Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections

-

26 February 2024

GOVERNMENT OVERREACH

Habeas corpus will not be restored in Australia.

The Australian Federal Budget will be in deficit and expenditure will increase on the previous year.

Correct: “A deficit of $28.3 billion is forecast in 2024–25.”
Source: Statement 1: Budget Overview. Page 2.
https://budget.gov.au/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs-1.pdf

Correct: Forecast expenditures for 2023-24 and 2024-25 are $691,070,000,000 and $734,518,000,000 respectively.
Source: Statement 6: Expenses and Net Capital Investment. Page 233.
https://budget.gov.au/content/bp1/index.htm

ENVIRONMENT

There will be at least 7 tropical cyclones or severe tropical cyclones in Australia.

Correct:
Category 3 Severe Tropical Cyclone Anggrek. 10-25 Jan 2024.
Category 3 Severe Tropical Cyclone Kirrily. 12 Jan – 5 Feb 2024.
Category 1 Tropical Cyclone Lincoln. 14-25 Feb 2024.
Category 4 Severe Tropical Cyclone Neville. 4-24 Mar 2024.
Category 4 Severe Tropical Cyclone Megan. 13-21 Mar 2024.
Category 5 Severe Tropical Cyclone Olga. 4-11 Apr 2024.
Category 2 Tropical Cyclone Paul. 9-12 Apr 2024.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Australian_region_cyclone_season

STOCK MARKET

Woolworths’ revenue will be lower in the March 2024 quarter than in the March 2023 quarter.

Incorrect: Federal Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, called for a Woolworths boycott because it would not stock Australia Day paraphernalia. I incorrectly thought this extraordinary interference with the market might suppress sales below the same quarter the previous year. However, revenue for the 2024 March quarter was $16,800,000,000, higher than for the 2023 March quarter which was $16,338,000,000.
Source: Page 2.
https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20240502/pdf/0634t0t80r8xxq.pdf

HEALTH

There will be 10 or less global cases of wild polio.

Pending: As at 25 May 2024, there have been two cases of wild polio globally, both in Pakistan. Watch this space for more updates.
Source:
https://www.who.int/news/item/08-04-2024-statement-following-the-thirty-eighth-meeting-of-the-ihr-emergency-committee-for-polio#:~:text=Sudan%20and%20Sudan.-,Wild%20poliovirus,samples%20to%20date%20in%202024

For the first time, 33% or more of the Australian population will be obese.

SOCIAL TRENDS

The sale of sex dolls will increase in Australia.

In at least one month during 2024, social media platform X will attract more than 450 million monthly users.

Correct: On 24 May 2024, Elon Musk announced X achieved over 600 million monthly active users.
Source:
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/elon-musk-x-now-600-million-monthly-active-users/717078/ and https://backlinko.com/twitter-users#twitter-monthly-users

Mount Barker SA will have a larger population than Busselton WA, Orange NSW, Bowral NSW, Dubbo NSW, Nowra NSW or Bathurst NSW.

At least 25% of Australians will attend church monthly.

Less than 50% of Australians will use TV as their source of news.

Pet ownership in Australia will grow to more than 70% of all households.

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Space X’s Starship will successfully reach orbit.

ECONOMICS

The number of new incorporations will decrease in Australia from the previous year.

Pending: In 2022-23, there were 406,365 business entries in Australia. We are waiting for the 2023-24 number
Source:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/business-indicators/counts-australian-businesses-including-entries-and- exits/latest-release

Cash transactions will decrease below 17% of total transactions.

Australian coal exports will increase from last year.

ELECTIONS

The ALP-Greens Coalition will be returned to government in the ACT General Election.

The Country Liberal Party will win the Northern Territory General Election.

Correct: The CLP won the election on 24 Aug 2024.
Source:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/country-liberal-party-promises-new-chapter-after-northern-territory-election-win/cwyuz1x0a

The Liberal-National Party will win the Queensland State Election.

Barring court-affirmed election fraud, a diagnosis of ill-health, imprisonment or assassination, Donald Trump will win the US Presidency.

GEOPOLITICS

In 2024, China will neither invade Taiwan by land nor impose a naval blockade.

The United Nations General Assembly will pass at least three resolutions concerning Israel and Australia will vote with the United States.

Pending: UN Security Council Resolution 2735 adopted 10 June 2024.
Source: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/165/11/pdf/n2416511.pdf

There will be no resolution of the conflict in Ukraine.

At least two international borders will change.

Correct:
1 Jan 2024. Republic of Artsakh reintegrated into Azerbaijan.
1 Apr 2024. Puntland announces independence from Somalia.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_changes_(1914%E2%80%93present)

DEATHS

At least two of the following people will die: Ray Lawler, Sophia Loren, Julian Assange, Patricia Routledge, Tom Hughes, Jimmy Carter, Mike Carlton.

Pending: Ray Lawler died on 24 July 2024.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Lawler

SUMMARY
Correct: 5
Pending: 19
Incorrect: 1

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.

Forum Shopping for Native Title rights

By

-

19 February 2024

The Rolling Stones were wrong: you can always get what you want if you are patient and the taxpayer foots the bill. And if you forum shop.

So it was with a recent native title ‘victory’ at the High Court of Australia. The Court overturned a decision of the full court of the Federal Court of Australia.

Native title holders at the Macarthur River in the Northern Territory wanted a say over a new tailings dam associated with the mining and transhipment of zinc-lead-silver ore. Fair enough. The McArthur River Project ore concentrate must travel 120 kilometres by road to the “Bing Bong” loading facility located on the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is loaded onto a bulk-carrier vessel for transhipment to larger ocean-going ships.

This part of the Gulf is shallow, and the bulk carrier must use a navigation channel, which needs to be maintained by regular dredging. The resulting dredged sediment is pumped onshore to a Dredge Spoil Emplacement Area, which has been filling up. In 2013, Mt Isa Mines applied for a new mineral lease under the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT) to construct a new area on a pastoral lease near the Bing Bong loading facility.

This is the real agenda: further elaboration of rights and expanding power to extract more rent from mining.

The Northern Land Council sought to prevent the issue of the minerals lease and a declaration that the proposed grant of the lease was invalid because the procedures under their preferred section of the Native Title Act had not been followed.

The High Court ordered that the Northern Territory Minister be restrained from deciding the application for the future act until the completion of the procedures under the Native Title Act. The High Court had to decide whether, besides freeholder rights, the native title claimants had a right to object under native title. It seems they did.

Imagine fighting all the way to the High Court of Australia: first the Federal Court, then appealing to a full bench of the Federal Court, and then to the High Court. The time and cost to Australian taxpayers are enormous. And for what?

The victory was that the High Court resolved differing interpretations of the meaning of the phrase “right to mine for the sole purpose of the construction of an infrastructure facility… associated with mining” in the context of the 633-page Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The key was whether native title holders had access to one ‘notification, objection and consultation procedure’ under the Native Title Act, or to another procedure under the same Act. It was either the same procedural rights as the holders of ‘ordinary title’ land or additional procedural rights to object to the future act and have those objections heard by an ‘independent person’.

If that wasn’t sufficiently indulgent, the applicants were entitled to processes under the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT), a right to negotiate procedure, and a right to be heard at the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or have an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. Indeed, an ILUA was commenced in 2021 before the appeal to the full court of the Federal Court.

You can always get what you want if you are patient and the taxpayer foots the bill.

The decision by the High Court relates to one set of facts about what constitutes a mining operation. This may or may not provide a guide to any other disputes between native title holders and miners. At the outset there were six families involved in discussions on the mine. Three families were not directly affected but have now been drawn into the ILUA. The context is important; there are no other major economic bases in the region; the mine and associated works are it. Twenty three per cent of the workforce are Aboriginal.

This matter started in 2013. The mine and its associated infrastructure began in 1992. The original applicant for the objection died before the courts resolved the matter. For whom is this a victory?

The Northern Land Council hoped this decision would prompt the mining company to ‘engage proactively and in good faith with the native title holders, through their … legal representatives, to obtain free, prior and informed consent before further disturbing their native title.’ There is no evidence it did not, but it probably spoke to the native title holders in preference to the NLC and its lawyers.

The term ‘free, prior and informed’ is taken from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is the real agenda: further elaboration of rights and expanding power to extract more rent from mining. If Aborigines keep playing this rent-seeker game, they will never escape poverty, and the culture that holds them in a state of dependence on public servants and land councils will remain.

Gary Johns is chair of Close the Gap Research

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.

Brave New World Wide Web

By

Max Payne

-

14 February 2024

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

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.

Lawfare

By

Jaimie Stevenson

-

7 February 2024

“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” is the famous statement attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief. This is an example of lawfare: the manipulation of legal processes, civil or criminal, to serve political, ideological, or personal interests rather than upholding justice.

Lawfare involves the misuse of the law by various means including selective enforcement, biased prosecutions, and politically motivated judgments for reasons unrelated to justice. It targets individuals or groups based on their political beliefs, policies or affiliations, and uses the law as a weapon to suppress dissent.

Civil Law

Civil law is traditionally employed to resolve disputes between private individuals or entities. However, it has increasingly become a weapon in the hands of powerful interests to silence critics. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused. These lawsuits are often filed with the primary aim of intimidating, censoring, or bankrupting individuals or organisations critical of those in power.

Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech.

SLAPP suits typically lack merit but serve as a tool to burden defendants with legal expenses and time-consuming litigation. The fear of financial ruin can force individuals or groups to retract their statements, cease their activities, or settle out of court.

Criminal law

Governments and powerful organisations have increasingly turned to criminal law to suppress dissenting voices. Laws that criminalise defamation, sedition, or spreading false information can be exploited to target political opponents, journalists, activists, or any individual expressing dissenting views.

Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech. Ostensibly drafted to address the dissemination of false information, the legislation raises concerns due to its broad scope, leaving individuals uncertain about what constitutes a violation. Such ambiguity can be exploited to selectively enforce the law, enabling those in power to target specific individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the alleged offense.

The absence of precise definitions allows for the manipulation of the law to serve political interests, allowing authorities to interpret and apply it selectively. This raises concerns about the erosion of democratic principles, as those in authority exploit legal measures to silence opposition and stifle public discourse.

One of the key concerns in the misuse of civil and criminal law is the selective prosecution of individuals or groups based on their political beliefs or affiliations. Authorities may use their power to target specific dissenting voices, leaving others untouched, thereby creating a chilling effect on those who oppose the status quo.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused.

An example of this is the prosecution of Donald Trump, who many people believe is being persecuted rather than prosecuted to defeat him as a presidential candidate. Many believe Joe Biden has weaponised the Department of Justice to go after his political opponent, contrasting its treatment of Trump to that of Joe Biden in spite of widespread allegations of Biden’s corruption.

The repeated prosecution of Pakistan’s former prime minister, Imran Khan, is another example. The Pakistan military has used the country’s courts to impose jail sentences that ensure he and his party are unable to participate in forthcoming elections.

When legal actions are driven by political motivations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice, it erodes the credibility of the legal system. The rule of law is founded on the principles of fairness, due process, and the objective application of legal standards, not on the whims of those in power.

Frivolous civil lawsuits targeting individuals or groups and selective prosecution in criminal law depart significantly from a rule of law approach. In a rule of law framework, legal processes are expected to be impartial, fair, and based on established principles rather than arbitrary decisions or personal biases. Frivolous civil lawsuits, often driven by ulterior motives such as harassment or silencing dissent, abuse the legal system by burdening individuals with unnecessary litigation, straying from the principle of justice and fairness.

Similarly, selective prosecution in criminal law undermines the rule of law by targeting individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the merits of the case. A rule of law system requires equal application of the law, ensuring that legal actions are not used as tools for persecution or favouritism. When prosecution becomes selective, it compromises the foundational principles of fairness, due process, and equal protection under the law. In essence, both frivolous civil lawsuits and selective criminal prosecution deviate from the rule of law by introducing bias, subjectivity, and personal motivations into legal processes.

Jaimie Stevenson

Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.

Utilitarianism and the Omnipotence of Government

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

5 February 2024

Welcome to the Inspection House, known as the Panopticon.

Jeremy Bentham, eighteenth century political thinker, was one of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number, which he considered to be a fundamental principle of morality.

Managing societies is no easy task, hence, as first principles go, it seems reasonable. But what of the outsiders, those who prefer to live life as they see best for themselves? Well, Bentham’s take was more simplistic. He argued that human beings are ruled by two things only – pleasure and pain.

“All men are under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure. It is for them to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”

The bolded words are my emphasis for the purpose of showing that three centuries do not bring about change in how people think and act – I refer to the past few years of bending to the will of government edicts. I would like to think that most people knew what they “ought” to do in relation to government coercion around Covid vaccines and staying under house arrest, but fear determined what they “shall” do, and they did so in large numbers.

Today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about.

Some would consider Bentham’s view crude and base. After all, surely, we are more than the sum of two conflicting emotions. However, he considered this the most effective means of making laws to ensure that people’s actions amounted to the greatest happiness for all.

To ensure stability of the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, Bentham saw the need for a solution that would act to deter those seeking to disrupt the status quo, so he developed the concept of an institutional system where prisoners would be observed without their knowing.

Very 1984!

Today, surveillance is now part and parcel of our lives. We moderns tend to think that what we are encountering with the plethora of misinformation laws and censorship to within an inch of our lives, is new, be that good or bad, depending on what side of the fence one sits on with the issue.

But today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about.

The early 1780s saw the Inspection House proposal hatched, known as the Panopticon. Its primary purpose was to house prisoners based on the idea of the best design to produce the best outcomes – the Utility principle at work.

However, a closer look at Bentham’s personal letters reveals more than just a desire to incarcerate criminals.

In a series of letters written in 1787 concerning a Plan of Management for a House of Corrections, he wrote:

No matter how different, or even opposite the purpose: whether it be that of punishing the incorrigible, guarding the insane, reforming the vicious, confining the suspected, employing the idle, maintaining the helpless, curing the sick, instructing the willing in any branch of industry, or training the rising race in the path of education: in a word, whether it be applied to the purposes of perpetual prisons in the room of death, or prisons for confinement before trial, or penitentiary-houses, or houses of correction, or work-houses, or manufactories, or mad-houses, or hospitals, or schools.

One of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number

Of all the bolded phrases (mine for emphasis), the “training the rising race in the path of education” is the most alarming. We are already witnessing the outcomes of progressive education. Imagine what humanity will look like if we cannot pull it back from the brink.

There is not, and never has been, a shortage of individuals hellbent on shaping the world by their own means. Three centuries have passed since Jeremy Bentham concocted an idea to easily coerce people to the whims of intellectual prowess, and I don’t mean that in a complimentary way.

The Utility principle is akin to the concept of the “greater good.” It has always been at the core of public planning for the mere reason that most people prefer others to make the hard decisions, even when it comes to their own personal lives. But Utility is not for everyone. Some of us prefer to live our lives by the “do no harm” principle,” otherwise known as living by one’s own code and doing no harm to anyone else in the process.

Should we be alarmed at the rise of these new old concepts?

Are we on the precipice of the collapse of humanity as we have known it?

Is the old Panopticon the new 15 Minute City, designed to enslave us?

Probably, is my answer. And that doesn’t mean we stop resisting its implementation through peaceful non-compliance. If history shows us one thing only, it is that pride comes before a fall, and the globalist agenda is big, bold, and ugly. We owe it to our families, friends and all who believe in freedom to continue to defend humanity at all costs.

Gerardine Hoogland

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

What should the Australian Defence Force do?

By

Duncan Spender

-

31 January 2024

Hint: the answer is in the name

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) does lots of things it shouldn’t.

Restrict the trading of others

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) helps to enforce sanctions.

It contributes in varying degrees to efforts to enforce sanctions endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, like sanctions against North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and various countries in Africa, as well as other sanctions like those against Russia, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe.

Sanctions impede and redirect, rather than stop, trade involving the targeted countries. They rarely bring about regime or policy change in the targeted country, and any impact in this regard is more often negative than positive. Sanctions amount to a diplomat’s response to a call to ‘do something’ without the commitment of ground troops.

Deterring and countering restrictions on our own trade

Some say the ADF can and should defend Australian trade by ensuring the ADF can project power including through a long-range navy.

This is wrong.

The likelihood of any attempts to stop Australia’s trade is low, the likelihood of success of any such attempts is low, the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australia’s trade would be far from catastrophic, and the ADF can do little to deter or counter any of this anyway.

Firstly, consider the likelihood of attempts to stop Australian trade. Here are some scenarios, from less to more likely.

The United Nations Security Council agreeing to impose sanctions on Australia in an attempt to stop Australian trade.
An assortment of powerful countries defying the Security Council and attempting to stop Australian trade themselves.
One country, such as China, unilaterally attempting to stop Australian trade, including through war.
Pirates attempting to stop Australian trade.

Each scenario is unlikely, except perhaps the risk of piracy, for which traders can arrange their own security.

The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy

Secondly, consider the likelihood of success of any attempts to stop Australian trade. As we see with current sanction efforts, and even at the height of the last world war, even the most sophisticated campaigns against a country’s trade tend to impede and redirect trade, rather than stop it.

Thirdly, consider the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australian trade. Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade. We are more self-sufficient than you think. So a successful blockade of Australia would cause some hardship, but any claims beyond this are hyperbolic.

Finally, even in the unlikely event of a successful trade blockade against Australia, what would be the optimal ADF response?

Nothing.

The point is, the cost of having a military powerful enough to counter such a blockade would be greater than the cost of living self-sufficiently.

The ADF as foreign aid

The ADF is building infrastructure in PNG, Vanuatu, Fiji and the Solomons, doing maritime surveillance to defend the fisheries of various Pacific Islands, and training military and police forces in various Pacific countries.

Such action may fail to deliver political stability and prosperity to the Pacific, and may fail to deter the establishment of Chinese military bases in the Pacific. Moreover, Australians suffer little from instability and poverty in the Pacific, and Chinese military bases in the Pacific would do little to increase the risk of, or damage from, Chinese aggression to Australia.

The ADF’s actions in the Pacific are essentially foreign aid, the funding of which should not be forced on all taxpayers.

Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade.

Other overseas operations

The operations of the ADF beyond the Pacific are unwarranted too.

The ADF is training Ukrainians to fight Russia and remains in a fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with a current focus on training Iraqi forces. The ADF dons blue berets to police the borders of Israel and the Koreas and to provide security in South Sudan, having recently provided security in Mali.

These are not our fights. Interested Australians should be free to engage in these conflicts if they so choose, without roping the Australian taxpayer in. The ADF’s engagement in these fights does not represent cost-effective training for defending Australian soil, which is best done through defensive exercises in Australian conditions. And while ADF personnel are overseas, they are not defending Australia.

Enforcing obedience to state law

During the Covid lockdowns, the ADF was used in support of state police to prevent travel beyond legally permitted limits and to keep state borders closed.

The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy, and the military should not have been tasked with law enforcement. In liberal democracies, we train and regulate our military primarily for the exertion of force on enemies, and our police primarily for the service and protection of citizens.

Disaster relief

The ADF is increasingly being used for humanitarian assistance following floods and bushfires. This is not its role; indeed, such activities are a serious distraction from its primary role of the defence of Australia.

State governments should bolster the ranks of volunteer organisations to provide humanitarian assistance.

Duncan Spender

Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.

Things to do on Australia Day

By

-

26 January 2024

Here is your definitive list of Australia Day must-dos. Any one of these makes you a thoughtful Aussie. Do all 22 and you’ll end up with an Order of Australia.

1.Start the day with Vegemite on damper and Weet Bix;

2.Wear eucalypt silvery-green and deep gold clothing. Make an effort with the hues; lime-green and canary yellow just won’t cut it;

3.Fly a large Australian flag at home so your neighbours can see it. Bonus points for a huge flag flown proudly atop a permanent flagpole in your front yard;

4.Host an Australia Day BBQ at your place;

5.Wear a sprig of wattle on your lapel;

6.Give someone you love a bouquet of native flowers;

7.Sizzle all-Aussie beef steaks and burgers with a native bush tomato and mountain pepper berry rub;

8.Serve burgers with beetroot and an oversized Queensland pineapple ring. Bonus points for onion and a BBQ poached egg;

9.Make an Australian dessert like pavlova, lamingtons, Iced Vovo tart, vanilla slice or fairy bread;

10.Recite Mackellar’s My Country aloud before the family. Bonus points for Banjo Paterson’s The Geebung Polo Club done with rhythm and build-up;

11.Play a hotly-contested, raucous game of backyard cricket. Bonus points for loud, speculative appealing and protestations when turned down;

12.Do anything at the beach. Absolutely anything!

13.Tweet your unreserved appreciation and love for Australia;

14.Recite the Oath of Allegiance even as a lifelong citizen;

15.Share with family and friends what you love about Australia;

16.Play Slim Dusty, Nelly Melba or Percy Grainger, as your taste dictates. Just make sure the music is Australian;

17.Self-consciously use old Australian dialect words. Bonus points for: “You’re bonzer, cobber. It’s the Pom who’s gone troppo, a fair dinkum drongo. What a galah!”

18.Fly the flag from your car and drive around your neighbourhood;

19.Photograph a beautiful Australian scene and share on social media;

20.Sing loudly and without any hint of self-consciousness any of the following: I Am Australian, I Still Call Australia Home, Waltzing Matilda or Advance Australia Fair. Bonus points for including the second verse or for leading a group to sing all of them with you;

21.Debate who is Australia’s greatest author; and

22.Prepare and deliver a short summary of the life and adventures of an Australian explorer.

I love Australia, its freedoms, its opportunities, its outdoorsmen. I love our individual flair, our explorers, our flinty pioneers and adventurers. That a mere 26 million in a mere 236 years have, with sweat, turned this wide, brown land into a beacon, a free and liberal home for all.

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.

Don’t Welcome Me to My Country

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

24 January 2024

2

During the debate leading to the Voice referendum, prominent Voice supporter Marcia Langton was quoted in the media saying that if the referendum was defeated:

“How are they going to ever ask an Indigenous person, a Traditional Owner, for a welcome to country? How are they ever going to be able to ask me to come and speak at their conference? If they have the temerity to do it, of course the answer is going to be no.”

In other words, a no vote would result in Aborigines refusing to provide ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies.

As is well known, the no vote was overwhelming. However, so far there has been no reduction in the welcomes.

The definition of racism is treating people differently on the basis of race. The result of the Voice referendum demonstrated that Australians are profoundly anti-racist; Australians do not want to be treated differently according to race. They just want to be treated the same as everyone else, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion or cultural origins. As George Orwell would have put it, no Australians should be more equal than others.

Nobody doubts that Aborigines immigrated to Australia 10,000 years ago

The problem with welcome to country ceremonies is that they are at odds with this. They are only performed by Aboriginal Australians, and imply that those performing them have a special claim to the country that other Australians do not have.

If they were welcoming visitors to land over which they had a proprietorial right, such as an indigenous reserve, this might be understandable. But that is not the case. Moreover, most of those performing the ceremonies are not even elders who could at least claim to be representing their clan.

Similarly, if they were welcoming foreign visitors to Australia, on behalf of all Australians, it might be understandable. But that is also not the case; indeed, most foreign visitors never witness such a ceremony.

In reality they are simply Australians, paid performers, purporting to welcome fellow Australians to their own country.

As a successful multicultural society, Australians respect diverse cultures. From the Aboriginal Garma festival to the Indian Dev Diwali celebrations, plus numerous other ethnic ceremonies and celebrations, they happen freely and without hindrance.

However, all Australians, including the Aborigines, are ultimately descended from immigrants. The only difference is the time period. As a consequence, going beyond respect to declaring one particular culture as superior is a step too far.

Nobody doubts that Aborigines immigrated to Australia 10,000 years ago (or longer if some are to be believed), but why does that make their culture more deserving than the culture of the Chinese who arrived during the gold rush, or the Greeks and Italians who arrived after the Second World War, or even first-generation immigrants from India?

Australians do not want to be treated differently according to race

If longevity in Australia is a basis for cultural priority, why shouldn’t the descendants of First Fleeters assert priority over all those who followed them?

There is another reason why welcome to country ceremonies should be abandoned: they are actually not part of Aboriginal culture at all, but were invented by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley to welcome a group of Māoris in 1976. Australia’s first governor, Captain Arthur Phillip, could never have witnessed a welcome to country ceremony in 1788 because they did not exist at that time.

Those who support welcome to country ceremonies are largely the same people who advocated for a yes vote for the Voice or repeat slogans such as “always was, always will be”. They are simply out of step with mainstream opinion; today’s Australians are not responsible for what occurred long before they were born and will not be held liable for it.

And while there are genuine concerns at the differences in health and education between Aborigines in remote areas and other Australians, it is perfectly obvious to them that welcome to country ceremonies will not close the gap. Moreover, there are other Australians also missing out who are not Aboriginal.

Australians are kind-hearted and generous, and have always supported assistance on the basis of need. But having Aborigines welcome us to our own country is simply un-Australian.

David Leyonhjelm

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

China 2024 and Beyond: A Troubled Future

By

Warren Wang

-

17 January 2024

2

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.

Conclusion

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 Wang

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

Capturing The Glory Undeservedly

By

-

11 January 2024

Somehow, the West has gotten into a real twist about identity, especially that of minorities. In the name of justice for minorities, identity is being used to undermine equality and liberty. Minority group identity has become a weapon to be wielded against the alleged privileges of the majority. The result is that common humanity and individual freedoms are being undermined. More insidiously, merit is being forgotten.

Much of the work on behalf of minorities has come subsequent to their success. Liberalism was their friend. It may have taken longer than, for example, white working-class people to succeed, but they got there or are well underway. Identity campaigns are not helping anyone except the elite of the minorities trying to capture more of the spoils.

For example, the University of Technology Sydney announced in 2018 that it intended to build a First Nations College. Fortunately, it has not progressed too far: the 2018 announcement that it would open in 2023 remains unfulfilled. It is a pity Monash University had no Working Class College when I attended in the 1970s. I could have avoided those middle-class private school wankers by hanging around with grunters from my old suburb. Well, those that made it to university.

Let the heat die and ensure proper processes to hear matters in the cool light of day.

It is true that other identities, such as Catholics and Anglicans, built university colleges, but they mostly raised their own money and had a deep history of scholarship. There are women’s colleges too, but these, like single-sex schools, are fading.

The aim of the UTS college, it said, was to help ‘forge a more inclusive society’. By separating one race from others? Mind you, race is a bit of a stretch. The students most likely to attend would be from the suburbs and probably the children of intermarried parents; in other words, they are highly integrated – think Pearson, Langton, Davis, Behrendt, etc.

Aboriginal and working class students are not so successful as a group, but those who are bright can and do make it. That is the point. Others may not want to attend, preferring to follow in their parent’s footsteps, where TAFE beckons and practical skills can be acquired that are less susceptible to identity propaganda. Even a Labor Prime minister has woken up to free fees for TAFE.

The UTS college also claims its purpose is ‘to remove the real and perceived barriers that prevent Indigenous participation in higher education and the broader economy.’ They made it to university on merit, didn’t they? The rest is up to them, or should be, unless they are to be cossetted forever. The fear of segregated colleges (UTS says they will allow some non-indigenous students) is that they discourage integration and shun inclusion.

According to Pluckrose’s Social Injustice, identity politics emerged in the 1960s within the broader manifestation of postmodernism. Postmodernism emerged in academia as a philosophy that questioned everything. It is so sceptical that it does not believe in objective truth or knowledge, believing everything, even knowledge, is corrupted by politics and political power. It opened the door to identity as a powerful tool to undermine common humanity, individual freedom, and merit.

Minority group identity has become a weapon to be wielded against the alleged privileges of the majority.

A more prosaic explanation of identity politics is that of Mounk’s The Identity Trap. He explains that the Left was lured by collective action against the majority, where, despite the triumph of liberalism, minorities were marginalised. And yet, the minorities only had to wait; liberalism was their saviour. Actions such as a First Nations College come after the triumph of liberalism. It is an attempt by successful Aborigines to capture more power and glory undeservedly.

The antidote to the evils of postmodernism and identity politics is, of course, liberalism. Pluckrose appeals to secularism’s principle: ‘In a secular society, no one should be punished for rejecting religion or any other ideology.’ In other words, stop the cancel culture gig. The former President of Harvard University, Professor Gay, resigned because she was the culmination of cancel culture. When pressed by a Congressional committee on virulent anti-Israel protests on her campus, she defended the cancel mob. Simple direct questions from a single Republican representative outed her.

Mounk recommends that leaders cultivate a spirit of tolerance of ideas; for example, when racist accusations are made, he recommends no discipline until the facts are clear. That seems obvious, but the rush to judgment fuels the fire. Let the heat die and ensure proper processes to hear matters in the cool light of day. Don’t allow craven editors and the X (Twitter) mob to be the judge. Gay was forced out not because she wanted to let things settle before acting against anti-Semitic hate speech but because she was in a vanguard that selected students on race and brooked no demur from those in the hate speech camp.

Essentially, there are no ‘identity’ ideas, just ideas. Joining in this crusade for liberalism, our group, Close the Gap Research, is working to uncover one of the engine rooms of the identity industry as it manifests in Aboriginal politics. We are reviewing the qualifications of professors who claim Aboriginal heritage. We are also analysing Reconciliation Action Plans where organisations profess to do good but instead reinforce separate identities and undervalue the contribution of people as employees: workers. Now, there’s an old-fashioned idea.

Gary Johns is chair of Close the Gap Research and author of The Burden of Culture.