Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Sunday, November 24, 2024
    Latest

    Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections

    Home Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections Page 6

    Unions And Religion

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    2

    Unions and libertarians disagree about almost everything. However, they do both share one core tenet – the right to “freedom of association”.  Well, maybe not so much anymore.

    Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals. It also happens to be a right incorporated in international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  Freedom of association stands as a cornerstone of a free society.

    Unions rely on freedom of association for their very existence. Unless workers are free to associate, there can be no unions. 

    Finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith.

    However, a piece of recent news begs the question as to whether this right is still valued, or maybe even understood, by the union movement.  Or perhaps the left’s war on Christianity gets precedence over one of the union movement’s foundation principles.

    Unions are now lobbying the Federal government to legislate to prevent religious schools from hiring teachers on the basis of faith.

    For many Christians it is their faith that has led them to libertarianism – for reasons discussed elsewhere on Liberty Itch.  I won’t revisit here that any attack on Christianity is also an attack on our civil liberties.

    Not all libertarians are church goers of course (albeit they should seriously consider becoming so). Secular libertarians should be alarmed, nonetheless. The debate over proposed religious discrimination laws in Australia presents a significant point of contention, particularly concerning the principle of freedom of association.

    The union movement’s position on this is riddled with hypocrisy.

    Firstly, the right to freedom of association also extends to religious organizations, allowing them to maintain their faith-based hiring practices. By pushing to restrict these schools’ hiring autonomy, the trade unions risk undermining the very freedom of association they hold dear.

    Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals.

    Second, trade unions, which typically advocate for workers’ rights, appear to disregard this idea when it comes to religious schools’ hiring practices. This raises concerns about the consistency of their stance and whether they are applying the same standards to themselves.

    Third, while the unions bemoan discrimination implicit (they say) in hiring based on faith, by limiting faith-based schools’ hiring autonomy, they may discriminate against religious individuals who want to work in environments aligned with their beliefs, thus contradicting their own principles of non-discrimination.

    Join Mailing List

    And finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith. Limiting their ability to hire staff who share their beliefs homogenises the educational landscape and limits diversity of educational options, which is contrary to the principles of a free and open society.

    Let’s call it what it is: the trade union movement’s call to prevent faith-based hiring in religious schools is at best the “politics of envy”, and at worst an unprincipled and hypocritical attack on Christianity. Let’s see if state and federal governments have the courage and integrity to resist this push.

    Is “Freedom” a Non-Word?

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    2

    The past few years have prompted a more focused view upon the word Freedom and all that it entails. Covid lockdowns along with coercive directives to take a new and warp-speed developed vaccine to “save Grandma” have been at the core of it. 

    When I ran as a candidate in Australia’s federal election in 2022 for the United Australia Party, I was one of four freedom candidates vying in my electorate of Lilley. One day on pre-poll, I approached a journalist from one of our major newspapers to ask why we were being ignored by the press, and the public not afforded the opportunity to hear what we had to say. His response was to cast his arm widely over the throng of people lining up on a very wet and wild day to say that we were irrelevant, and that what all those people out there were interested in was only “red” and “blue.” 

    We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth. 

    After explaining to him why I was standing up for our freedoms and challenged him to tell me why the people didn’t have the right to hear our messages, he told me: “Freedom is a non-word.”

    Naturally I disagreed, and the historian in me tried to appeal to his better judgement, given that his own career reflected the freedoms available to him to pursue a path to write and communicate his thoughts and ideas. 

    If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans, which was created to ensure the people had a voice and for the three levels of government to remain separate. 

    Imagine telling Socrates, the man who questioned everything and who encouraged others to do the same, that the word Freedom meant nothing at all? I doubt he would have needed hemlock to see his last day – the shock would have taken him out.  

    Almost four years have gone by since our world changed, and many people have forgotten about the egregious rules and punishments that were handed down from on high. They have proceeded to carry on with their lives, tut-tutting those of us who remind them of just what the government overlords did. 

    If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans

    Australians are by nature laid back. Sadly, that proved more true than many of us thought possible when the majority knelt before the altar of the Leviathan. 

    The future may look grim as we watch our inherent rights taken away from us, but I continue to look to the wisdom and foresight of the ancients as they navigated their own way through the quagmire of tyranny and oppression. We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth. 

    Join Mailing List

    Because history does matter. And so does freedom.

    When the Gauls razed Rome to the ground in 390 BC, the general, Camillus, had to restore faith in the soldiers and the people to continue to defend and believe in their own freedoms. Many wanted to leave the ruins and rubble of their beloved Rome, but Camillus would have none of that, stating:

    “Must it be seen that Gauls could tumble Rome to the ground, while Romans are too weak to lift her up again?”

    It is my hope that one day soon our nation will wise up enough to do the same heavy lifting which is required to reclaim what is rightfully ours, and what is absolutely a word unto itself – Freedom.

    Polite Inquiries

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    2

    Nothing short of a full Royal Commission into the nationwide pandemic response will be satisfactory given the scale of government intervention, the hurt caused, and the economic and social legacy it has left on Australia.

    One of the many well-known rules of politics is that one only calls an inquiry when one is already sure of what it will find. Such was the case in Victoria, when retired judge Jennifer Coate headed the inquiry into Victoria’s bungled Covid hotel quarantine system, a vulnerability which led to months of lockdown across the state. She found that ultimately ‘no one’ was responsible for initiating the conditions under which breaches occurred, which largely revolved around contracted private security being compromised by lack of supervision and infection control training. 

    Premier Daniel Andrews took the opportunity to roll his then Health Minister Jenny Mikakos, and the report was able to pinpoint the decision to use contracted private security as a key failing. In the end, two departments blamed each other (a fine was paid from one to another), Andrews apologised and claimed ‘accountability’, and we never quite found out why the police force or ADF were shunned while expensive security contracts were whipped up and tendered with lightning speed. 

    Daniel Andrews

    So as the Federal Government launches its own inquiry into the Federal response to the Covid 19 pandemic, libertarians, and indeed anyone interested in the truth of these matters, could be forgiven for remaining cynical.  

    But it is a disgrace that we may never be able to hold the states accountable for the most egregious government interventions during the pandemic.

    For one, this inquiry ought to be a Royal Commission – one that can obtain key documents and communications, and compel witnesses to appear and truthfully answer questions. In Victoria, phone records and key communications were redacted, the inquiry and media focussed solely on only one key decision (or ‘creeping assumption’), and the political damage was very limited.    

    As mentioned, an inquiry operates within the confines of what the current government is prepared to expose. In the case of Andrews in Victoria, a few carefully selected heads rolled. With this upcoming Federal inquiry, the goal will undoubtedly be to inflict further damage on former Coalition ministers. 

    The terms of reference focus solely on the federal pandemic response, and specifically rules out the ‘unilateral actions of state and territory governments’. Thus, many of the most harmful government interventions and gross acts of bureaucratic inflexibility cannot be examined. 

    The language of the terms of reference also fails to mention human rights, and seems fixated on systems, rather than the human cost of the pandemic. I daresay the findings of this inquiry will focus on how government can be improved during a pandemic or emergency, not how it can be minimised.    

    One of the many well-known rules of politics is that one only calls an inquiry when one is already sure of what it will find.

    We will however have a chance to ruminate on the two years of international border closures and inflexibility on that front. We can shine a light on the secrecy of National Cabinet meetings, the role of the Home Affairs department in suppressing online information, and the role of the ADF at supporting the enforcement of State restrictions. We can also reflect on the Federal Government’s role in communicating to Australians about Covid-19, vaccines, safety assessments and initial restrictions. Finally, perhaps we will have a chance to inspect the economic damage inflicted by the dramatic fiscal response, perform a cost-benefit analysis and review the economic legacy of programs such as JobKeeper, JobSeeker and HomeBuilder. 

    Join Mailing List

    But it is a disgrace that we may never be able to hold the states accountable for the most egregious government interventions during the pandemic. What of the bureaucratic inflexibility at state borders, which kept families and loved ones apart and even resulted in the deaths of infants? What of the vaccine mandates that drove a wedge between those who ‘consented’ and those who didn’t, inflicting untold social and economic damage in many cases? What of the state-imposed lockdowns which persisted well beyond the initial period of uncertainty and panic in 2020? 

    We deserve to have these questions picked over with the finest of combs, and those responsible for unnecessary harm must be held accountable.  

    The Libertarian ACT Party’s Influence On The New Coalition Government

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    1

    Strange Mixture of Ethno-Nationalism And Soviet-Style Authoritarianism Is A Very Real Risk.

    The proportional representation electoral system in New Zealand encourages the formation of coalition governments. The usual outcome is a coalition featuring one of the traditional major parties, the leftist Labour party or the centrist National party, with another party, perhaps plus other sympathetic parties providing confidence and supply from outside government. 

    Only twice in the 27 years of proportional representation has this scenario not occurred. In 2020, where an electorate inexplicably grateful for the Covid response handed Jacinda Ardern’s Labour party an unprecedented absolute majority, and 2023 when the centrist National party, the populist NZ First and libertarian Act parties formed a three-way coalition. Members of all three parties will hold ministerial warrants inside and outside cabinet, and a comprehensive policy platform has been agreed amongst them.

    The libertarian influence over the new government is a lot less than it could have been

    The essential objective of the policy platform is recovery from the devastation wrought over the last six years by the Labour-led government. Every key economic and social metric is in the red, core Crown debt has tripled, infrastructure is crumbling, cost of living and inflation are crises, Stalinesque centralisation of devolved services such as health and tertiary education have been eye-wateringly expensive failures, and democracy at all levels of government has largely been supplanted by the euphemistically named “co-governance” of public services: Maori prima inter pares Apartheid.

    In six short years the far-left ideologues of the Labour party, cheered on by their fellow travellers in the corrupted media, have taken NZ’s “Rockstar Economy” to the point where the country is teetering on the verge of middle-income instead of first world nationhood, and a society where civil unrest between a coalition government seeking to reassert democratic norms and a significant proportion of the populace dedicated to replacing democracy with a strange mixture of ethno-nationalism and Soviet-style authoritarianism is a very real risk.

    The proportional representation electoral system in New Zealand encourages the
    formation of coalition governments.

    The hope of the Act and NZ First constituencies (and to a lesser extent, their National party peers) is that the two minor coalition partners can provide National with some much needed backbone. Traditionally a centre-right party representative of rural interests, business and exporters, National today has devolved into the blandest of beige centrist parties, pitching themselves as more fiscally prudent and better at delivery than their Labour party counterparts. Whilst accurate, these are not the radical characteristics needed by the incoming coalition to reverse the calamity of six years of unrestrained wokeism.

    A lack of unity amongst the parties might be the coalition’s greatest weakness, embodied by the leader of NZ First Winston Peters, whose reputation for capriciousness and venality is well-earned. Since 1996 he has entered into coalition four times, twice each with Labour and National, an experience both parties came to regret on all four occasions.

    Winston Peters

    The fear of Act and National voters is he will blow up this coalition as he has done to coalitions in the past. And much to the dismay of libertarians, that risk is largely the fault of David Seymour, leader of the Act party. As early as 2022 Act were polling around 15% and an all-time high of 20% seemed achievable, which would almost certainly propel a National/Act coalition to the treasury benches.

    Much to the chagrin of party rank and file, and grandees such as previous leader Rodney Hide, David Seymour took the inexplicable decision to broadly back Jacinda Ardern’s autocratic approach to pandemic lock-downs, vaccine mandates and the protests against them.

    Going so far as repeating Labour party agitprop against anti-mandate demonstrators in a very public refusal to meet with them, Seymour singularly alienated a large section of Act’s constituency. A constituency Winston Peters was only too glad for the opportunity to champion.

    Join Mailing List

    Embracing the disaffected constituency that Seymour repudiated was enough for Peters to re-enter parliament and coalition government. Conversely for David Seymour, abandoning Act’s libertarian principles consigned the party to a paltry 8.6% of the popular vote, and the ignominy of coalition with NZ First. Act supporters can only hope David Seymour has been suitable chastened by the experience to refrain from such a damaging strategic mistake again, and that Act and National can survive the impact of NZ First upon the coalition government.

    The libertarian influence over the new government is a lot less than it could have been, at least in its first three-year term of office.

    Security To Slavery

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

    Australia’s Struggle with Security And Freedom

    China’s Tech Dystopia I: The Surveillance State

    On a recent visit to China, the first thing that struck me was the omnipresence of surveillance cameras. They loomed on literally every street corner, a silent yet potent symbol of the state’s watchful eye. This brought to mind the unsettling parallels with George Orwell’s ‘1984,’ where constant surveillance and the distortion of truth are central to maintaining governmental power.

    China’s Surveillance Web: A Reality Check

    In ‘1984,’ Orwell presents a society under unrelenting watch by a totalitarian regime, an image that resonates deeply with China’s current surveillance state. By 2021, the country had deployed over 540 million surveillance cameras, a number that is only expected to grow. This vast network, integrated with advanced facial recognition and AI, is a piece of a much larger puzzle. Coupled with extensive monitoring of digital activities and the implementation of a social credit system, the Chinese government has harnessed technology to orchestrate an unprecedented level of societal oversight and control.

    COVID Zero Policy: A Page from Orwell’s Playbook

    The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity for the Chinese government to expand its surveillance capabilities under the guise of public health. The COVID Zero policy, with its aim of eradicating the virus, saw the introduction of mandatory health apps that tracked each individuals’ movements and health status. In practice, these apps controlled where people could go, who they could meet, and enforced strict compliance with quarantine measures. While the measures were somewhat effective at controlling the spread of the virus for nearly three years, they also served to normalise a level of state intrusion into private lives previously unimaginable even within previous CCP standards.

    Powerful reminder of the undeniable priority of freedom, ensuring that advancements in technology do not usher us into a new era of digital slavery.

    A Real-Life ‘1984’ in China

    The parallels between China’s surveillance state and Orwell’s dystopian vision are striking. Orwell’s novel portrays a society where surveillance is not only about monitoring but also about manipulating reality – a theme that finds echoes in the modern Chinese context. However, unlike Orwell’s mostly passive characters, there have been instances of resistance in China. A notable instance of this was when Shanghai’s young generation held up blank sheets of A4 paper as a form of protest, a response to censorship and representing all the unsayable things. The courage displayed by the participants in these movements provided a glimmer of hope, suggesting that the human spirit’s desire for freedom and autonomy can persist even under the most oppressive surveillance regimes.

    Ethical Dilemma: Safety vs. Freedom

    The ethical dilemma posed by China’s surveillance regime is profound. Is the safety provided by such a system worth the cost of individual freedoms? Benjamin Franklin coined the famous warning: ‘Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.’ This sentiment captures the core of the dilemma; the notion that safety must come at the expense of freedom is a slippery slope, leading to a society where individuals are under constant watch, reminiscent of modern slavery.

    Australia’s Struggle with Security and Freedom

    As we examine China’s approach to surveillance, it’s instructive to reflect on similar tensions experienced in Australia. The Australian government implemented strict measures to control the spread of the Covid virus, closely mirroring China’s approach. This included lockdowns, travel restrictions, extensive contact tracing, and the introduction of a vaccine passport (a policy even China didn’t implement). While these measures satisfied many, as shown by some election results, especially the 2021 WA state election, they also sparked a nationwide debate over the balance between public safety and individual liberties.

    The Chinese government has harnessed technology to orchestrate an unprecedented level of societal oversight and control.

    The pandemic response raised important questions about the extent to which governments can curtail freedoms in the name of security. The enforcement of lockdowns and the implementation of what many viewed as apartheid via a choice regarding vaccination led to significant disruptions in daily life and raised severe concerns about government overreach. This experience mirrors the broader global conversation about how societies value and protect individual freedoms in times of crisis.

    Concluding Thoughts: Navigating the Future

    As we navigate the post-pandemic world, it is crucial to learn lessons from both China’s and Australia’s experiences. The global community must engage in a thoughtful dialogue about the role of technology in governance and the paramount importance of safeguarding individual liberties. The echoes of ‘1984’ in these real-world scenarios serve as a powerful reminder of the undeniable priority of freedom, ensuring that advancements in technology do not usher us into a new era of digital slavery.

    Join Mailing List

    The choices made by governments and societies today will determine the role of technology in our lives and the preservation of our fundamental freedoms. As we stand at this crossroads, it is imperative that we choose a path that respects individual liberties while harnessing the benefits of technological advancements for the greater good.

    Argentina Elected A Libertarian Leader, And It Could Happen Here

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    1

    But it probably won’t.

    Argentinians recently voted in Javier Milei to be their President.

    Milei has good policies, and he will probably be able to implement a good chunk of them.

    This is not just good for Argentinians, it is good news for us. Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.

    But we shouldn’t get carried away. Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish list, and not all of his policies are good.  And the circumstances of Milei’s election won’t be repeated in Australia any time soon.

    Milei has good policies.
    Milei’s party has an exemplary, wide-ranging, libertarian platform promoting both social and economic freedoms. Milei did not appear to walk away from any of this platform in his campaign.  

    The campaign naturally focussed on economics, given Argentina’s current crisis.  In his campaigning Milei skilfully educated voters on why a libertarian prescription on monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy is the way to go.  

    The lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government

    Milei is likely to be able to implement some of his policies.
    The formal powers of the Argentinian President are similar to those of the US President, with appointment, veto, and decree powers.

    Unlike US Presidents, Argentinian Presidents are in the habit of regularly introducing a budget, so Milei will be better placed to cut government spending than an American President.

    Milei will bolster the credibility of libertarian parties in Australia.
    We can now point to a libertarian in power in a country with more than 45 million people.

    We now have a great counter-point to claims that libertarianism is irrelevant.

    Australian libertarians seeking election will be able to say that if libertarians can be elected, and if libertarian policies can be implemented in Argentina, then the same can happen in Australia.

    But not all of Milei’s policies are good.
    Milei stoked and tapped into anti-woke sentiment, including through supportive references to America’s Trump and Brazil’s Bolsonaro.

    This is a problem if it translates into the implementation of illiberal policies, or concentrating on issues of wokeness at the expense of more crucial reform, or if it means Milei has the same regard for the law as Trump and Bolsonaro.

    Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.

    That said, Milei’s comments cleverly tapped into anti-woke sentiment without committing to do anything illiberal. After all, there’s nothing illiberal about abolishing a Women’s Ministry. So there might be nothing to worry about on this score.

    A more clearly disappointing campaign tactic was Milei’s opposition to legalising euthanasia.

    But this tactic may well have been a smart move. A large proportion of Argentinians claim to be Catholic, and the Catholic Church is staunchly anti-euthanasia. Argentinian politics, even for presidential elections, involves considerable coalition building, with Milei’s party working with Argentina’s Faith Party. Milei also faced significant criticism from the Church for wanting to slash welfare, so perhaps it was best to concentrate the attack on the Church at its weakest point.

    Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish-list.
    Milei’s alliance of parties will have 38 of the 257 seats in the lower house of the national parliament, and 7 of the 72 seats in the upper house.

    Argentina is a federal country, and there is next to no libertarian presence at Argentina’s provincial level.

    Many of the circumstances of Milei’s election will not be replicated in Australia.
    It seems that Milei was elected because both the traditional left-wing grouping (who were in government) and the traditional right-wing grouping (who were in opposition) were unusually splintered and unpopular. Both groupings also lacked a charismatic leader, with both the incumbent President and Vice President not contesting the election. Such conditions could occur in Australia.

    Join Mailing List


    But the main reason Milei was elected was Argentina’s economic malaise. Argentina currently has one of the highest inflation rates in the world, and its economy is shrinking. The latest assessment of Freedom House is damning:

    “Aggravated by corruption and political interference, the lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government. Leftist spending measures and price controls distort markets, and government interference still hobbles the financial sector. Fading confidence in the government’s determination to promote or even sustain open markets has discouraged entrepreneurship.”

    Freedom House’s assessment of Australia is glowing in comparison.

    So Argentina needs a libertarian leader more than Australia does, and hopefully more than Australia ever will.
    Milei’s election does not presage a global wave of libertarianism, but it is still great news, not just for Argentinians, but for Australians too. Let’s watch and learn.

    The Blame Game

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    SA State Government to stop bludging on the other states

    On 1 July 2014, my first day as a Senator, Adelaide’s Advertiser newspaper published an opinion piece I had submitted titled, Shedding the ‘Bludger State’ tag, in which I implored the SA State Government to stop bludging on the other states and start standing on its own two feet.

    Then Premier Jay Weatherill responded by calling me ‘an enemy of the state’.

    Many South Australians can probably remember the time when more than a dozen of Australia’s top 100 listed companies had their head offices in Adelaide – News Ltd, Fauldings, Southcorp, Elders, Normandy Mining, Adelaide Bank, Adelaide Brighton, Standard Chartered Finance to name just a few. Today there’s just one – Santos (and even Santos is only headquartered in Adelaide because of some vague arrangement).  

    At the time of Federation, South Australia led the constitutional debates and had an influential hand in shaping the new Commonwealth of Australia. For decades after, Adelaide was Australia’s Number 3 city – bigger and more prosperous than either Brisbane or Perth. 

    Led by Tom Playford, South Australia prospered under the principle of ‘cheap land, cheap power, cheap water, and cheap labour’. Wages were lower than in Sydney and Melbourne, but despite the lower pay packets, South Australians’ quality of life and standard of living were higher than their interstate counterparts. 

    Not surprisingly, the first area where the boundaries between state and Federal governments were tested related to tax.

    It was an example of genuine competitive federalism – not the pseudo competitive federalism of today in which state governments try to outdo each other enticing companies to set up in their states. 

    Since those halcyon days, South Australia has lost each of the competitive edges that made it prosperous. 

    First to go was cheap land – thanks to urban planning controls – then water, then centralised wage fixing (waiters, nurses, and factory workers across Australia all had to get the same pay). 

    As for power prices, they are now not just the highest in Australia, but some of the highest in the world. 

    Last year, the South Australian premier folded like a pack of cards over nuclear power. The idea that he and his Labor colleagues would take on the urban planners, water barons and unions to make SA competitive again is laughable. 

    SA is destined to be a mendicant State for a long time to come. 

    Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke once said, “We’re all Australians, whether we’re from Melbourne or Sydney”. 

    Where those from the ‘outlying States’ (as Paul Keating called them) belonged, was anyone’s guess.

    When Australia came together as a nation in 1901, Sir Samuel Griffith, nailed it by saying:

    “We must not lose sight of the essential condition that this is to be a federation of states and not a single government of Australia. The separate states are to continue as autonomous bodies, surrendering only so much of their power as is necessary for the establishment of a general government to do for them collectively what they cannot do individually for themselves.” 

    Sir Samuel Griffith

    Those who spend the money should raise the money

    The powers given to the Federal Government by the states in 1901 included trade and commerce, corporations, currency, banking, pensions, taxation, foreign affairs, communications, copyright, marriage and family law, quarantine, and defence. 

    There was no mention of hospitals, schools, disability services, pink batts, carbon dioxide emissions or many of the other things that federal governments these days decide they want to spend our money on.

    Not surprisingly, the first area where the boundaries between state and Federal governments were tested related to tax.

    In 1942, all income taxing power was handed to the Federal government for the duration of World War II under the ‘defence’ power of the Constitution. This was intended to be temporary and was to last until the end of the war. But as predictable as the sunrise, when the war ended the Feds did not relinquish their income tax collector role (not that the states wanted to resume income tax collection, but that is not the point).

    Since then, the tax revenue balance has continued to move away from the states and towards the Feds. The imbalance which now exists is known as ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’.

    South Australians’ quality of life and standard of living were higher than their interstate counterparts. 

    Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federal country in the world. The Federal government raises over 70% of all government revenues – much more than is required to fund its own operations – while the states don’t raise anywhere near enough to fund theirs. The Feds then make up the states’ shortfall through Commonwealth grants.

    This creates a perpetual blame game. Failures at the state level are blamed on the Feds’ lack of funding, and failures at the federal level are blamed on the states’ poor service delivery.

    Duplication of health and education bureaucracies alone costs taxpayers billions of dollars, yet the Feds do not run a single hospital or a single school. 

    This cannot go on. State and Federal governments should only collect taxes for their own purposes, and taxpayers and consumers should be fully informed as to what is a state tax and what is a Federal tax. Those who spend the money should bear the responsibility of raising it.

    Join Mailing List

    This confusing power structure between the states and the Federal government – and between individual states – was emphatically exposed during Covid, with many calling for the abolition of state governments and the formation of one national government.

    But as Covid revealed, the Federal government doesn’t have the power it thought it had. The Feds may have the money, but it’s the states that have the power.

    A Chinese Australian’s Voice: NO

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    1

    As a Chinese Australian who has called this nation home for the past 11 years, I am compelled to vehemently oppose the Voice referendum. The decision, for me, feels instinctive but is rooted in principles and values deeply ingrained in my perspective as a new migrant.

    In Upholding the Principle of Anti-Racism

    While society, media, and certainly politicians discuss “racism” all the time, few define racism clearly and unequivocally. Racism fundamentally involves treating individuals differently based on their race, often rooted in beliefs of inherent superiority or inferiority. While the Voice is claimed to rectify historical and systemic racial disparities, it’s very crucial to scrutinise its potential unintended consequences.

    … anyone who pretends the Voice has nothing to do with the treaty is either being blindly naïve or being inherently evil.

    A referendum of this kind can (and may have already) sow division in society. Granting privileges to specific racial groups always leads to unnecessary racial tensions. And even if Aboriginals benefit from the constitutional changes, relying on race-based policies risks entrenching the harmful notion that these groups cannot thrive without special provisions.

    Race-embedded policies, though meant to address racial disparities, can ironically perpetuate longstanding racism.

    In Respecting the Gravitas of the Constitution

    The constitution of a nation is far more than just another piece of written legislation. Serving as a testament to a nation’s historical foundation and its future ambitions, it is the bedrock upon which a nation is built. It has a pivotal role, designed to withstand the test of time, offering consistent guidance to each generation, helping them navigate evolving challenges while staying true to foundational principles.

    Considering the profound weight the constitution carries, any proposed alterations should be approached with the utmost caution and reverence. Changes shouldn’t merely reflect temporary sentiments or transient political inclinations, but should genuinely resonate with core principles that, in my view, should be rooted in the rights to life, liberty, and property.

    In Understanding the Core of the Voice

    The Voice has been portrayed as a benevolent change for Aboriginal communities—a gesture of goodwill or, minimally, a harmless addition. Many Chinese migrants I’ve spoken with initially responded, “I might vote ‘yes’, as it benefits the disadvantaged.” However, a deeper exploration of the Voice’s implications reveals strong reasons to reconsider.

    While the Voice undeniably stems from the Uluru Statement, it doesn’t exist in isolation. Historically, discussions about the Voice have invariably been linked with a Treaty. Noel Pearson, a primary architect of the Voice, has emphatically stated, “Treaty door is the second door. The first door is constitutional enshrinement.” He further clarified, “The first precondition to treaty is Voice, a voice to negotiate treaty, it’s common sense.” Another significant contributor to the Voice, Marcia Langton, noted, “The Uluru Statement states two broad objectives… Voice and a Makkaratta [Treaty] Commission.”

    So, what does this treaty entail? What discussions surround it? And how might the “pay the rent” concept be realised? The Albanese government would prefer us to overlook the treaty, asserting the referendum is unrelated. However, anyone who pretends the Voice has nothing to do with the treaty is either being blindly naïve or being inherently evil.

    Simply Put, I Don’t Give A F*ck

    Australia, for millions of migrants, stands as a beacon of Western civilisation, radiating values of democracy, rule of law, and individual liberties. These values, which neither directly nor indirectly relate to Aboriginal culture and history, draw countless individuals to its shores, searching for a better life and a better future.

    There were times when I found myself disillusioned with Australia, particularly during the severe and arbitrary lockdowns and mandates during the COVID era. However, on balance, Australia has afforded me more than I ever dreamed. Australia is rife with opportunities, and I’ve witnessed countless individuals, from diverse backgrounds, flourish here, be they white-collar professionals, blue-collar workers, or entrepreneurs. It’s this spirit of perseverance and ambition that should define our nation, rather than any identity politics and its policies.

    Racism fundamentally involves treating individuals differently based on their race, often rooted in beliefs of inherent superiority or inferiority.

    As an immigrant, I don’t give a f*ck about policies that purport to help but in fact only bloat the bureaucracy and strain the social fabric. Australia already has a heart, while numerous non-profits, businesses and churches extend aid to those genuinely in need. While assistance is needed, we must recognize a fundamental truth: nations, communities, and individuals grow not through handouts, but through resilience, hard work, and self-determination.

    In summary, given all the factors mentioned earlier, casting a ‘no’ vote against a divisive and racially-biased alteration to the constitution would be the appropriate course of action.

    What Happens After Saturday?

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    3
    hf

    She was a young tall Indian beauty, perhaps a model, but maybe an engineering student. She passed me as I handed out No how-to-vote cards to prospective voters at the pre-poll in Brisbane. She called to the exuberant Yes booth worker beside me, “I’m not a citizen, I can’t’ vote, but I am with you, why wouldn’t I, just look at me!”

    Colour solidarity seems alive and well in this referendum. Prime Minister Albanese has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with leaders of various ethnic associations, feeding the shallow thoughts of our Indian non-citizen: that colour should define us, and divide us, forever. What a poor leader is the Prime Minister, and what a despicable proposition is the Voice.

    The referendum was an act of ego by elites who have rarely acted in the common interest.

    Others were not so shallow as our young visitor. A PNG native took my No card, and several Malay women, along with lots of white Aussies who just winked, and took the card. I have travelled the country speaking to forums, and while most No voters that I spoke to are quiet Australians, they can spot a crude grab for power that is the Voice. Emotions are running high, mostly on the Yes side, such is their moral hubris. Because of them, the narrative will be that there will be a fair bit of putting Humpty Dumpty together again after Saturday.

    Prime Minister Albanese will have to wear his constant castigation of Australians for not accepting the “gracious gift” of the Trojan Horse. Many Yes supporters, smug in the certainty they were right, will think of their fellow citizens as ill-informed or hard-hearted.

    Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese

    For the majority, the best way to put the Humpty Dumpty narrative to bed is to realise it doesn’t exist. The referendum was an act of ego by elites who have rarely acted in the common interest. Mining company leaders donated millions of corporate dollars to the Yes cause at the same time environmentalists were making mincemeat of legal procedures over ‘inadequate’ consultation with indigenous peoples on new mines.

    Charities poured millions into Yes coffers, undercutting their donor’s intentions to help the poor and instead helping middle class Aboriginal leaders to the spoils of office. Celebrities can return to their magazines and make-up mirrors assured of their dinner party invitations. Academics can write deep analyses of the faults in the minds of lesser beings outside of the walls of the academy, or more accurately, outside of their control.

    Australians are not broken. They will have served democracy well. They can return to their day jobs on Monday, while those who have an enduring interest will be left to pick over the entrails of Aboriginal politics. In this task I want your help: Aboriginal leaders in the Yes camp may have declared that they will “fall silent” or never again “perform a welcome to country” should the referendum crash and burn, but they will not give up their jobs in the industry.

    Shallow thoughts … that colour should define us, and divide us, forever. What a poor leader is the Prime Minister, and what a despicable proposition is the Voice.

    With your help, we must overturn the separatist ideology that drives this industry. If you want to stop the next generation of failed programs and destroyed lives you should join with those who want to reclaim a sensible path to a decent life for Aborigines.

    Ethno-separatist ideology at odds with liberal democracy

    Race-based policies must be phased out. Need, not race, is the new mantra. We at Close the Gap Research will resume work on Sunday. It will be a long haul, winning one battle is but a step in winning the war. Please join us.

    Gary Johns is Principal of CloseTheGapResearch.org.au

    No Insults, Prime Minister

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    1

    Plato said that under tyranny of the master passion, a man becomes in his waking life what he was once only occasionally in his dreams.

    In his victory speech of 21 May 2022, Anthony Albanese declared to the Australian people that the government he leads “will respect every one of you every day.”

    One year later the insults began to fly.

    Those opposed to the upcoming referendum on the Voice have been referred to as conspiracy theorists, radicals, and racists.

    Perhaps the most vexatious comments were made in a speech given at the Lowitja O’Donoghue Oration on 29 May 2023 where he referred to opponents as “Chicken Littles of the past,” a comment which he later doubled down on in a radio interview with Nova FM on 30 May 2023, declaring the need to “be straight with people.”

    I confess to being confused. Was he being straight with people when he told them he would respect every single Australian on the night he won the federal election? Or is he being straight with people when he ridicules those who oppose his edicts on the Voice?

    He cannot have it both ways. Or can he?

    Had historians been on the Prime Minister’s staff, they could have guided him back 2000 years to review what Julius Caesar had done in his attempt to take the temperature of the people when contemplating his next big move.

    Caesar was ruthless in his pursuit to become sole ruler of Rome. He aimed for kingship. But the Romans had ended monarchy in 509 BC when the last king, Tarquinius Superbus, was banished and the Republic was born.

    Rome would never again be ruled by a king. Any move to usurp the authority of the Senate would be seen by the people as treachery.

    At the annual festival of the Lupercalia in 44 BC, Mark Antony, Caesar’s most trusted confidante and fellow Consul, attempted to place a laurel wreath on Caesar’s head as he sat on a gold chair in front of the rostra overseeing festivities. The historian, Appian, narrates the would-be king’s handling of the situation:

    Julius Caesar rejects the diadem offered by Mark Antony. The crowd roared its approval.

    “When they saw this, a few people clapped but the majority booed, and Caesar threw away the diadem. Antonius replaced it, but Caesar again threw it away. While they were having this altercation with each other, the people remained quiet, nervous of which way the episode would end, but when Caesar carried his point, they roared their delight and applauded him for not accepting the diadem.”

    Despite public opinion being against Mr Albanese’s proposal, and suggestions from various political quarters to withdraw, delay or compromise on the Voice referendum, he is refusing to do so.

    Now, the comparison I’m about to draw will undoubtedly elicit gasps of horror from the reader. But I assure you it is merely to make the point that hubris is the common denominator of political leadership no matter the skill of the leader or millennium.

    Caesar considered the Republic as insubstantial and admonished its very existence. The historian, Suetonius, wrote of Caesar’s arrogance:

    “The Republic is nothing – just a name, without substance or form; Sulla was a fool when he gave up the dictatorship; men should now have more consideration in speaking with me and regard what I say as law.”

    Today’s political left continually declares how progressive they are, hence, any talk of dictatorship in the modern West would be laughable – surely?

    Mr Albanese told 3AW’s Neil Mitchell on 14 August that if he were dictator, he would ban social media. Yes, this was a hypothetical question put to him, saying that he doesn’t support dictatorships. But two ominous points emerge:

    The Prime Minister interviewed by Neil Mitchell.
    1. Perhaps he should have declined to answer such a hypothetical and sinister suggestion given that we are a democracy.

    2. The fact that he highlighted social media, the very tool used to communicate and share thoughts and deemed to be the right of free people, is authoritarian in its very uttering.

    Add to that, his comments to faith groups on 22 February 2021 that individualism is a “dangerous fantasy,” and an “indulgence ill-suited to the current reality,” and it reveals a leader stuck more in the ancient past than in the progressive present.

    Here ends the one mirroring example of two very different leaders in very different times. Gasping can now cease!

    Caesar was a master strategist, so when it came to public admonishment, personal insults would not do for the man who would be king. A peek into his playbook would perhaps serve Mr Albanese’s cause better.

    Julius Caesar met his end with a brutal slaying by 23 stab wounds in the Roman forum. Australia in 2023 exists within the boundaries of law, not violence, so time will reveal the political fate of Anthony Albanese following the outcome of the referendum.

    Politicians love to tell the people how much they value their vote and respect their opinions. It would augur well if they recognised that winning respect is not achieved through coercion and insults.

    That, they must earn.

    1...567...9Page 6 of 9
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv