Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Most popular

    Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections

    Home Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections

    Bacon Sandwiches, Sausage Sizzles and Red Tape

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

    Below is the following enquiry I sent them: 

    “Hello,

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

    Thank you  

    Jessica Colby.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bacon sandwiches required separate permits to sell at community events

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

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

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

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

    Council AreaStateSeparate permit required to serve bacon sandwiches and sausages in breadNotes
    City of Adelaide SAInc
    City of BurnsideSANoMust be under same marque or kitchen to use same permit to be covered under same notification
    City of CampbeltownSAIncTold to contact Eastern Health Authority
    City of Charles SturtSAIncLikely yes
    Town of GawlerSANo
    Town of WalkervilleSANR
    Adelaide Hills CouncilSAIncGiven a list of people to contact
    City of MarionSANo
    City of MitchamSAIncLikely yes but not 100% sure
    City of Norwood, Payneham & St PetersSANR
    City of OnkaparingaSANo
    City of PlayfordSAInc
    City of ProspectSAInc
    City of SalisburySANo
    City of Tea Tree GullySANo
    City of UnleySANo
    City of West TorrensSANo
    Mid Murrey CouncilSANo
    City of Port AugustaSANo
    City of Port LincolnSANo
    Flinders Ranges CouncilSANo
    District Council of Mount BarkerSANoAs long as all the food sold at the stall is listed on the one application form, only one permit will be required for all.
    Berri Barmera CouncilSANR
    District Council of Loxton WaikerieSANR
    District Council of GrantSANR
    Roxby CouncilSANoNeed FBN number
    City of HobartTASNo
    Tasman CouncilTASNo
    North Canberra Community CouncilACTIncTold to contact Access Canberra
    City of DarwinNTIncTold to contact Northern Territory Health Department
    Alice Springs Town CouncilNTIncWas told to contact NTG Health as the council officer was unsure on the specifics of whether both can be cooked under the same permit.
    City of PerthWANR
    City of BunburyWANo
    City of Greater GeraldtonWANo
    City of RockinghamWANoSausage sizzles need one permit that includes both bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread
    Shire of BroomeWANo
    Brisbane City CouncilQLDNo
    Sunshine Coast CouncilQLDNR
    Cairnes Regional CouncilQLDNR
    City of TownsvilleQLDNoNeed a separate permit for every separate food stand
    City of MelbourneVICYes
    Yarra City CouncilVICNo
    Maribyrnong City CouncilVICYes
    Whitehorse City CouncilVICNR
    City of Greater GeelongVICNR
    City of Greater BendigoVICNo
    West Wimmera Shire CouncilVICYes

    Join Mailing List

    Mildura Rural City CouncilVICNR
    City of SydneyNSWN/AFood cannot be sold be sold at community events or protests in Sydney
    Georges River CouncilNSWInc
    Waverly CouncilNSWInc
    City of Wagga WaggaNSWNo
    Broken Hill City CouncilNSWNo
    City of WollongongNSWNo
    Dubbo Regional CouncilNSWIncWas told in the final email that ‘there is no such thing as a permit’ ???

    I’ve got a little list

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

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

    Freedom, Moral Norms and the State

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

    Moira Deeming And The Shrinking Church

    By
    Jordan Dittloff
    -
    0

    As former Senator David Leyonhjelm adroitly explained in his recent article Libertarians And Conservatives: Similar But Different, there are both shared interests and fundamental differences between libertarians (or classical liberals) and conservatives.

    For decades, the Liberal Party sought to balance these tensions, referring to itself internally as a “broad church”. As a libertarian who was once a Young Liberal and enthusiastically involved in the Liberal Party at all levels, I took pride in feeling that (while often at the margins) there was a place for libertarian ideas alongside conservative ones.

    So why is it that party members from both sides of the Liberal Party’s twin political heritage are looking at it with increasing dismay,
    and abandoning it in greater numbers than ever before?

    Over the past month I have heard two descriptions of the Liberal Party that were remarkably similar, from people who had not had an opportunity to compare notes.

    Libertarian Party MLC John Ruddick described the modern Liberal Party as “a once great manor house, that still looks good from the outside, but has fallen into disrepair, with the carpets and curtains decaying inside”.

    Less than a day later, twenty-year Liberal Party member and now a Libertarian Party member, Gideon Rozner said, “The Liberal Party today… it’s like when you go to a tennis or sports club, and the club rooms are a mess and the facilities in disrepair”.

    Simply put, the Party is rapidly ceasing to exist as an entity made up of grassroots members that exist outside of parliaments.

    The Moira Deeming saga epitomises the identity crisis the parliamentary Liberal Party faces.

    Having lost the compass points of both libertarian and conservative values,
    the modern Liberal leadership finds itself adrift in a sea of woke intersectional tides.

    Pesutto, like the dying days of the Napthine government in 2014, is desperately trying to appease a vocal section of the electorate which will never vote for him no matter how much he virtue signals to win their favour.

    In 2014, Denis Napthine led the Victorian Liberal Party into what was meant to be an unlosable re-election for a second term after 14 years in opposition following the defeat of Jeff Kennet in 1996.

    His campaign slogan was ‘Jobs and growth’. Victorian voters were faced with a choice between Pepsi or Pepsi-Max, and perhaps unsurprisingly they chose Pepsi.

    By turning a disagreement between himself and a first term backbencher into an existential challenge to his leadership, Pesutto has made it clear that the modern Liberal Party is not in the business of ideas.

    Party members, libertarians and conservatives alike, rightly see Moira Deeming’s exile as a proxy for the treatment they could expect if they expressed the wrong kind of ideas, or any at all. 

    As a libertarian in the Liberal Party, I used to rationalise my continued participation as “helping to make the party better” and “changing from within”. Looking back on that time honestly, I wanted to have good ideas, but wasn’t prepared to sacrifice political power or a future political career to defend them.

    Several first term MLCs who were in my graduating class of Young Liberal aspiring politicians voted to expel Moira Deeming, likely not because they thought it was right but because they felt dissent would have killed their political future.

    In the current state of the Liberal Party in Victoria, they were probably correct, and the lesson for grassroots members should be to seek political homes that welcome their ideas, rather than silence them. 

    A secondary lesson for those outside of major party politics, is that while there is much to be gained from co-operation between those with different ideas but shared interests, there is just as much to lose by believing in nothing except winning elections.

    Eye On The Prize

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0
    party

    Last week we presented a solution to the nation’s current economic, social and political malaise.

    We noted that facts and figures no longer mattered. That arithmetic, engineering, economics and, of course, common sense were now out the window. We also lamented that forums, podcasts and other intelligent conversations with world-leading authorities also no longer have any political effect.

    But just when you think things couldn’t get any worse, along comes the nation’s Treasurer with a Whitlamesque plan to remake society and the economy using 

    Values-based capitalism involving public-private co-investment and collaboration and the renovation of key economic institutions and markets.

    Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese

    We will renovate the Reserve Bank and revitalise the Productivity Commission

    It’s not just our economic institutions that need renewing and restructuring, but the way our markets allocate and arrange capital as well

    Mr Chalmers proposes to do this through the efforts of ‘business, labour and government’.

    If that doesn’t send a chill up your spine, I don’t know what would.

    Economist Dimitri Burshtein predicts the Treasurer’s version of values-based capitalism will leave the nation broke.

    To stop this madness, the major parties’ hands need to be forced through the brutal reality of balance-of-power politics.

    As discussed, at the last Federal election, the total centre-right (CR) vote would have been enough to get a senator elected in every state. That equates to 12 senators elected over the two-election Senate cycle.

    Substantial political power could be achieved if the CR parties formed a single party bloc, namely a:

    LIB-DEM ONE-NATION UNITED-AUST SF&F FAMILY PARTY Coalition.

    Note I have since included the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party who, it must be acknowledged, did well in at least two states at the last Federal election.

    Such an alliance would see One Nation and UAP with 4 of the 12 seats in the parliament, Libertarians with 2, Christian Family Parties 1 and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party 1 Senate seat.

    As discussed, having even one Senate seat gives a party a platform, a status, and a portal into the Federal Parliament for its members.

    Working together, a twelve-seat Senate bloc would be a formidable political force.

    For any project to succeed it must work effectively on three levels – strategy, tactics, and operations.

    Strategy is the big picture. This is the primary aim. In our case it is to have twelve senators who can hold together for a minimum of twelve years.

    Like anyone who has ever done a jigsaw puzzle, it is vitally important to have the picture on the box before you start. In other words, what the puzzle will look like when it’s finished.

    In our case, we want twelve senators, representing five constituencies to hold together to save the nation from people like Jim Chalmers.

    Tactics is about which Parties get to represent which States and at which election. Initially, agreement would be reached for both the 2025 and 2028 elections.

    To have six senators elected in 2025 and six more in 2028, it will be vital that all six parties, in all six States agree to work together and for each other, keeping an eye on the prize.

    Operations is the day-to-day admin, compliance and member servicing. A modest size Secretariat would be able to manage this.

    Slaying the dragon of censorship.

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Recent events, however, prove otherwise. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

    VIDEO: Doing What’s Right!

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    A timely reminder about what’s at stake in Victoria …

    Dan Andrews: Doing What’s Right

    Caught! CCP captured in media sting interfering in the Adelaide City Council elections

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0

    The Adelaide Advertiser has just broken a story which should shock you.

    At least two candidates in the Adelaide City Council elections are pro communist. In fact, they’ve been colluding with the Chinese Communist Party and its consulate in Adelaide strategically located near defence facilities.

    Here’s how the infiltration works:

    Step 1 – “‘Incentivise the Labor and Liberal parties to allow international students resident in Adelaide to vote. Yes, you read correctly. Non citizens can vote!

    Step 2 – Pay migration agents $8,000 for each Chinese student visa

    Step 3 – Buy four apartment blocks and turn them into student accommodation

    Step 4 – Run two CCP candidate plants in the Adelaide City Council election

    Step 5 – Host lavish social events for Chinese students at the consulate

    Step 6 – Encourage their co-operation for the two CCP candidates

    Step 7 – Summons the slow or resistant students. Threaten retaliation against their families back home through the social credit surveillance system

    Step 8 – Watch in amazement as Adelaide local council elections mail-in ballot voting is approved

    Step 9 – Landlords of the four apartment blocks send mailbox keys to, and this is a euphemism, ‘officers’ from the consulate

    Step 10 – (I’ll drop the euphemism) Spies from the consulate then use the keys to open all the mailboxes and harvest the ballot papers.

    Having received a tip-off, enter the Adelaide Advertiser and their photographic evidence.

    Three-hundred ballots is enough to swing a City of Adelaide Council seat in the ward in question.

    Now the Department of Home Affairs, ASIO and the Australian Federal Police are involved.

    And so they should.

    Watch this story closely. Watch the money. Watch the apologists. Watch for consequences.

    Lots of shenanigans going on with the CCP in Adelaide right now.

    AUKUS nuclear submarines and US defence contractor presence, you see.

    Stunning Early Victorian Election Prediction

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    Matthew Guy

    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.

    A Centre-Right National Strategy

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0
    Senators Leyonhjelm and Day

    In The Shrinking Forest, I outlined the problem, the cause of the problem and denounced the rent-seekers who cash-in on the problem. Then in ‘All Great Change Begins at the Dinner Table’, I emphasized the role of family, faith and free speech, and in How Christianity Informs Classical Liberalism, the connection between Christianity and liberty.

    This fourth and concluding instalment is a solution.

    The great author and philosopher Eric Hoffer once said, ‘Every great cause begins as a movement, then becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’

    Feeding, clothing and educating children are some of the key necessities a family provides. But we don’t tax people in order to set up government supermarkets to feed our children or government clothing stores to clothe them. Walk into any supermarket and see the incredible range of food and other essential goods available. Same with clothing … and motor cars.

    So why do we do it for other services like education?

    It costs Australian taxpayers approximately $20,000 pa to educate a student in a government school and $12,000 pa to educate a student in a non-government school.

    With around four million school students in Australia, that adds up to nearly $70 billion pa. A big investment.

    Considering the cost differential, and the fact non-government schools consistently outperform government schools in overall student performance, why doesn’t the government do more to encourage parents to send their children to non-government schools? It would allow parents to choose what is best for their children and at the same time reinforce the primacy of parents in the education of their children.

    The same would apply to housing, public transport and many other services. Quality and range would improve.

    This goes to the heart of what centre-right (CR) parties generally agree on – the primacy of the individual and the family over the government. CR parties believe governments are there to serve the people, not the other way around. They take the side of the people; the Left believes in the power of the state.

    And while the Left has a global playbook to draw on – themes, tactics, language – the right does not.

    Apart from a unique confluence of events and conservative leaders in the 1980s – Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II – the conservative Right is, globally, quite fragmented.

    In Australia, the Left – Labor, Greens and Teals – are a lot more organised than the Right.

    We need to get our act together.

    Now it’s one thing to identify a list of structural problems, fixing them is a different matter.

    To counter this ever-increasing influence of the Left over public policy, a Centre-Right National Strategy is sorely needed.

    If the CR minor parties which, by and large, do genuinely believe in ‘family, faith and freedom’, are to counter the major parties, the Greens, left-of-centre minor parties and pseudo-independents, then they need to work more closely together.

    At the last Federal election, the total CR vote in each state (NSW 12.3%, Vic 11.5%, Qld 15.6%, WA 11.5%, SA 10.8%, Tas 9.8%) would have been enough to get a senator elected in every state, yet only two out of six were elected – Queensland (One Nation) and Victoria (UAP).

    One can only imagine how frustrating it must be for Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts and Ralph Babet watching the Federal Parliament destroy society and the economy before their very eyes.

    Standing at polling booths alongside other like-minded, CR parties made me think back to the 2013 Federal election.

    The Coalition went to the 2013 election promising to abolish the carbon tax, abolish the mining tax and stop the boats. Upon election, seven (CR) Senate crossbenchers voted in support of these three key election pledges giving the Government the numbers it needed (33 + 7) to get its legislation passed. More about those numbers (33 + 7) shortly.

    Following this successful endeavour, I met with then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and put to him what I called a 40–40–40 game plan – ‘40 votes (a Senate majority) to fix 40 years of unfinished business and set the nation up for the next 40 years.’ 40–40–40.

    It had been 40 years since a Liberal Government under Malcolm Fraser had a majority in the Senate and squandered the opportunity.

    Enlisting the support of Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm, I tried to convince the Prime Minister and Senate Leader Mathias Cormann, as well as anyone who would listen, that the best way to get the Coalition’s policies through the parliament was to have more senators like us.

    Needless to say, my suggestion was not taken up.

    In fact, the exact opposite happened. The Coalition teamed up with the Greens (who voted against abolishing the carbon tax, mining tax and stopping the boats) and changed the Senate voting laws to get rid of those senators who had just supported them! As a result, and as predicted by John Howard, the Greens increased their number of Senate seats from 10 to 12, Labor increased its number of seats from 25 to 26, centre-left parties increased from 1 to 3, the Coalition lost a seat and the CR parties dropped from 7 seats to 3. From 33 + 7 (a CR majority) to 32 + 3 (a CR minority). A loss of 5 Senate seats.

    If anyone out there can explain why the Coalition would do that, I’d love to hear from them.

    On the policy front, as it now stands, we are faced with the following reality:

    • Facts and figures no longer matter. The clearer the facts, the more they are ignored. Arithmetic, engineering, economics and, of course, common sense are out the window.

    • Forums, podcasts and other intelligent conversations with world-leading authorities also no longer have any political effect. Again, logic and reason no longer matter.

    To stop further descent into economic and social chaos, substantial political power is required.

    As discussed last week, I would argue it is not possible to ‘break through’ all this. We have to ‘break with’. Forget facts and figures, logic and reason, we have to force the major parties’ hands through the brutal reality of balance-of-power politics.

    Substantial political power could be achieved if the CR parties formed a single party bloc, namely a:

    LIB-DEM ONE-NATION UNITED-AUST FAMILY PARTY Coalition.

    As discussed above, at the last Federal election, the total CR vote would have been enough to get a senator elected in every state. That equates to 12 senators elected over the two-election Senate cycle.

    Based on current levels of the primary vote, One Nation and UAP would have 4 of the 12 seats in the parliament, Libertarians 2, 1 seat for a Christian Family Party and 1 for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.

    Having even one Senate seat gives a party a platform, a status, and a portal into the Federal Parliament for its members.

    Working together, a twelve-seat Senate bloc would be a formidable political force.

    123...9Page 1 of 9
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv