Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight

    What is at Stake in Religious Freedom

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    1

    Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia. This has a lot to do with the fact that it is not really a freedom per se, so much as a collection of more fundamental individual freedoms with which people are much more familiar: freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly. 

    What makes religious freedom a distinct concept is the unique content of the conscience, thought and speech in question, and the unique purposes and function of association and assembly conducted in its name. 

    For example, religions represent the most ancient belief systems still in existence in our modern societies, and this ancient pedigree sometimes puts the religion, and its adherents, at odds with more recent cultural changes. Religions also tend to consist of more comprehensive and determinate worldviews than are typical of secular culture. 

    A society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is.

    Secular world views, to the extent that they exist at all, tend to be more open, indeterminate and relativist than religious world views (militant secularists are the exception that proves the rule). 

    The comprehensiveness of the typical religious world view, and the ethical systems and modes of living that embody and express them, can make it difficult, if not impossible, for the religious believer to socially compartmentalise their faith, ensuring social friction in a secular, pluralistic society like Australia. Moreover, religious world views are held by a decreasing percentage of the Australia population, progressively widening the gap between the religious believer and the cultural mainstream. 

    Evidence of this widening cultural distance can be seen in the increasing demand for faith-based schools and homeschooling, as religious believers seek to ensure that their children can be educated according to their faith and world view, free from the corruption of the dominant non-religious state ideology and the secular values and mores that now permeate society.

    It is a combination of the unique content of religious belief, on the one hand, and its socially relevant practices and public activities, on the other, that create the kinds of tensions and dilemmas at the heart of the debate about religious freedom. The pointy end of this debate relates to faith-based schools, which have to pastorally manage the presence of same-sex attracted and gender dysphoric students enrolled in them while remaining faithful to the religious teaching and ethos for which the school was established in the first place. This can be particularly vexed in circumstances of open enrolment, where children of parents belonging to the establishing faith of the school are enrolled alongside children of parents who do not belong to it, leading to competing expectations and demands on the school.

    However, the key thing to bear in mind about religious freedom, and something often forgotten in public discussion, is that it is simply an expression and manifestation of the most fundamental individual freedoms that constitute a free society, and which most citizens take for granted as self-evident goods. As such, any restriction of religious freedom is by default a restriction of either freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or some combination thereof. 

    Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia.

    That said, none of the fundamental freedoms that comprise religious freedom is absolute. All individual freedoms are subject to necessary limitations and compromises in the name of protecting individuals from violence, aggression and unjustified coercion. The terrorist cannot invoke religious freedom in order to justify the planning and execution of a mass casualty attack according to some perceived divine revelation or injunction. 

    The challenge for a society with a mixed population of (diverse) religious and non-religious citizens is to properly identify the necessary limitations on religious freedom, without unduly compromising and undermining the fundamental individual freedoms that are essential to the creation and sustenance of a free society, the only kind in which human flourishing is truly possible. 

    Join Mailing List

     The boundaries of religious freedom, which is to say a society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is. 

    Anyone who professes to value freedom of conscience, thought, speech, association and assembly must care about religious freedom, and must want to see society recognise, preserve and defend ample social space for the practice and expression of religion—not because one necessarily accepts the metaphysical and moral claims of any particular religion, but because one can see the inextricable connection between religious freedom and the fundamental freedoms that constitute a free society, for theist, atheist and agnostic alike.

    How much should we pay our pollies?

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    Among the many criticisms of politicians that I heard during my time as a Senator, the accusation that they are only in it for the pay and perks, looking after themselves rather than the country and voters, was one of the most common. 

    Sometimes this arose from dissatisfaction with certain politicians, but more often it reflected disdain for them all. Many Australians are convinced politicians are paid far more than they are worth. 

    I am inclined to agree. 

    This prompts the question – should politicians be paid at all? Should we treat parliamentary service as a career, as we do now, or as a form of public service necessitating an element of sacrifice? And if politicians are to be paid, what is an appropriate amount? 

    Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election

    In democracy’s ancient home, Athens, eligible citizens all had a civic duty to participate in the governing assembly. There was no salary, although in the 5th century BC an attendance fee was introduced as an incentive. 

    In the British parliament, on which our democracy is based, service in the House of Commons was unpaid until 1911. Members of the House of Lords, who are mostly appointed, are still unpaid unless they hold an official position. They can claim an attendance allowance plus limited travel expenses, although many do not bother. 

    Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service. In New Hampshire, for example, state legislators are paid just $200 for their two-year term plus mileage. In Maine, Kansas, Wyoming and New Mexico, state politicians are paid less than what Australian local government councillors receive. 

    It’s different for heads of government, most of whom are well paid. Top of the list is the prime minister of Singapore, at more than a million dollars and over five times the pay of ordinary MPs. By comparison Australia is rather egalitarian; our government leaders are only paid about double what ordinary politicians receive. 

    But it is the pay of ordinary politicians that agitates people, and on that Australia is generous. A backbench member of the Federal Parliament receives a package (i.e. salary, allowances and superannuation) of at least $280,000. State politicians’ salaries tend to be only slightly lower. 

    This is far more than what most of them earned before getting elected and, more importantly, is much more than what they could earn if they lost their seat. This has a powerful effect on their behaviour. 

    Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election. In the case of New Hampshire, around half the members of the legislature are retired, with an average age of 58. 

    Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service.

    Perhaps it is reasonable they be paid something. Being a senator can be extremely busy, as I found. There are not only long days in Canberra but also committee hearings and an endless stream of people seeking help. Most politicians treat it as a full-time job and their salary is their sole source of income. 

    But that need not be the case. While the workload for key ministers is typically substantial, ordinary MPs have considerable time-flexibility. Indeed, some undertake additional study or write a book, while a few maintain a professional interest (such as doctors) or remain involved in an outside business (as I did). 

    More to the point, a great deal of the activity of politicians is designed to help them get re-elected. Being paid a handsome salary with generous expenses while doing this gives them a significant advantage over their unelected competitors. 

    Join Mailing List

    The reason for entering politics ought to be service to the country rather than a lucrative professional career. It should attract people who have achieved more than navigated their way through a party, worked for existing politicians, and manipulated numbers to gain preselection. Politicians should also have a life outside politics that ensures they are not desperate to be re-elected. 

    It is difficult to see how political service is substantially any different from serving on the board of a charity or other non-profit organisation, for which there is reimbursement of expenses and possibly an attendance fee. It should ideally be no better paid than any other job an incumbent is likely to achieve. 

    And, of course, service in politics should be viewed as a temporary role that will end. And when it does, there should be something to go back to. 

    We are Family

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    0

    The family unit is a core tenet of a functioning free society. A strong, stable family environment provides a much-needed buffer against the encroachment of government dependence – a difficult bond to break. 

    As mainstream media finally begins to report on the potential impact of falling birth rates around the world, the blame is laid squarely at cost of living and the lack of financial stability experienced by those of child-bearing age. The cost of housing is chiefly to blame here, but the broader cost of living leaves young Australians chained to their careers and busy lifestyles. Without a stable financial base, people in their reproductive years are putting off the decision to have children. 

    Governments often harp on about their ‘family focussed’ budgets and policies but, in reality, government policy is increasingly hostile to building strong families. 

    Various taxes and duties create an unsustainable strain on small businesses and families.

    Let’s begin by making one thing clear: subsidies for childcare are not a ‘family positive’ initiative. Parents cannot build strong families while raising their children is outsourced to daycare centres on the taxpayer dime. What these subsidies actually do is incentivise ‘workplace participation’ – hailed by activists as a metric of gender equality, but only really loved by big spending governments which rely heavily on income tax to fund their agendas. 

    The attack on genuine family time is mounted on other fronts too – with early childhood education increasingly touted as a necessary step in development, which by implication cannot be fulfilled at home. What’s more, state governments (which originally initiated Covid lockdowns) are now rushing to walk back public sector WFH arrangements to save the CBDs from their own policies! Thus, parents facing high cost of living are told their children need expensive early education and must not work from home. What choice do they have?  

    Governments often harp on about their ‘family focussed’ budgets and policies

    So what can be done? First, it’s time to bring back income splitting, where the combined income of a married couple is ‘split’ for tax purposes, which can be leveraged by a single household earner to reduce their tax obligations. While tax policy continues to punish higher earning sole providers while incentivising dual income arrangements, children will continue to miss crucial time with their parents at home. 

    Second, major reforms to childcare and the wider education system must be initiated. Childcare should be largely deregulated; the escalating cost is not providing improved value but is an increasing burden on families and taxpayers. Tax credits should be available to families who opt out of government funded schools as well, encouraging homeschool arrangements. 

    Join Mailing List

    Finally, massive spending and spiralling red tape at all levels of government must be reigned in, as they are fuelling the cost of living crisis that is crippling families. Ever increasing regulation on building codes, the drip feed of land supply and minimum standards for rental properties are drying up housing supply when more are desperately needed. Various taxes and duties create an unsustainable strain on small businesses and families, while increased spending drives inflation, sending mortgage repayments, utilities, food and fuel costs higher than wage rises. Who would want to start a family in that environment? 

    There can be no growth to our society if the family unit is being so critically undermined. How can we expect to raise a generation of independent thinkers and self sufficient upstarts if we can only afford to hand them over to the government while we work all day? If we can afford to have them at all.  

    Whose Ethics make it Ethical

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    When I started my business 35 years ago, very few investment funds were describing themselves as ethical investors. 

    Some years later I joined an organisation of CEOs, business owners and senior executives that meets to share and discuss their challenges. I enjoyed our meetings right up until my group was required to listen to a speaker on ethics. When I asked for a definition of ethics and who decides what is ethical, I was told I was out of order.  Not long after that I was asked to leave the group. 

    Some funds then began describing themselves as sustainable investors. I wrote a column about it, asking who defines sustainable, and has anyone ever knowingly invested in a company that was unsustainable? There were letters to the editor criticising me. 

    It then became ESG, or Environmental, Social, and Governance. Still seeking definitions, I found it supposedly incorporates sustainable investing, responsible investing, impact investing and socially responsible investing. 

    Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better.

    I also found a claim that ESG criteria can “help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.” That sounded like the focus was on financial performance, which is good, but in fact it was not the case. The more I looked, the more I found it was all just virtue signalling. 

    Then came DEI, or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, which is all about how many women, black or disabled people are on the payroll. Not just virtue signalling, but bragging about it.  

    Funds that differentiate themselves like this are motivated by the desire to attract more investors and generate more fees for their managers. Furthermore, very few of those choosing to invest in these funds are using their own money; both the fund managers and their investors are deciding what is ethical or sustainable using other people’s money. 

    The problem is, most ESG funds deliver lower returns to investors. And, as I discovered, they don’t agree with each other about what it all means, and also don’t much like being questioned. 

    As it happens, I am an investor of my own money and regard myself as both ethical and sustainable. Moreover, I have no difficulty offering coherent definitions. 

    My favourite definition comes from former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who said, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.  In my view that’s also ethical. 

    As to what it means in practice, here are a few thoughts. 

    I will never reject an investment in coal unless there are better nuclear or hydro options, delivering cheaper and more reliable power. It is not sustainable to subject the community to the vagaries of expensive and intermittent wind and solar power, and it is grossly unethical to compel families in India to continue burning cow manure for fuel or force children to do their homework in the dark. 

    I will absolutely invest in forestry. Not only is it renewable, in Australia it is also totally sustainable. When the alternatives are importing timber from other countries or building in steel and concrete, it’s no contest. 

    Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better. Genetically modified crops, modern herbicides, precision farming and minimum or zero tillage are not only sustainable but also boost yields, leaving more land for conservation. There is absolutely nothing ethical about staying rooted in the past, using out-dated technology to produce food that some people cannot afford to buy. 

    Help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.

    Some ethical funds say they refuse to invest in companies that harm animals, by which they mean those that use animals to determine whether pharmaceuticals or cosmetics adversely affect humans. By what ethical standard is it preferable to expose our loved ones to the risk of life-threatening or disfiguring harm? 

    As for things like tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, these are matters of personal choice. Whatever we might think of them, the ethical approach is to not interfere in the choices of others. I’d happily invest in them if the returns were adequate. And if it means protecting liberal democracy from authoritarianism, I’d certainly consider it ethical to invest in armament companies. 

    That leaves a fairly small unethical and unsustainable list.  Anything that funds or apologises for terrorism, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamism or corruption is on it.  I’m also wary of companies that foster a woke culture; not only are they hypocrites but ‘go woke, go broke’ is more than a slogan. 

    Join Mailing List

    But that’s just me – I don’t expect others to necessarily share my views, although it’s clear that an increasing number of people seem to be doing just that. For those with control over their own money, my suggestion is to simply invest in businesses that offer the best returns, and ignore those that virtue signal. You can then use the dividends or capital gains to help make a difference based on your own values.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    Resisting centralist power – Part 3

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    In a speech entitled, Rebuilding the Federation, Richard Court, then Premier of Western Australia, described the tide of centralism as follows:

    “All the things that the States do best are under attack from the empire builders in Canberra. The bureaucracy running the Federal education system, as you know, is large but it doesn’t teach any students. There is an equally large health bureaucracy which doesn’t treat any patients.”

    Court went on to make the point that the Constitution recognised that State governments were better placed to respond to local priorities. 

    Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations.

    The States are left with constitutional responsibility for education, health, housing, law and order, commerce and industry, transport, and natural resources including land and essential services. But Court noted that, with the help of the High Court, the Commonwealth now has almost complete control in some of these areas.

    Benefits of Federalism

    Those who live in the major population centres on Australia’s eastern seaboard may not understand the importance of local decision making in the same way that those who live in the regions and smaller States do. In a country as large and diverse as Australia it is very difficult for a political administration and bureaucracy based in a distant national capital to take full account of, and understand, the interests and needs of local communities.

    As a principle not only of government, but also of life, the best decisions are taken when all the parties to the decision know and understand the issues intimately. A federalist approach that seeks to allow States to exercise power in making decisions on local matters is infinitely better than centralised decisions at a distance. Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

    Economic Benefits

    The Productivity Commission has outlined the competitive benefits of federalism in improving performance in the Australian economy, saying:

    “The competitive dimension of federalism, which provides in-built incentives for governments to perform better across a variety of areas, is operating well.” 

    There is an inherent competitiveness between the States that should be encouraged. State governments have a vital role to play in creating the right environment to attract and retain capital. We live in a global market environment in which competition between States will only serve to make each of them more efficient.

    Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

    By competitiveness, however, I mean real low cost, light regulation efficiency competitiveness, not taxpayer funded inducements to lure business from one State to another.

    Perhaps the most valuable attribute of successful federations is the way in which they lead to a disbursement of power that fosters democracy and restrains corruption and abuse. While the division of powers among the stakeholders may cause frustration for those who desire an unfettered capacity to determine the course of events, it does introduce important checks and balances to the political process.

    There is a creative tension that comes from the consensus building required to make a federation work, in the longer term serving both the individual and common interest.

    Join Mailing List

    Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations. The reason I am such a committed federalist is because it is by far the best way to govern a large and diverse country like Australia; far better than its alternative, centralism – power and law making centralised in one place. 

    Whilst it may seem counter-intuitive that six (or even eight), separate State service providers could be more efficient and cost effective than one big, centralized service provider, it is true nonetheless.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    Resisting centralist power – Part 2

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    Following the Second World War, the most dramatic shift in the balance of tax power between the States and Commonwealth occurred.

    In 1942, under the leadership of John Curtin as Prime Minister and Ben Chifley as Federal Treasurer, all income taxing authority was handed over to the Commonwealth by the States for the duration of the war under the defence power of the Constitution. This was intended to be temporary and to last for a year after the end of the war. However, while the war ended in 1945, the role of the Commonwealth as the sole income taxing authority did not.

    For those concerned at the erosion of State rights through judicial activism, even worse was to come when, following the end of the Second World War, the High Court ruled that income tax collections could exist as an exclusive Commonwealth right under the normal powers of the Constitution.

    Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federation in the world.

    During the 1950s the State of Victoria mounted two legal challenges to the uniform tax legislation without success, and in 1959 at a Special Premiers’ Conference discussion of a return of income tax power to the States was on the agenda but could not be agreed. While there remains no legal barrier to the States exercising their right to levy income tax, there are practical (and political) reasons not to do so.

    In the post war era, the centralisation of power continued to be affirmed through decisions of the High Court including the Franklin Dam case in 1988, the Queensland Rainforest case in 1989, Mabo in 1992, and the Wik Peoples case in 1996.

    In speaking of the influence of the High Court and the threat to federalism arising from its decisions, Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia said:

    “It is a basic rule in the interpretation of any written document and indeed a matter of common sense that the whole document must be looked at in order to ascertain the meaning of any particular part. It might therefore have been supposed that in deciding on the meaning of the paragraphs of the Constitution which confer power on the Commonwealth Parliament, the Courts would have resolved any ambiguity by interpreting the provisions in a way that would maintain the federal distribution of power which the Constitution so obviously appears to guarantee ….. However, since 1920 the High Court has consistently rejected an approach of that kind.”

    The struggle for power continued in the High Court in 2006 with the States challenging the Commonwealth over the validity of the federal WorkChoices legislation, which was enacted under the Corporations power. The High Court overwhelmingly came down in favour of the Commonwealth. While workplace relations laws, prior to the WorkChoices legislation, were a relic of a bygone era and desperately in need of reform, the rights of States in the area of industrial relations were now all but gone. For example, the 1999 decision of the High Court to allow SA State government public servants to be covered by a Federal Award undermined that State’s competitiveness.

    The ability of a small, low cost-of-living State to use its industrial relations system to create a competitive edge over the larger States is important. South Australia, for example, under Premier Sir Thomas Playford, used this strategy (in conjunction with tariffs) to build a manufacturing base in Adelaide in the 1950s and 60s. Likewise Tasmania may wish to trade-off high salaries for quality of life and a green and clean environment.

    The most dramatic shift in the balance of tax power between the States and Commonwealth occurred.

    Undermining the rights of States is also evident in the actions of a burgeoning and, at times, arrogant Federal bureaucracy where the controlling hand of the Commonwealth is exercised through the terms and conditions embedded in funding arrangements with State government agencies.

    Since federation the tax revenue balance has moved dramatically from the States to the Commonwealth. The imbalance that now exists, known as Vertical Fiscal Imbalance, has put the Commonwealth in an all-powerful position, able to dictate to the States how and where funds are spent.

    Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federation in the world. The Federal government raises over 70% of all general government revenues, much more than is required to fund its own operations. The States raise just over half what they require to fund theirs. The balance of the States’ financial requirements is met through Commonwealth grants. This gives the Commonwealth enormous economic power and influence, and is inefficient and inequitable. It has the effect of keeping States like South Australia and Tasmania in a position of mendicancy.

    Join Mailing List

    Ideally, the States and the Commonwealth should only collect taxes for their own purposes with taxpayers and consumers fully informed as to what is a State tax and what is a Commonwealth tax. Those who spend the money should have the responsibility of raising it. It is about accountability, and governments of all persuasions should be specifically accountable for the money they raise and spend.

    The use of Section 96 of the Australian Constitution, which empowers the Commonwealth to make grants to any State “on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit”, has been used by Federal governments to wield power over the States.

    The Commonwealth’s control over State borrowings has further served to erode the power of States and their capacity to control their own destiny.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    Resisting Centralist Power – Part 1

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    In 1901, when six individual British colonies came together as a federation, it was in an environment of extensive and, at times, torrid debate. While there was widespread acceptance that the colonies could achieve together what they could not achieve alone, there was also apprehension about the extent to which the power to govern would become centralised.

    The enthusiasm and sense of expectation surrounding the birth of a nation was tempered by concerns about the future autonomy of individual colonies. The smaller colonies were also apprehensive about the power and influence the larger colonies might exercise.

    As a consequence, the process leading to the formation of the Australian Constitution was both painstaking and torturous.

    One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.

    During the first of the convention debates in 1891, Sir Samuel Griffith, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, captured the essence of concerns saying:

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

    In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.” It is clear, both from the Constitution and from the record of the Convention debates, that the Federal government was to have significant but well-defined powers. All powers not defined in the Constitution, known as the residual powers, were to remain the province of the States. However, the ink was barely dry on the Constitution before a growing appetite for centralised power emerged.

    Foundations of Power

    The powers of the Commonwealth were set out in Section 51 of the Constitution, and their scope described in 39 subsections known as a head of power. While the States retained the right to legislate on these matters as well, the Constitution provided that where any inconsistency existed between Federal and State legislation, the Federal legislation prevailed.

    The powers ceded to the Federal government were very wide and included interstate trade and commerce, corporations, external affairs, taxation, defence, quarantine, currency, pensions, banking and many more.

    Centralisation of Power

    As one might expect, the first issue on which the boundaries of authority between the States and Commonwealth were tested related to tax, with the High Court becoming the arena for argument. The gloves came off, the lawyers were primed, and the fight over money began.

    The first tests came in 1904 in Peterwald v Bartley where the High Court examined whether the Constitution prohibited the States from imposing excise duty. This was followed the same year with D’Emden v Pedder, in which the power of the States to impose taxes on Commonwealth activities was rejected. 

    In 1908, in response to the Constitutional requirement that any surplus tax revenues in the first decade of Federation be returned to the States, the Commonwealth enacted legislation to pay these surpluses into a trust account thereby avoiding payment to the States. One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.

    In 1910, the Constitutional obligation that not less than 75 per cent of the Commonwealth’s customs and excise revenue be distributed to the States came to an end. While the arrangement was mandated for only the first decade of Federation, the Commonwealth terminated the arrangement as soon as it was legally able to do so, much to the ire of the States.

    In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.”

    Commonwealth government activity and bureaucracy then began to grow rapidly, fed by its growing tax harvest. The years leading up to World War 1 (1910-1914) saw increases in Commonwealth control of the economy and in social services. In 1915, following the entry of Australia into the war, the Commonwealth introduced income tax which co-existed with income tax applied by the States.

    Over the next few decades, both in the High Court and through legislation, the Commonwealth and States battled for territory in a number of areas including tax, defence and welfare services. So extreme was the discontent with the way the federation was heading that some States, most notably Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, contemplated secession. In 1933 a referendum was held in Western Australia.

    At the time there was a Great Depression and every State was struggling. Some believed the problems were a result of Federal government policies and actions, particularly in respect of tariffs imposed to protect the manufacturing and sugar industries.

    Join Mailing List

    The result of the WA referendum sent shock waves through the rest of Australia with 68% of West Australians voting in favour of secession. This was about the same number who had voted to join the Federation only 33 years earlier. The desire of West Australians to separate from the Federation was not fulfilled as the British Imperial Parliament refused to act, claiming that such an action could only be taken with the consent of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    No Headspace Evidence

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    Is there a pandemic of mental illness among young people? Is almost one in two young women affected by mental illness? 

    In an opinion article in The Australian, Patrick McGorry, a celebrated psychiatrist, 2010 Australian of the Year and recipient of an Order of Australia Award for his services to youth mental health, claimed this was so.  

    McGorry quoted a paper in The Lancet Psychiatry, of which he is lead author, to argue that mental ill health in young people (defined as 12 to 25) is a silent public health crisis threatening the lives and futures of a whole generation. 

    He says youth mental health has been steadily declining over the past two decades, and suffered a major deterioration driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the measures taken to contain it, and its aftermath. In addition, he says intergenerational wealth inequality, student debt, insecure work, unaffordable housing, climate change, and social media have contributed. 

    The prevalence of mental illness is highest among 18-24 year olds and decreases with age

    It has now “entered a dangerous phase”, he says, with a 50 per cent increase in “diagnosable mental health conditions among 16–25 year-olds since 2007” He believes governments have a responsibility to “wind back harmful policy settings and regulate powerful private forces.” 

    This will take time, he admits, and suggests a more immediate solution is to “reimagine and strengthen” the youth mental health program he pioneered known as headspace, “buttressed by a new specialised, multidisciplinary platform of community health care”.

    This is obviously a campaign for additional public funding of his pet project, a classic case of special pleading. There are hundreds like it, ranging from childhood cancer to aged care. Libertarians tend to dismiss special pleading out of hand, on the basis that it is simply a call for increased government intervention using taxpayers’ money. 

    But most people are not libertarian, and there are legitimate questions: is the situation as McGorry describes? If so, is it any business of the government, and are his solutions appropriate? 

    There is something inherently dubious about a claim that almost half of all young women are suffering from mental ill health. It is certainly not my experience. While it is true that the Covid measures were both painful and unnecessary, is the current generation more mentally fragile than the generations that experienced world wars or the threat of nuclear war? And why should fear of climate change be causing more mental ill health than Ehrlich’s predictions of an overpopulation catastrophe?  

    As for the other factors nominated by McGorry, when has it ever been different? Indeed, the only new element in his list is social media. While it is true that being abused and insulted by strangers online is new, it seems a stretch to suggest it is causing a lot more mental ill health. 

    Patrick McGorry

    What’s needed is evidence relevant to McGorry’s claims: an objective definition of “diagnosable mental health condition”, plus data on the number of cases. 

    His article in The Australian and the Lancet paper had neither. Furthermore, despite the paper being a review of multiple sources, it did not cite any data that substantiated the claims. 

    One source it listed is an Australian study, the National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing, undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2020-2022. It reported that 42.9% of people aged 16–85 years had experienced a mental disorder at some time in their life. However, it is entirely based on what respondents told interviewers face to face. 

    Moreover, its definition of mental disorder includes not only illnesses such as depression, psychosis and eating disorders, but also anxiety and substance abuse. In other words, if respondents indicated they felt anxious, or had overdone the substances, it was likely to be classified as mental illness.  

    Youth mental health has been steadily declining over the past two decades, and suffered a major deterioration driven by the COVID-19 pandemic

    Current understanding of mental illness is roughly where our understanding of infectious diseases was a century and a half ago – the causes are not known, and there are no cures. In many cases it cannot even be objectively defined. Almost everyone experiences anxiety in their life, but obviously not everyone characterises it as mental illness. 

    Current therapy involves talking about it (technically known as psychotherapy) and medication. These can be helpful, just as measures to reduce a fever helped with infections prior to the invention of antibiotics, but most cases recover irrespective. This is shown by the fact that the prevalence of mental illness is highest among 18-24 year olds and decreases with age. 

    Join Mailing List

    Indeed, perhaps the best treatment for most so-called mental illness among young people is time. Like pimples and adolescence, they grow out of it. Puberty blues is not merely the name of a movie. 

    What is abundantly clear is that the picture painted by McGorry cannot be substantiated. His long-term solutions are progressive claptrap, while he offers no evidence to show that his headspace project is making a difference and deserves additional government funding. Indeed, if there was such evidence it would probably attract philanthropic support.  

    If there is a sound argument for the government involving itself in youth mental health, McGorry does not offer one. It is not just libertarians who should be sceptical.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    Windfall?

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    0

    The Guardian recently said the quiet part out loud – the Coalition’s pivot towards nuclear energy is scaring away the big money that is backing renewables. 

    That’s right, the mere fact that the Federal Opposition (who aren’t fancied to win the next election mind you) has proposed nuclear energy for Australia is enough to put investors off backing renewable projects. And yes, we are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors. 

    While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables.

    We are constantly told that Australia is ripe for renewable energy – be it solar, wind or hydro. But the truth of the matter is that without unequivocal bi-partisan legislative support, private capital is unwilling to back projects even against the prospect of competition. That should tell you everything you need to know about the reality of the economics of renewables.  

    The Investor Group on Climate Change reported that ‘more than one’ major investor had decided to hold off on future investment decisions in Australia. General sentiment was that investors would prefer to back projects in jurisdictions with bi-partisan political support for a renewables-led transition to net-zero. 

    What is clear from these developments is that investing in renewable technology is not a vote of confidence in how the projects stack up. Rather, it’s simply an attempt to bet on government-backed guarantees, and once that guarantee is potentially threatened the investors flee. 

    We are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors.

    To play devil’s advocate, nuclear technology may potentially suffer from similar issues. Due to the high upfront costs and long lead times of nuclear energy projects, even strong advocates of the technology freely admit that significant public funding would be needed to get projects off the ground and to induce private investment. It is unclear how competitive nuclear energy might be in the new energy market as well – would investors expect legislative guarantees to ensure returns? 

    Join Mailing List

    What is clear though, is that the threat of (or lack of) government intervention in the energy marketplace is destroying investor confidence. Be it renewables, potentially nuclear, or the ridiculous net-zero targets that are annihilating investment confidence in coal and gas, the sources that actually do the heavy lifting in the energy market.   

    While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables. They aren’t betting on the tech, or on a technologically robust transition to net-zero. They are betting on a government guarantee to ensure their returns. 

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    Libertarianism is an Ideology, But Not a World View

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    0

    Libertarianism is an ideology, but not a world view, according to a distinction offered by Ludwig von Mises in Human Action. A world view, Mises explains, is “an interpretation of all things,” “an explanation of all phenomena.” In short, world views “interpret the universe.” Ideology, by contrast, is a narrower concept comprising “the totality of our doctrines concerning individual conduct and social relations.” Ideologies are concerned solely with human action as it manifests in social cooperation. Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies. 

    Mises observes that world views and ideologies both share a normative outlook. They do not purport merely to describe the way things are, but offer a perspective on the way things ought to be. What distinguishes a world view from an ideology is scope. Where world views have broad and diverse, even cosmic, interests and concerns, ideologies have limited interests and concerns, specifically centred around the nature, shape and fate of society. This narrower focus on society naturally lends ideologies to political action, whether in the form of party organisation, reform, lobbying, protest or rebellion, because political power is a significant lever for affecting the shape of society.

    As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism

    World views, on the other hand, because of the breadth of their concern and the extent of the phenomena they purport to explain, encompass wholistic outlooks on life. They can encompass anything from stories about the creation of the universe to dietary habits, as many religions do. Their breadth of perspective is such that they can and do incorporate and integrate views about society and politics. However, this breadth does not necessitate the action-oriented social focus of ideologies. The religious ascetic is a case in point. The ascetic withdraws entirely from society as a means of dedicating themselves completely to their world view. 

    Because ideologies, on Mises’s account, are only concerned with human action and social cooperation, they tend to “disregard the problems of metaphysics, religious dogma, the natural sciences and the technologies derived from them.” This seems to overlook the capacity of at least some religions, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism, to involve themselves with social and political concerns. It also overlooks, or perhaps underestimated (Mises was born in 1881 and died in 1973), the way that science has more recently proved itself capable of morphing into political ideology. Still, it is undeniable that all three Abrahamic faiths constitute world views on the Misesian definition. Each has generated traditions and practices that avoid, shun or repudiate political action, proving that they are capable of existing as non-ideological world views. In the case of libertarianism, on the other hand, the Misesian distinction between world view and ideology is helpful in clarifying that it is very much an ideology, as distinct from a world view. 

    Libertarianism is concerned exclusively with society, particularly the way it is organised and governed. It possesses neither a cosmogony, nor a cosmology, distinguishing it from classical, if controversial, definitions of religion. Libertarians can, of course, mirror some of the attributes of religious adherents in their zeal, proselytising and uncompromising commitment to dogma. However, this does not make libertarianism a world view per se, nor the most ardent libertarian fanatic the adherent of a libertarian world view. 

    The truth of the matter is that libertarianism is agnostic on the fundamental questions of existence that animate religions and philosophies, and which are therefore essential to world views. These are questions best left to the conscience of individuals, as far as libertarians are concerned. Moreover, the libertarian program does not hinge on any particular answer to them. Mises, an agnostic Jew, exemplified this principle in his own life. He thought it was futile to speculate about the given facts of the universe. Instead, he was interested in analysing and understanding human action within the given parameters of existence: the means individuals employ to attain their chosen ends. He thought there was no point evaluating the ends as these were inherently a matter of subjective choice.

    Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies. 

    Means, on the other hand, could be analysed objectively and evaluated concretely in terms of success and failure, i.e., an assessment of whether the chosen means realised the ends they were employed to attain. He thought the majority of political ideologies ultimately aspired to the same ends, including liberalism and socialism, namely human prosperity and wellbeing. Where they differed, and in very consequential ways, was means. Mises took little issue with the aspirational ends of socialism. He simply, and accurately, predicted that the means employed—common ownership over the means of production—would lead to the opposite outcome from that intended. Liberalism, on the other hand, in the 19th century classical European sense of the term, was in Mises’s view the only objective means of attaining the ends of human prosperity and wellbeing. By liberalism, Mises meant a social organisation that maximised individual freedom to purse personally chosen ends and means, with a minimal government in the background protecting individuals from aggression, fraud and infringement against their property rights. 

    Mises typified the world view agnosticism that is characteristic of libertarianism today. He was as uncompromising a defender of individual freedoms, private property and free markets as anyone (famously so). But he was genuinely open and agnostic on the great existential questions that occupy the human mind and heart. The stridency of his views about social and political means was matched by a tolerance for all manner of diverse world views, at least as their teaching pertained to the origin and nature of the universe, and the myriad ends that humans are free to pursue. 

    Join Mailing List

    The world view flexibility of libertarianism is evident today in the way that it is embraced by religious believers and atheists alike, not to mention agnostics like Mises. As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism. It is possible for individuals with clashing and mutually incompatible world views (Christians and atheists, for example) to unite around the cause of a libertarian ideology. World view pluralism is simply the by-product of the libertarian ideological commitment to a social order that permits individuals to pursue their own diverse ends. The freedoms libertarians wish to secure and safeguard for all individuals to develop their own world views is one of the unheralded virtues of their ideology.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    123...16Page 1 of 16
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv