy.’ We’ll be over the tipping point. Unless you and I pressure MPs, we’ll have 49% private and 51% government, or 45% private and 55% government.
Should this trend continue, Australia will look like a 1970s dank Wilson-Callaghan economy which Thatcher had to revitalise. We’ll have more in common with a 1970s centralised State Dockyard economy of NSW Wran which Greiner had to unchain. We’ll feel more like 2020 than 1950 Detroit.
There’s Australia’s KPI. We’re 45% socialist.
You and I can at least agree that this is a worrying prospect deserving action.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
If you consume any type of centre-right content, you could be forgiven for thinking the world is falling apart.
There is problem-after-problem to fix. The Left is relentless in taking us in the wrong direction. The overall direction of society seems lost on both economic and social fronts.
The tone is dark, the mood gloomy.
And you certainly don’t feel good having consumed this material.
Let me give you some hope and encouragement that, despite the pessimism, things are improving:
In 1950, Australia’s life expectancy was 68 years. In 2022, it’s 84;
The last case of smallpox in Australia was in 1938;
In 1950, Australia’s deaths per thousand live births was 25. In 2022, less than 3;
In 1950, there were approximately 2,300 polio cases in Australia. There have been no polio cases in Australia since 2000;
In 1950, 1% of Australians had a university degree. In 2022, it’s 36%;
In 1960, Australia’s GDP was US$18.85 billion. In 2020, it was US$1.331 trillion;
In 1953, there were 750 million rabbits in Australia! For agricultural productivity purposes, by 2022, this thankfully reduced to 200 million;
In 1960, Australia produced 7.45 million tonnes of wheat. In 2021, it produced 36 million;
In 2017, 55.5 million physical books were sold in Australia. In 2021, that figure grew to 65.0 million;
In 1950, Australia did not have a space industry. In 2022, there are 388 Australian companies operating in Australia’s space industry.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
