Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Monday, November 25, 2024
    Random

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight

    The Federal Government Should Deliver a Decade of Surpluses

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    1

    A government’s balance sheet indicates whether it is engaging in intergenerational redistribution. If the government has negative net assets it is leaving future generations with more obligations than benefits. A government with positive net assets is leaving future generations with more benefits than obligations.

    Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations, so should leave those decisions to individuals. This means that governments should have zero net assets; their balance sheets should be balanced.

    Governments in Australia do not have balanced balance sheets. The Commonwealth has a significantly negative net asset position and each of the states and territories has a significantly positive net asset position.

    When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

    This is shown in Chart 1. It depicts public sector net asset positions relative to the size of the related economies. Commonwealth net assets are shown relative to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while each state or territory’s net assets are shown relative to the relevant state or territory’s Gross State Product (GSP). Each jurisdiction’s public sector includes government-owned businesses such as government-owned banks.

    The Commonwealth’s negative net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with obligations in excess of benefits. In essence, the Commonwealth Government has locked in benefits for future generations, like security from the military assets it has accumulated to date, but has racked up far greater obligations, like obligations to pay back Commonwealth debts and fund the superannuation of retired Commonwealth public servants. 

    This decision of the Commonwealth Government to beggar the future is unlikely to represent the preference of Australians.

    The Commonwealth Government’s intergenerational redistribution should stop, so as to leave intergenerational decisions to individuals. In other words, the Commonwealth Government should convert its negative net asset position to a zero net asset position.  This should be done through a decade of surplus budgets (or surplus ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 2 per cent of GDP. 

    This could be readily achieved, for example by reducing Commonwealth Government transfers to the state and territory governments. These transfers are particularly odd given that each state and territory government is wealthier than the Commonwealth Government.

    Each state and territory government’s positive net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with benefits in excess of obligations. It is teeing up more benefits for future generations, like their enjoyment of public land holdings and use of infrastructure like roads, than it is racking up future obligations, like State Government debts and funding the superannuation of retired State public servants.

    While leaving future generations with benefits in excess of obligations sounds nice, this is something that individuals are perfectly capable of doing without government.  

    Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations

    And the current generation may well be of the view that the degree of generosity to future generations shown by each of the state and territory governments is excessive. If there is a difference of opinion between a government and the individuals it represents, then it is the government that is wrong. 

    State and territory government intergenerational redistribution should be put to a stop by each government reducing its positive net asset position to net zero. This should be done through a decade of deficit budgets (or deficit ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 4 per cent of GDP on average.

    Such deficits could be achieved by abolishing inefficient taxes like stamp duties, or by giving away assets. (Such give-aways count as losses that detract from the operating result.)

    The biggest deficits should come from the wealthiest state governments, in Queensland and Victoria.

    The wealth of the Victorian state government may come as a surprise. The Victorian state government has a stronger net asset position and a weaker net financial asset position than many of its counterparts (see Chart 2). It has done a lot of borrowing, which has weakened its net financial asset position, but it has done this to invest in non-financial assets.  Overall this generates a positive, or at least neutral, impact on net assets.

    Unfortunately for the Victorian state government, credit rating agencies tend to ignore a government’s net assets and instead focus on its net financial assets. Even more stupidly, lenders take these credit ratings into account when lending to governments. If a state or territory government wanted to defend its credit rating so as to ensure continued access to low-cost borrowing, it could still run significant deficits in line with my recommendation. It would just need to achieve these deficits by giving away non-financial assets, like land, so as to leave its net financial asset position unchanged.

    Join Mailing List

    When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

    University River

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    2

    In William Blake’s hymn Jerusalem, the phrase ‘those dark Satanic mills’ was assumed to refer to the cotton and woollen mills of his time and their terrible working conditions.  

    Based on the date of the hymn and Blake’s religious background, many question whether he was referring to the Dickensian factories and cotton mills at all, but rather to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

    Blake was scathing of universities. He loathed them. He saw them churning out, factory-like, a new godless world. 

    “I will not cease from mental fight”, he writes in a subsequent verse. 

    These elite establishments, he considered, were incapable of mental fight.

    Fast forward to December 2023 and United States Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asking a number of University Presidents at a Congressional hearing whether “calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?”

    Staggeringly, each of the University Presidents – including Harvard University President Claudine Gay – refused to answer in the affirmative, saying only, “When speech crosses into conduct, we take action.”

    “It would depend on the context,” she added.

    In other words, only when Jews are actually murdered would the university step in!

    The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful.

    Similar responses were given by the other University Presidents, which would no doubt be mirrored by responses from some of Australia’s elite universities were they to be asked the same question.

    ‘Satanic’. ‘Incapable of mental fight’. Exactly what Blake was referring to.

    The above exchange is what one might call a ‘shibboleth’.

    In his excellent book Blink!, Malcolm Gladwell describes how it is possible to weigh up situations in the ‘blink’ of an eye.

    In other words, how to make good decisions in an instant by doing what he calls ‘thin slicing’. Thin slicing can be likened to slicing a big salami, and no matter how thinly you slice it, everything you want to know about the whole salami is in that one slice.

    Often you don’t have time to study or research an organisation or a person; you have to analyse what is going on by finding that ‘thin slice’. That shibboleth.

    Shibboleth is a Hebrew word meaning ‘stream.’ It is referred to in the Old Testament book of Judges, where Jephthah and the men of Gilead fought the Ephraimites and captured the Jordan River crossing. As people crossed the river, to distinguish who was friend from foe, they had everyone say the word ‘shibboleth’. If they couldn’t pronounce it properly, they knew they were the enemy. From this, the word shibboleth was absorbed into the English language to describe a key identifier or a dead give-away. 

    What we saw in the University Presidents’ exchange was that dead give-away.

    Jewish Liberal MP Julian Leeser has said: “I go back to the universities because this is the cauldron where it all starts.”

    Julian Leeser

    The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful. A recent scorecard on incidents of anti-Semitism in Australian universities found that in the last year there had been 56 incidents of anti-Semitism at the University of Sydney, 49 at the University of NSW, 17 at the University of Technology Sydney, 9 at Macquarie University, 7 at the University of Melbourne, and 6 at Monash University. 72 per cent of those surveyed said experiences of anti-Semitism had worsened since the Hamas attack of October 7.

    Part of the explanation for this lies with Gramsci’s long march through the institutions to impose Marxist thinking – beginning with the universities. It is where formative minds are indoctrinated. 

    Once out of university, these graduates disperse into other key institutions – the law, politics, media, business – where Marxist ideology soon takes hold.

    It was once the case that occupations such as nursing, teaching and journalism were learned ‘on the job’ – on the hospital ward, in the classroom, doing the rounds of the courts – supplemented by part-time study. Journalism, in particular, was considered more of a trade than a profession. 

    Not anymore. Now, they all go to university first. 

    Calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?

    Sometimes, when a regime has been in place for a very long time, it is not possible to break through that system.  Over time, institutions – such as the public service or the industrial relations system or higher education – become adept at building up defences and seeing off zealous reformers. 

    The only option is to break with it. 

    Employers should be encouraged to hire students with the appropriate aptitude straight from high school and facilitate their continued education in the form of part-time study at industry-specific places of higher learning.

    I myself was recruited straight from high school into a materials testing and research laboratory.

    Similarly, sponsored employment traineeships and cadetships could be rolled out across all sectors, so as to by-pass the toxic environment that our universities have become.  

    Let me finish with a story.

    A group of hikers was out walking when they chanced upon a river. Their attention was suddenly drawn to a number of young people in difficulties being carried downstream by the river’s strong current. 

    The hikers immediately jumped into the river and started rescuing the youngsters.

    Join Mailing List

    As they pulled them out, they noticed that more and more young people were being swept towards them. 

    As more youngsters appear, one of the hikers climbed out of the river.

    “Where are you going?”, asks one of the other hikers.

    “I’m going upstream to find out who is throwing all these kids in the river!”, he replied.

    The universities are the river. We have to stop our young ones being thrown in.

    5 Ways to Maximise Peace in the World

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    1

    Welcome to Part 1 of my 3-Part series on geopolitics.

    If you haven’t listened to the Lex Fridman podcast, do.

    Its long-form interviews with notable guests are fantastic, covering topics ranging from the nature of God to developments in bioengineering, from the essence of motivation to world politics.

    In Episode #401, Lex interviews University of Chicago international relations scholar, John Mearsheimer. 

    Mutually beneficial trade between nations creates a reciprocal reliance which neither would wish to disrupt. Thus, peace is maximised.

    Mearsheimer is a controversial figure in the world of international strategy. He is viewed with suspicion among the Washington power elite for his position that the United States itself caused the Russia-Ukraine war by pushing for Ukraine’s admission into NATO, thus creating an aggressive, common border with Russia.

    The hawks hate this interpretation!

    But I’d never heard John Mearsheimer speak himself, so I listened to the podcast and was transfixed.

    John Mearsheimer

    International politics is really about keeping the peace; he described five main strategies for achieving that.

    Three are liberal approaches.

    LIBERAL APPROACH #1: DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
    This is the idea that democracies are relatively transparent and that competing democracies can see the geopolitical intentions of the other. This instils trust and is reinforced by pro-liberty values. Thus, peace is maximised.

    LIBERAL APPROACH #2: ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY
    This approach says that mutually beneficial trade between nations creates a reciprocal reliance which neither would wish to disrupt. Thus, peace is maximised.

    LIBERAL APPROACH #3: LIBERAL INSTITUTIONAL THEORY
    Here, the theory says that if we create voluntary, cooperative international bodies, nation states can participate in decisions affecting them and build practical relationships with their counterparts for mutual benefit. Bodies like the United Nations and UNICEF, so peace is maximised. 

    Running like a thread through these approaches to keeping the peace is that the nation state retains its autonomy, while prosperity is the goal to which to strive.

    Competing democracies can see the geopolitical intentions of the other. This instils trust and is reinforced by pro-liberty values. Thus, peace is maximised.

    After the liberal approaches, there are two realist schools of thought:

     REALIST APPROACH #1: HUMAN NATURE REALIST THEORY
    This school of thought is sometimes also called Defensive Realism. The idea is that, in order for peace to be maximised, a geopolitical balance of power must be maintained. It could mean some countries will maintain their strength and play the role of world policeman. Think America. And other countries could be denied advancing their geopolitical strength because it would tip the balance. Think Iran securing nuclear weapons. Also think of the example of America and the Soviet Union and their mutually assured destructive nuclear arsenal. If the balance between superpowers is maintained, so the argument goes, peace is maximised.

    REALIST APPROACH #2: STRUCTURAL REALIST THEORY
    This approach is also called the Offensive Realist Theory. It looks at the world as a competition for security. It starts with Hobbes who said that, in the state of nature, man has to confront anarchy. Here, don’t think of anarchy as a free-for-all riot. Anarchy here is the opposite of hierarchy. Hobbes’ solution in the Leviathan is the nation state. Man gains his security over nature by forming a government. The Structural Realist Theory then suggests this simply moves the competition from individuals to the nation state. To eliminate war, which is the ultimate competition for security, the Theory says we need a world government with binding rules, to which all nation states are forced to comply. This removes competition for security, and thus war.

    This is John Mearsheimer’s position, and you can see now hints at why he is controversial.

    The two Realist schools are pragmatic and have a strong emphasis on multinational enforcement and have a built-in tendency to authority.

    Join Mailing List

    As a classical liberal or libertarian, which of these appeals? Which ones don’t you like?

    Let me know in the comments section below.

    Next up, let’s find out what the great classical liberal and libertarian leading minds said about this subject. You’ll be able to compare your responses to theirs. 

    It’s all in Part 2 of this 3-part series on geopolitics: Beware! This Article Channels The Ghosts of Locke, JSM, Friedman and Other Pugnacious Thinkers.

    Geopolitics and The Non-Aggression Principle

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    For an example of how libertarians philosophically wrestle, behold this exchange between the Arizona Libertarians and Australian Brett Lombardi:

    It is eloquent in its brevity: realpolitik confronting Rothbardian idealism.

    One of the foundational concepts of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle. Put simply, this is the idea that violence and coercion between parties should be avoided, and that people should act cooperatively and in harmony. 

    It has mainly been applied to situations between individuals. But what about non-aggression between nation states, the geopolitical sphere?

    Enter libertarian heavyweight, Murray Rothbard:

    In National Defence and The Theory of Externalities, he wrote:

    “For the libertarian, the key to foreign policy is the defence of the homeland against aggression. The State should protect the citizens, keep the peace, and defend person and property from attack.”

    Straightforward enough, it seems. But what is ‘homeland’?

    Let’s put the Rothbardians to the test with a series of scenarios, asking whether each is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle:

    – The Chinese Navy sails to Venice Beach, California, with amphibious craft landing and troops shooting people. I’m sure we can agree this violates the Non-Aggression Principle.

    – What if US surveillance determined in advance that the Chinese were coming and warned them not to enter the 12 nautical miles of US territorial waters? The Chinese ignore and enter, then the US engage the aggressor at 11.9 nautical miles? Is this a Chinese or US violation?

    – What about at the US exclusive economic zone boundary of 200 nautical miles? If US engages, is this a violation?

    Libertarians must be practical and realistic in geopolitics to achieve electoral success.

    Rothbard doesn’t say what the ‘homeland’ is but would probably pick one of these boundaries.

    But we can test this further:

    – In 1893, US agents and businessmen mounted a successful coup against the Kingdom of Hawaii, asserting that their investment and private property rights were under threat. The US “annexed” Hawaii in 1898 as a territory. Did the US violate?

    – Then in 1941, Japan bombed this territory. Hawaii wasn’t even a state of the US at the time of the Pearl Harbour attack. Were the US defending their ‘homeland’ when it used anti-aircraft fire against the Japanese, or were they in continued violation of the Non-Aggression Principle because of their prior military-backed coup?

    – What if the Chinese today invaded Guam or American Samoa, both mere territories as Hawaii was? Would this be a violation? Both locations are closer to China than the US. Where does US ‘homeland’ end?

    Rothbard doesn’t define the extent of the US homeland, but I suspect he might regard these territories as empire-building and so in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

    He heavily criticised Gulf War I as an example of creeping empires in The Case For Radical Idealism:

    “In foreign affairs, the libertarian sees the danger and evil of the U.S. launching an aggressive war against Iraq. This is why the true lovers of liberty should condemn the Bush Administration’s war, and make it crystal clear that, in their libertarian view, it is a criminal war of imperialist aggression.”

    In that vein: 

    – What about the joint US-Australian Military Surveillance Base at Pine Gap, Northern Territory? Among its many purposes, this base is used by the US to determine whether Guam and American Samoa are under threat of attack. In an age of intercontinental missiles taking only 30 minutes to reach their targets, can the US defend this base as a defence of its homeland?

    – If the Chinese bombed Darwin’s Robertson Barricks at which 2,500 US marines are based on the invitation of Australia, does the US violate the Non-Aggression Principle by defending those US marines and Australian soldiers?

    – If China ‘annexed’ Taiwan, would that be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle? If so, is it really the view of libertarians in Arizona that libertarians should merely shrug our shoulders?

    Rothbard shunned territorial pre-emption yet these are realpolitik situations. I think this is a huge Rothbardian blind-spot.

    Should the British have waited for Napoleon to land on the beaches of Dover? Should the Australians have met the Japanese at Cooktown rather than Kokoda? At what point should the British RAF have engaged the raiding Luftwaffe? Over Canterbury, Calais or Cologne?

    Even if we just define ‘homeland’ as current national borders, there is still much to challenge us about Rothbard. For instance, in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, he elaborates on the type of impermissible intervention:

    “A non-interventionist policy means that America does not interfere militarily, politically or covertly in the affairs of the other nations.”

    Rothbard refined this further, in War, Peace and The State:

    “War, then, even a just defensive war, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals themselves. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion.”

    So, Rothbardian libertarians such as those in Arizona argue that defence of the homeland against aggression is permitted but that defence cannot extend to preventative measures and defensive force may only be aimed at individual war criminals!

    How a commander would know, in the heat of battle, the identity of a war criminal in advance of a war crimes tribunal is beyond me.

    None of these expressions of libertarianism give me much confidence that, when applied, practical benefits will result. And yet the entire point of libertarian philosophy is to spawn policies which work to unleash human flourishing. 

    More realism and less idealism, I say.

    In this regard, I am not a Rothbardian idealist. I prefer the view of leading realpolitik libertarians like David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute who wrote:

    One of the foundational concepts of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    “Libertarians should be realistic about the world. Some level of military and intelligence capability is necessary for national defence and to secure the freedoms that libertarians cherish.”

    And Nick Gillespie, Editor-At-Large, Reason Magazine who offered:

    “Libertarians are not pacifists. We recognise that the state has a role in national defence. The key is to ensure that this role is strictly limited to protecting the country from external threats and does not devolve into unnecessary interventions.”

    Or this from Cato Institute’s, Julian Sanchez:

    “Libertarians should recognise that there may be cases where limited and well-defined military intervention can be justified on humanitarian grounds, such as preventing genocide.”

    Let me marshal further libertarian opinion to counter Rothbard. Here, leading US libertarian Senator Rand Paul:

    “While a strict non-interventionist foreign policy may have its merits, there can be instances where limited government intervention is necessary to protect the nation’s security and interest.”

    And Brian Doherty, Senior Editor at Reason Magazine, who penned:

    “While avoiding unnecessary conflicts is crucial, libertarians should acknowledge the importance of maintaining a credible defense to deter potential aggressors and protect individual rights from external threats.”

    Yet further still, perhaps more gently, even leading libertarian philosopher and Rothbard rival, Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia, wrote:

    “A minimal state devoted to the task of protecting rights and enforcing contract will, if minimal enough, and if rights include rights to self-defence, do all that government can do.”

    Join Mailing List

    So limited government intervention, doing “all that government can do” and deterrence feature strongly.

    Libertarians must be practical and realistic in geopolitics to achieve electoral success. Freedom House says there are only 38 free nations in a world of 195 countries. Freedom is rare and must be protected wherever it blooms. 

    Brett Lombardi gets it right.

    Libertarian, Go To Church This Christmas

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    7

    But where were you last Sunday morning?

    It is the festive season. You are annoyed every time someone wishes you “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”.  You are a libertarian who wants to save Christendom, but where were you last Sunday morning?

    Personal salvation aside, there are a number of compelling reasons for spending your Sunday mornings in the pews.  I suggest there are two broad reasons. First, a church not supported by its local community will disappear – and that’s a bad thing.  And second, Christian teachings are a wonderful complement to libertarian ethics.

    If a local community does not support its local church, it will disappear because without attendance, volunteerism, and financial contributions, it will lack the necessary resources to operate.

    That’s a bad thing for libertarians.

    These local institutions often embody principles fundamental to libertarian thought. Local churches are more than just places of worship; they are community hubs where individuals come together voluntarily, a core tenet of libertarianism. They foster a sense of community and interconnectedness, offering a means of social engagement, moral discourse, and mutual support, all without reliance on government intervention.

    The synergy between Christian teachings and libertarian ethics presents a compelling framework for individuals wanting to commit to personal freedom, ethical integrity, and community engagement.

    Moreover, churches traditionally play a significant role in providing social services, education, and charity, operating independently of the state (think of all those schools and hospitals called “Saint Paul’s” etc). This aligns with the libertarian preference for private, community-based solutions over government-run programs. The disappearance of local churches has a compounding effect that means a reduction in the number of non-governmental avenues available for community support and social welfare, increasing reliance on the state.

    Furthermore, churches often serve as bastions of moral and ethical teachings.  These complement and reinforce libertarian principles of personal responsibility and ethical conduct. A moral framework that helps guide individual and community behaviour, essential in a society where libertarian principles prioritise individual decision-making and self-governance.

    So, the disappearance of local churches means a loss of important community structures that support libertarian values of voluntary association, community-driven welfare, and moral guidance, making it a concerning development for those who advocate for a society built on these principles.

    Take a moment to ask yourself – where does the rubber really hit the road in a libertarian society?  We mythologise the empowering of community groups and volunteerism in order to disempower the state – but what do you think this looks like?  An individual accountable only to their families and God is the epitome of personal responsibility.

    Christian teachings are a wonderful complement to libertarian ethics.

    How then do Christian teachings complement libertarian ethics? By reflecting a harmonious blend of spiritual beliefs and political philosophy. At the core of both systems is a strong emphasis on individual liberty and personal responsibility. Christian doctrine champions free will, advocating that individuals are morally accountable for their choices, a notion that resonates deeply with libertarian values. Additionally, the concept of stewardship in Christianity, which calls for responsible management of resources and care for the world, parallels the libertarian emphasis on self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.

    In terms of ethical conduct the Christian Golden Rule, which advises treating others as one would wish to be treated, aligns closely with the libertarian non-aggression principle, which advocates peaceful and voluntary interactions among individuals. Both philosophies encourage charity and voluntary aid, preferring acts of compassion and generosity over compulsory state-led welfare. This common ground highlights a shared belief in the power of individual and community action in addressing social needs.

    Join Mailing List

    Moreover, Christian teachings about peace, non-violence, and the significance of smaller, community-based decision-making resonate with libertarian views on limited governance and opposition to unnecessary wars. The respect for moral autonomy and the individual conscience is a crucial intersection of these belief systems. It underscores the importance of making ethical decisions based on personal convictions, free from external coercion. The synergy between Christian teachings and libertarian ethics presents a compelling framework for individuals wanting to commit to personal freedom, ethical integrity, and community engagement.

    So quit complaining and save your local church. But find a “traditional service” that preaches the Gospel and not progressive talking points.  Make the effort and do your homework. Start with a Christmas service.  It will be the most impactful thing you can do to save Christendom and the libertarian values it enshrines.  And you may even save your soul.

    Forum Shopping for Native Title rights

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

    Gary Johns is chair of Close the Gap Research

    Section 51(xxvi). Repeal. Rescind. Delete!

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    zxc

    By crikey, I’m a little bothered we’re always at sea politically.

    The Left is pounding us with wave after relentless policy wave.

    The Liberal Party has drowned, its body face-down, bobbing and drifting. We libertarians, classical liberals and the otherwise centre-right are in danger of the rip sweeping us to sea.

    Things are perilous. Just look at the eddies and currents fatiguing us:

    • Familiar places and landmarks being renamed in costly rebranding programs
    • Activists undermining joyful time spent on Australia Day
    • Oversized government expenditure now exceeding 50% of our entire economy
    • A hundred separate genders yet female athletes and prisoners forced in with biological males
    • Citizens now being denied access to much-loved national parks
    • Flag confusion
    • Victorian bullets in the back
    • Multiple treaties with multiple tribes, a native patchwork of 500 jurisdictions
    • Some kind of republic
    • Locked in your home for hundreds of days
    • 15-Minute cities, free movement lost on the altar of climate alarmism
    • The Voice To Parliament.

    If we continue only to oppose these ideas, as is the conservative instinct, but not counter with our own, we’ll soon lose more freedoms than is already the case.

    We need bold classical liberals and pugnacious libertarians to fiercely propose striking new policies.

    Take the Voice To Parliament as an example.

    … classical liberals cannot support systemic racism.

    But first, here’s a quick primer for our international subscribers. The Voice To Parliament is a government body proposed by referendum to be enshrined in Australia’s Constitution. It’s stated purpose is to recognise Indigenous people as the first inhabitants of Australia and to act as an advisory board for any bills coming through the Federal Parliament which impact Indigenous people. The body would be comprised exclusively of ethnically Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The motivation for the Voice To Parliament is that Indigenous people suffer poorer life chances and that this is the result of British colonial invasion and ongoing occupation. The Voice to Parliament is said to be just one step in a process of Reconciliation, the duration and shape of which is unspecified.

    In short, what’s being proposed is a new third-chamber of the Australian Parliament with a racial-eligibility criterion to participate.

    Yes, it’s as bad as that sounds.

    Think Apartheid.

    Predictably, the Labor Government along with the socialist Australian Greens will vote “Yes.”

    The feckless Liberals are confused and unable to take a view. Their paralysis is painful to witness.

    Their Coalition partner, The Nationals, are deeply-rooted and sure in saying “No” and have weathered the storm of a confused defector.

    Primer over.

    So what do we do?

    First, we vote “No.” We do so because we as classical liberals cannot support systemic racism.

    Good so far but now we must plan to seize the initiative.

    Second, we ask ourselves, “By what power or mechanism can the Labor Government even legislate something as abhorrent as systemic racism?”

    The answer is in the Australian Constitution. Like the United States Constitution, Australia’s has an enumerated list of areas in which a Commonwealth government can legislate.

    It’s section 51.

    Run your finger down that list and you’ll discover subsection 26 furtively trying its best not to draw attention to itself …

    Section 51 (xxvi)
    “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for
    the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to
    the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”

    Yes, you read that correctly. The Constitution anticipates that a Federal government may legislate on the basis of race.

    I don’t know about you but I find this abhorrent. What happened to equality before the law? What happened to judging not by the colour of one’s skin but by the content of one’s character? I’m thinking of 1933 Germany, 1970 South Africa, of Rwanda at its most bleak. Why look at people from a racial perspective at all? If we must have legislation, let’s not discriminate by the amount of melanin in the skin!

    So, here’s the front-foot classical liberal in me …

    At the very next electoral opportunity, let’s put a referendum of our own to the people. Let’s rescind section 51(xxvi) from the Constitution!

    In one fell swoop, no Commonwealth Government will ever again be allowed to make laws with respect to race.

    The benefits are:

    • No elevating one ethnic group at the expense of the other
    • No targeting one ethnic group for the purpose of disadvantaging them
    • No costly Department of Indigenous Affairs and the countless agencies which grift off it
    • The Federal Government has one less legislative jurisdiction, has its wings slightly clipped
    • With the money saved, we can repay at least some of the suffocating debt
    • Indigenous communities will be treated like all others and so weaned off the teat of the state. Same opportunities. Same laws.
    • Indigenous communities stuck in a cycle of inter-generational welfare receipt will learn self-reliance quickly.

    It has a lot to recommend it.

    So rather than simply react to a Leftist proposal and not respond in kind, let’s advocate a bolder, muscular kind of original liberalism, of classical liberalism, of libertarianism.

    End systemic racism. Abolish s51(xxvi)!

    Then we’ll never have race-based laws again.

    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.

    A Digital Dark Age

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    Step into my parlour, said the spider to the fly,
    ‘Tis the prettiest little parlour, that ever you did spy,
    Oh no, no! then said the fly, to ask me is in vain,
    For who goes up to your winding stair, 

    Can ne’er come down again.

    Mary Howitt’s old poem could well be describing another web, the one that ensnares us all – the world-wide-web.

    Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions. It is because of this web, that we are now in this predicament. 

    We have all been caught, and to quote Mary Howitt, we’re ‘ne’er coming down again’.

    In January 2023, the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, announced that the Albanese Government would introduce new laws to provide the media regulator – the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – with ‘new powers to combat online misinformation and disinformation’.

    The proposed new bill, the Communication Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill, would:

    The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

    – Enable ACMA to gather information from global tech companies and require them to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation and provide those records to ACMA.

    – Enable ACMA to request industry to develop, vary and/or register a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, which ACMA could then register and enforce.

    – Allow ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard, should a code of practice be deemed ineffective in combatting misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms

    – Empower ACMA to regulate electoral and referendum content, but NOT the power to regulate political parties with regard to misleading and/or deceptive conduct.

    – Empower the Minister to direct ACMA to conduct investigations into any matter regarding misinformation or disinformation and empower the Minister to set the terms of reference for any such investigation.

    The Bill also provides for significant penalties for digital platforms or individuals that do not comply with the Bill and/or the new codes and standards the Bill creates. Penalties include:

    – Imprisonment of up to 12 months for providing false or misleading information to ACMA.

    – Non-attendance at an ACMA investigation hearing of up to 33 penalty units ($9,000) for each day of non-attendance.

    – Non-compliance with a registered code of up to 10,000 penalty units ($2.75 mill) or 2% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

    – Non-compliance with an industry standard of up to 25,000 penalty units ($6.88 mill) or 5% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

    Other penalties may also apply. 

    The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

    Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions.

    Ms Rowland said the government was committed to introducing legislation that would fine social media companies for allowing misinformation or disinformation to be broadcast on their platforms. 

    Misinformation is defined as ‘false information that is spread due to ignorance, or by error or mistake, without the intent to deceive’. 

    Disinformation is defined as ‘false information designed to deliberately mislead and influence public opinion or obscure the truth for malicious or deceptive purposes.’

    “In the face of seriously harmful content that sows division, undermines support for pillars of our democracy, or disrupts public health responses, doing nothing is not an option.

    “The proposal would empower the regulator to examine the systems and processes these tech giants already have in place, and develop standards should industry self-regulation measures prove insufficient in addressing the threat posed by misinformation and disinformation”.

    Harsh words indeed.

    In its submission to the draft bill, the Law Council of Australia warned that the proposal could have a ‘chilling effect on freedom of expression’ by allowing social media giants and the communications watchdog (ACMA) to decide what constitutes information, opinion and claims online.

    Join Mailing List

    And in case anyone is thinking this is solely a Labor Party contrivance, before the 2022 election the Morrison government pledged to, ‘… introduce stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online by giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers’.

    To cap it all off, waiting in the wings is ‘mal-information’, defined as ‘truth which is used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country’ and ‘information that stems from the truth, but is often portrayed in a way that misleads and/or causes potential harm.’

    To invoke Climate Czar and former US Presidential candidate Al Gore, malinformation might be otherwise described as ‘an inconvenient truth’.

    Tomorrow: part 2.

    The Murray Darling Basin Plan Nonsense

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    The Minister for the Environment, Tanya Plibersek, announced that the Murray Darling Basin Plan (MDBP) must be implemented “in full”, by which she means a further 450 GL of water will be sent down the river to South Australia.

    This water will come from farmers and rural communities in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, much of it through buying water rights from farmers. There is currently a legislated limit on water buybacks, which the Minister plans to repeal.

    The National Farmers Federation estimates it will cost $3 billion to buy the water and, by reducing irrigated agriculture, will deprive even more rural and regional communities of people and economic activity.  

    The MDBP was established in 2012 in response to the Millennium Drought (1997–2010), when certain people in government believed it would never rain heavily again, leaving the environment permanently short of water and Adelaide’s water supply at risk.

    The MDBP is perpetuating an artificial environment in SA at the expense of Australian farming and rural communities.

    As wiser heads knew, the Millenium Drought was neither unique nor an indicator of the future. Nonetheless, it resulted in a plan to send a lot of water down the Murray and Darling rivers, notionally to benefit the environment but also to keep the mouth of the Murray open and guarantee water for Adelaide.

    The MDBP calls for the ‘return’ of 2,750 GL of water to the environment, achieved via efficiency measures and purchasing water rights, with an additional 450 GL to be returned under certain conditions.

    While more water for some wetlands and flood plains in Queensland, NSW and Victoria was probably needed, the numbers were never science-based. They were negotiated in 2012 by politicians for political reasons. In South Australia there are six marginal seats in which the Coalition and Labor compete on the basis of offering the most water. The additional 450 GL was only added at the last minute in order to get the South Australians to agree to the Plan.

    Riverland crops rely on irrigation from the Murrary

    Of the 2,750, SA is guaranteed a minimum of 1,850 GL a year. This is a lot more than it needs: according to the SA EPA, SA’s total water consumption is just 1,000 GL per year, of which agriculture consumes three-quarters. Households, manufacturing and mining account for the remainder.

    Adelaide also has a desalination plant capable of producing half its household and industry requirements. The plant must only use renewable energy though, which means it is expensive and rarely operates.

    Some of the recovered water is used for environmental purposes in the eastern states, but a lot travels down the Murray River to SA’s lower lakes, Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert. Until the 1930s these lakes were open to the sea, like every other river estuary in Australia, but then five barrages were erected. The barrages mean they are kept artificially fresh and, as a consequence, tidal flows are unable to keep the Murray mouth open, which is now silted and requires frequent dredging.

    Also in SA, the South East drainage scheme has converted huge areas of SA wetlands into productive farmland, but this diverts large amounts of water and salt out to sea instead of into the Coorong, where it once flowed. The effect on the Coorong has been devastating.

    Large amounts of water and salt diverts from the Coorong out to sea

    On top of all that, around 900 GL of water simply evaporates in the lower lakes. That is obviously fresh water, mostly taken from the other states, with zero environmental benefit. Evaporation will always occur, but if the Murray mouth were open and the sea free to enter, it could be seawater (or at least a mixture of fresh and seawater) that evaporates.

    Quite simply, the MDBP is perpetuating an artificial environment in SA at the expense of Australian farming and rural communities. The loss of water for irrigation in southern Queensland, NSW and Victoria in particular has devastated many regional communities.

    Plibersek’s decision is based on the now ingrained assumption that sending more water down the Murray is good for the environment, will somehow keep the Murray mouth open, and restore health to the Coorong. It is wrong.

    In South Australia there are six marginal seats in which the Coalition and Labor compete on the basis of offering the most water.

    What ought to happen is for the SA government to demolish the barrages and remove Bird Island, a sand island that has formed in the mouth of the Murray as a result of the barrages. This would allow the Murray to run free.

    It should also build a weir across the Murray near Wellington so, in dry years, seawater cannot move too far up and contaminate either Adelaide’s supply or that of SA irrigators, and redirect all SE drainage water into the Coorong.

    Were these to occur, it would make sense to actually reduce the amount of water sent to SA, allowing Queensland, NSW and Victoria to retain more for both productive and environmental purposes.

    But like everything else about the MDBP, the biggest barrier is political.

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

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv