Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Education

    Home Policy Spotlight Education

    Welcome to Borroloola Land

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    Every failure in Aboriginal affairs creates an opportunity to offer a shiny new bauble to public servants and the journalistic cheer squad. Last weekend, in light of the failure of the Voice referendum, there were three baubles – naming an Indigenous state, renewable self-determination, and a new economic development plan. 

    The cost of the baubles is to put off the day of reckoning for the children in hundreds of remote communities in northern Australia who fail to learn to read, write and speak English well enough to get a job. Until they do, nothing good will happen. Any plan that begins without these needs fulfilled is doomed.

    Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, is from Borroloola in Arnhem land, south of the site of the Garma festival. That small community has three preschool centres: one run by a charity, one by an Aboriginal corporation, and another by the education department, competing for a handful of children. And yet, too many children still fail to move through sufficient years of school. Perhaps Senator McCarthy could explain how she made it when others could not.

    Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers

    Bernard Salt, the demographer, suggested that one of the Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name. Perhaps he was inspired by Naarm, an Aboriginal state in miniature. I recently travelled into that city, formerly known as Melbourne, on the Skybus and was regaled by the welcome and acknowledgment and sovereignty-never-ceded meme. My fellow travellers were Asian and Indian, all with earpieces and mobile devices, blissfully unaware of the Victorian disease of hating progress – welcome to the state of grunge.

    If not Victoria, how about granting the Northern Territory statehood and naming it Borroloola land?

    One big man would get all the money and hand it out in envelopes in order of family preferment, the big man’s family first and so on. It sounds perfect, very post-colonial, and very Papua New Guinea.

    When he arrived at the Garma festival, the Prime Minister was undoubtedly busting to announce his brilliant initiative. Having disappointed the great and the good at Garma last time with a resounding loss in the 2023 referendum, he combined two precious icons of the left: saving the world with renewables, and Aboriginal collectivisation. 

    The Prime Minister’s renewables plan is for solar panel and wind turbine-led ‘self determination’. Gas would be better; the Northern Territory is floating on it, but that seems to disturb the green spirits. Imagine shiny rows of solar panels on ‘country’ and turbines on ‘sea’ as far as the eye can see. I guess Albo had to bung something in the speech.

    However, for the sake of his adoring audience and faithful journalists, here is what it takes to make a solar panel. Manufacturing is really about silicon production. Most of the energy required to make solar panels is consumed during silicon production, purification, and wafering. Silicon is produced from high-purity quartz, which is exceedingly rare. It has to be chemically reduced.

    Solar panels can only be produced with coal, oil, gas and hardwood. Coal is required as a reducing agent for making silicon and as a source of heat and electricity for the industrial process required to manufacture solar panels. These processes need a continuous supply of electricity, which renewables cannot provide.

    Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name

    The Prime Minister might also like to brief the First Minister of Borroloola land that the vast array of renewables must be decommissioned and disposed of. Fortunately, there is plenty of space in Arnhem Land for solar panel dumps. Wind turbines at sea can just be left to join the underwater songlines. But the average lifespan of the newest utility-scale solar panels is a fraction of the 25 years marketed. It is more like 15 years. Older solar panels used to ‘live’ longer but newer ones are optimised for the lowest raw materials and energy use so that after about 10 years, serious failures occur. Renewables are not renewable.

    Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers even though every skerrick of land outside the major settlements is owned or controlled by Aboriginal interests under various Land Acts or related agreements. To this ‘vast terrestrial estate’ and the Prime Minister’s renewables power delusion may be added Australian National University’s Professor Peter Yu’s dream of economic empowerment.

    Let me explain the Peter Yu economic development plan. There is no economics. The ‘plan’ is based on human rights rent-seeking. It recommends public servants be indoctrinated in the ways of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It promotes ‘cultural mapping’, presumably writing what Aborigines have carried in their heads for thousands of years. The reason is simple: to monetise that ‘knowledge’.

    Join Mailing List

    They plan to get their hands on ‘sea and water interests’ by extending the native title regime to get a bigger slice of what others produce. They recommend the same with ‘intellectual property’. They recommend ratifying the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. The upshot would be that if access is sought to genetic resources on Aboriginal land, which is almost the entire state of Borroloola land, the terms of access would be negotiated with the big men. Any benefits from the subsequent use go to the community ‘according to the mutually agreed terms’ – rent-seeking.

    These wonderous rent-seeking developments in Borroloola land come wrapped in a nice bow with treaties supervised by, according to Peter Yu, the Makarrata Commission. McCarthy succeeded without these baubles. She should tell the children.

    Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research

    This article was first published in The Spectator.

    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

    Childcare – Why should you pay for it?

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    Starting before they are born, our governments spend a lot of money on children. 

    The Commonwealth budget for education alone is $67 billion, and in NSW $24 billion. Add the other states and territories, plus health care, and as the saying goes, pretty soon you’re talking real money. 

    While our society obviously values children highly, it is rare that anyone questions why so much of their cost is socialised. Having children is, after all, a choice. Other lifestyle choices do not attract such taxpayer generosity.

    Among the taxpayers who provide the funds are many who do not have children themselves. Some are yet to start a family, while others have chosen not to have them. But there are also those who, for various reasons, would very much like to become parents but cannot. 

    A strong case is always necessary to justify spending other people’s money, but a particularly convincing case is required to justify compelling those who cannot have children to pay for other people’s children. It’s like obliging paraplegics to pay for the running shoes of the able bodied. 

    The government thinks there is a strong case for childcare. It wants women to return to the workforce as soon as possible, so they resume paying tax and contributing to government revenue. With state and federal governments all addicted to spending more than they collect, they have a strong incentive to increase taxpayer numbers. 

    The government also argues that the less time women are out of the workforce, the more they retain their work skills. This is presented as a benefit to the women, as women who return to work more quickly typically earn higher incomes. However, they also pay more tax. 

    For the mothers of the children, the case is not so clear. Some women are obviously career oriented and anxious to return to the workforce as soon as possible. However, there are many who would prefer to care for their children themselves, especially while they are small, rather than entrust them to strangers in childcare facilities. Motherhood is a powerful instinct, and most jobs are rarely more engaging than raising a child. 

    The government also argues that the less time women are out of the workforce.

    The key reason most do not remain at home is economic: single income families with children typically struggle to pay a mortgage or rent plus general living expenses, vehicle expenses and the rest. 

    The underlying cause of this is government policies, particularly high income taxes, excise on essentials such as fuel, and the regulation and taxes that lead to expensive housing. Remove these and it would be a lot easier to live on one income. 

    From the point of view of the children, the case for childcare is even less compelling. Mothers have been caring for their children for thousands of years and have not recently become incompetent. 

    But we are told that it is no longer sufficient to simply keep children safe, happy and entertained while their parents are at work; the children must now be educated by qualified early childhood educators. It is now known as early childhood education and care (ECEC).

    Moreover, whereas childcare workers were once just sensible, caring people, most with children or grandchildren of their own, they must now hold post-school – and sometimes even university-level – qualifications. Mothers who have successfully raised four children of their own cannot become childcare workers unless they have obtained the appropriate qualification, while those who have a qualification but no prior childminding experience are fine.

    There has also been a ratcheting up of regulation of the physical environment, the programs and routines offered, plus the ratio of staff to children in childcare centres. 

    For the most part this has been driven by middle-class parental guilt. That is, parents seeking to justify the decision to place their children in childcare are demanding standards that allow them to believe their offspring are receiving a better start in life than if they stayed at home. It makes them feel better about leaving the kids with someone else. 

    Unfortunately, there is no evidence to show that these standards are enhancing children’s outcomes. This was conceded in the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Childcare and Early Childhood Learning. The evidence indicates that the only children who benefit from ECEC are from dysfunctional households, such as those where substance abuse is an issue. 

    Furthermore, the ramped-up regulation and credentialism have made childcare seriously expensive. Even moderately well-paid parents baulk when the cost is almost as much as they can earn by going to work. For the poorest parents, especially single mothers who have a strong need to return to work, it is simply out of reach.  

    A strong case is always necessary to justify spending other people’s money,

    Childcare advocates, especially those with a pecuniary interest, are seeking to convince the government to implement a universal ECEC system, based on recognising early childhood education as a fundamental need. Naturally they claim this should be provided at minimal cost to parents, arguing it would give children the support they need to thrive into adulthood, while parents, particularly women, would be better able to balance work and care responsibilities.

    This is a profoundly elitist view, based on the assumption that virtually all women prefer to return to work, and that virtually all children benefit from early childcare education. As previously discussed, neither is true. Moreover, the cost of such a system, tens of billions of dollars, would be borne by taxpayers.

    What is never considered is changing the incentives so mothers do not feel so pressured to return to work. If income taxes were significantly reduced by, for example, allowing single income households to split their income between working and non-working parents, the pressure would ease. If the cost of childcare was tax deductible, it would help. If fuel excise plus GST did not take over half the cost of fuel, households would have more money for other purposes. If housing was not so heavily taxed and regulated by local, state and federal governments, there would be more houses at affordable prices. 

    Join Mailing List

    And if childcare was less regulated, with only those opting for early childhood education paying for it, the cost of ordinary childcare to mothers who genuinely need it would be more affordable. 

    As it stands, ECEC is a taxpayer-funded elite middle-class racket. Rather than hit taxpayers for ever increasing subsidies, the sector needs to be substantially deregulated.  Middle and upper-middle class families who expect gold-plated, diamond-encrusted childcare – with its university educated workers and low staff ratios – should pay for it themselves.

    Raising Free Thinkers: The Case for Homeschooling

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    1

    Two months ago I wrote an article in which I questioned my boy’s childcare centre for indoctrinating kids at preschool age about the controversial political matter of Acknowledgment of Country. 

    Shortly after, our second baby was born. During the hospital stay, unable to work much, I listened to several audiobooks that made me reconsider our children’s future education. I had long considered homeschooling but had comfortably settled on sending them to a private school. After careful discussion, my wife and I decided homeschooling is the right choice for our family.

    Homeschooling aligns seamlessly with libertarian values, fostering individual freedom, intellectual growth, strong family bonds, and meaningful social interactions. This article summarises our thoughts on the ideological, intellectual, financial, familial, and social justifications for choosing to homeschool our two children.

    Ideological Justification: Homeschooling as an Act of Anti-State

    Homeschooling, viewed through a libertarian lens, represents a profound act of anti-state resistance. It rejects the traditional “factory model of education,” designed to produce a uniform, obedient workforce suitable for industrial society, heavily influenced by state mandates and standardised curricula. By choosing to homeschool, parents assert their right to direct their children’s education, free from government control and standardised norms. 

    Homeschooled children interact with people of various ages and backgrounds, enriching their social experiences and fostering a broader understanding of the world.

    This opting out of the state-run education system rejects the regimented, one-size-fits-all approach of public schooling, which often emphasises conformity over individuality and critical thinking. Homeschooling allows for a more personalised and flexible educational experience, fostering independent thought and a deeper connection to learning, which starkly contrasts with the efficiency-driven, industrial roots of the current public education system. This choice embodies a broader libertarian ethos of minimising state intervention in personal and family matters, thereby promoting freedom, autonomy, and self-reliance.

    Intellectual Justification: Personalised and Effective Learning

    One of the greatest advantages of homeschooling is the ability to provide a personalised education tailored to each child’s strengths, weaknesses, and interests. Traditional schooling often hinders the intellectual growth of children who do not fit the mould. Homeschooling allows for a more flexible and adaptive learning environment, where children can explore subjects in greater depth and at their own pace.

    This personalised approach not only enhances academic performance but also fosters the ability to self-learn, which is crucial for lifelong intellectual development. By cultivating self-directed learning skills, children become more engaged and motivated in their educational journey, making the process both more enjoyable and sustainable. They learn how to seek out information, critically evaluate sources, and apply knowledge in real-world contexts, far beyond the confines of traditional academic settings. Ultimately, homeschooling nurtures not just academic excellence in the short run but also the capacity for lifelong learning and intellectual curiosity, providing a foundation for ongoing personal and professional growth.

    Financial Justification: Investment in Long-Term Gains

    A key concern in choosing homeschooling is the financial burden. My work keeps me heavily occupied, and a high mortgage adds pressure. Homeschooling requires sacrificing work schedules and dedicating more time to children’s education, doubling the financial strain. This concern is common among libertarians, especially in expensive cities like Sydney.

    However, we see homeschooling as an investment, yielding significant long-term benefits. The financial cost is offset by the gains in children’s education and personal development. Additionally, homeschoolers can take holidays during school terms when travel is cheaper, which benefits families with extended families overseas. Homeschooling also encourages children to develop life skills, financial literacy and responsibility from a young age, likely bringing financial rewards earlier.

    Family Bond: Strengthening Family Connections

    Homeschooling fosters a closer family bond by allowing parents and children to spend more quality time together. Parents can gain a better understanding of their children’s needs, interests, and learning styles, leading to a more effective educational experience. 

    Homeschooling aligns seamlessly with libertarian values, fostering individual freedom, intellectual growth, strong family bonds, and meaningful social interactions.

    Additionally, the involvement of grandparents and other extended family members can further enrich the homeschooling experience. Intergenerational communication allows children to learn from the wisdom and experiences of their elders, fostering respect and understanding across generations. This dynamic can also provide emotional support and a broader perspective on life, enhancing the educational journey.

    Social Justification: Learning Without Peer Pressure

    A significant social advantage of homeschooling is the opportunity for children to grow without the negative influence of peer pressure. Instead of being confined to a classroom with same-age peers, homeschooled children interact with people of various ages and backgrounds, enriching their social experiences and fostering a broader understanding of the world. This exposure helps develop better social skills and a well-rounded social aptitude. 

    Homeschooling, when done right, provides numerous opportunities for real-life social interactions through community activities, volunteer work, and diverse social engagements, preparing children for the complexities of adult life and helping them build meaningful relationships and valuable life skills beyond the traditional classroom setting.

    Join Mailing List

    Conclusion

    Homeschooling offers a compelling option for libertarian families seeking to raise free-thinking, intellectually curious and well-rounded individuals. It aligns with the core values of liberty and personal responsibility, providing a tailored and effective educational experience. Despite the financial challenges, the long-term gains in personal development, family bonds, and social skills make homeschooling a worthwhile investment. By embracing homeschooling, libertarian parents can ensure that their children receive an education that truly reflects their values and prepares them for a life of independence and critical thinking.

    A Digital Dark Age (part 3)

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    ‘We will continue to be your single source of truth.

    Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth’.

    So said former New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. 

    Covid

    When Covid hit in 2020, people had no reason to doubt what they were being told by their political leaders. 

    However, the pandemic very quickly exposed the incompetence of many in the medical and scientific establishment, with politicians and public sector bureaucrats making up rules as they went along, and ramping up censorship.

    Suggestions that the virus might have come from a lab leak, or anything negative about masks or vaccines, soon became misinformation or disinformation and was immediately censored.

    Politicians, public sector bureaucrats, pharmaceutical company executives, all in cahoots with one another, blatantly lied to us. The early bootleggers were amateurs compared with these people.

    They were wrong on lockdowns. They were wrong on border closures. They were wrong on school closures. They were wrong on masking. They were wrong about vaccines. 

    Poor people were hurt the most. 

    Anyone, including qualified medical professionals, who said Covid vaccines were causing serious side-effects and possibly a significant number of deaths, were silenced and threatened.

    The Australian Law Reform Commission has already recommended the removal of the right for Christian schools to hire staff who share their values.

    Academics who had been studying lockdowns were also blacklisted. Dr Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at the US’s Stanford University, was one of them. ‘Censorship of scientific discussion led to policies like school closures,’ he said. ‘A generation of children were hurt.’ 

    At the behest of governments, social media platforms removed any and all content which questioned the safety or efficacy of the vaccines.

    In April 2021, the Coalition government had Instagram remove a post which claimed that ‘Covid-19 vaccine does not prevent Covid-19 infection or Covid-19 transmission’, a statement that clearly was accurate.

    Ivermectin was prohibited from being prescribed in Australia from January 2021, by which time the vaccination rate had reached 98%. Prohibition of Ivermectin was enforced right until the very end of the vaccine roll-out.

    We now know the Covid-19 vaccines were neither safe nor effective. They did not prevent infection or transmission and have been linked to blood clots, heart conditions and other ‘died suddenly’ events. 

    A peer-reviewed study published in January 2024, found that more deaths were caused by the mRNA vaccines than were saved by it. Other studies suggest the widespread use of ivermectin could have saved many lives. 

    As Thomas Sowell once said, “It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions into the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

    Climate Change and Renewable Energy

    Probably no other area of public debate has been more manipulated than climate change.

    What started as ‘the greenhouse effect’, soon became ‘global warming’ which morphed into the now all-encompassing ‘climate change’. 

    To up the ante even more, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stated recently, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived”. 

    Global boiling obviously hasn’t yet reached the poles, as Arctic ice is currently at its greatest extent in more than 20 years.

    Renowned quantum physics scholar Dr John Clauser, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics has stated, ‘I do not believe there is a climate crisis’.  

    More bootleggers, in the form of renewable energy merchants, have leapt on to the climate change bandwagon with unbridled zeal and are raking in billions of dollars gaming the system, raising energy prices, impoverishing consumers, destroying jobs, and fleecing taxpayers.

    Indigenous matters

    Toddlers and pre-schoolers in childcare centres across Australia are being taught that Australia was stolen from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

    Qualified medical professionals, who said Covid vaccines were causing serious side-effects and possibly a significant number of deaths, were silenced and threatened.

    More than 7,000 schools and daycare centres now have formal ‘acknowledgements of country’ in place, which includes children singing or reciting that the land on which they sit belongs to Indigenous people.

    At SDN (formerly Sydney Day Nursery) Children’s Services in the ACT, kindy kids are taught about ‘stolen land’ as they recite an acknowledgement of country each morning.

    ‘The foundation for this learning begins when the children enter the centre as infants’, the organisation says on its website.

    ‘Now older preschoolers participate in the daily ritual of acknowledging country to build on the explicit teaching about stolen land.’

    As NSW Libertarian Party MP John Ruddick said, ‘children were being indoctrinated to feel ashamed of their country’.

    The Religious Freedom Bill

    There is no doubt that any ‘religious exemptions’ in the Bill will not make life less hazardous for faith-based organisations.

    While certain religious groups which might comprise Labor’s voting base will be protected, other religious groups most likely will not. 

    As we have seen recently, clear examples of the crime of incitement to violence – perpetrated seemingly with impunity – will, undoubtedly, be given more latitude.

    Join Mailing List

    Christians, however, will not enjoy similar leniency.

    The Australian Law Reform Commission has already recommended the removal of the right for Christian schools to hire staff who share their values.

    And Christians will most certainly not be able to criticize the trans movement or ‘gender affirming’ practices.

    The world now says truth is subjective – ‘my truth, your truth, their truth …’

    However, the Good Book says, ‘You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.’

    Another Brick in the Wall

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    Libertarians don’t argue a lot about education policy. And yet, ‘school choice’ and ‘decentralised education’ are ideas that unite us with conservatives generally. Empowering parents to homeschool forms a branch of this policy, and indeed many parents have become more interested in homeschooling as Australia’s education standards have slipped and an ideological agenda has emerged within its curriculum. 

    But the thought ends there – that homeschooling simply represents an antidote to ideological capture within the school system. I think it’s time libertarians thought a bit more deeply about education. Like how entrenched our acceptance of outsourcing education to schools and ‘teachers’ has become. Or the extent to which we have internalised the notion of learning as a regimented and formal process. 

    Learning is not just books, essays, worksheets and equations, it is the people you meet and converse with, the skills you acquire, the experiences you go through and the interests you take up.

    Homeschooling is erroneously thought of as effectively school at home. Parents naturally baulk at the idea of devoting their entire day to home education in a ‘teacher’ role and depriving their children of the social interactions that children enjoy by attending school. Further to this, our cultural conditioning (that manifests as ‘trust the experts’) leads parents to believe that without formal training they are ill-equipped to provide their children with a sufficiently well-rounded education. 

    In reality, the extent to which formal education as a child is necessary to succeed in life and become competent as an adult is completely overblown. I’d wager that if we simply removed school (primary and secondary) entirely from society without a legislated replacement, we would not go backwards. Quite the opposite in fact. 

    Learning is not just books, essays, worksheets and equations, it is the people you meet and converse with, the skills you acquire, the experiences you go through and the interests you take up. Our collective obsession with productivity and hours ‘worked’ has spilled onto our unfortunate children, who are similarly subjected to unnecessary years of classroom ‘busy work’ – designed to homogenise student progress. 

    Homeschooled children spend much less time on focussed classroom-like tasks, but play more and spend more time with their families. Most importantly, they learn and grow at their own pace, following their passions and interests with vigour and an intensity that school students often don’t. Homeschooled children are not socially stunted either – in fact, they tend to exhibit more confidence and assertiveness (particularly with unfamiliar adults) than their age-segregated counterparts.  

    Australia’s education standards have slipped and an ideological agenda has emerged within its curriculum. 

    At last year’s Friedman Conference, I was most inspired by the insights of a homeschooling father and advocate who described one instance of his son deciding in his mid-teens he wanted to study science. Despite being mostly uninitiated with the prerequisite maths, within a year he had mastered several textbooks and was ready to begin tertiary level study in that field – a feat school pupils typically take a decade to achieve. 

    This is all before delving into how hopelessly unprepared school graduates are for adult life – financial literacy, civics, basic practical skills and even interpersonal skills are very much lacking in modern schooling. This continues into tertiary education. 

    Join Mailing List

    Libertarians and conservatives concerned with ideological capture within education institutions are missing the point – the entire system approaches learning with the same failed mentality that plagues workplaces. More hours spent in formal study does not equate to greater preparedness for employment or adult life in general. On the other hand, the time spent at home playing and with family, following their interests and pursuing their goals, is invaluable. 

    Politics in the classroom is just the beginning. Our children simply deserve better than what the education system is offering.  

    A Letter to My Kid’s Childcare Centre

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

    Background:

    A few weeks ago, when dropping off my child at their childcare centre, I noticed something on the classroom whiteboard that I hadn’t paid attention to before – the “Daily Routine”. Amid the usual activities, one particular sticker caught my eye: “Acknowledgement of Country”. I was SHOCKED. It prompted me to write the following letter to the Centre.

    Dear Centre Management Team,

    I hope this message finds you well. I want to start by expressing my deep gratitude for the nurturing environment the Centre provides. It has been a joy to see my child thrive, embracing the learning and playing programs, along with diverse cultural celebrations, from Chinese festivals to many others. Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.

    However, I feel compelled to share a concern, approached with the utmost respect for the delicate balance you maintain. Over the past year, I’ve observed several Aboriginal events and celebrations, including last year’s National Reconciliation Week with the slogan “Be a VOICE for Generations – Act Today For A Reconciled Tomorrow,” amid the very controversial and politically divided national Voice referendum. Recently, I was surprised to notice a “Daily Routine” of “Acknowledgement of Country”. 

    if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day?

    While I deeply respect Aboriginal people, I am concerned that this is verging into the realm of political expression, given the variety of views on this topic within our community, vividly highlighted in the last referendum debate which resulted in over 60% voting No.

    As I see it, “Acknowledgement of Country” carries a strong politically driven message that may convey controversial implications. Its literal meaning not only recognises the historical ownership of the land by indigenous Australians but also implies the concept of “stolen land”, as promoted by many Voice advocates, along with “Pay the Rent” as one of the preferred “Treaties.” If the land and property we own today were “stolen,” should we then return it? And if so, to whom? If we do not, which I guess is the case for most, does that make us hypocritical?

    I am a migrant drawn to Australia for its embodiment of Western values – democracy, liberty, and the rule of law – the principles that make Australia unique and appealing globally. My hope is to see these aspects of our great country celebrated and taught with the same enthusiasm. If politics is to be taught in school, a highlight of our country’s values should be celebrated, foundational to our society and a reason we have a wonderful Centre with educators and students from diverse cultural backgrounds.

    Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.

    As a parent, I am thrilled to see kids learning new things, meeting new friends, acquiring new skills, fostering good character, and growing well physically and mentally. I always appreciate the Centre for providing a great learning environment and having educators who genuinely care for the kids. Having grown up in an authoritarian country, I recall how political education at every level significantly affected young kids’ freedom of thought. Therefore, I am extremely concerned if certain controversial opinions are taught as facts to young minds.

    Might I suggest that if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day? This gesture could serve to highlight the unity and shared core values within our diverse community. Additionally, while the learning of new Aboriginal songs enriches our cultural tapestry, perhaps including ‘Advance Australia Fair’ occasionally could foster a broader sense of national pride and identity. 

    Furthermore, if ‘Acknowledgement of Country’ is part of our daily routine, exploring the Christian origins and significance of the coming Easter holiday – beyond the familiar symbols of rabbits and eggs – could offer the children an opportunity to understand the holiday’s deeper cultural and religious meanings.

    Join Mailing List

    Please understand that my reflections are shared with the highest regard for the incredible work you do and in no way diminish my gratitude for your dedication. My intent is to engage in a constructive dialogue about how we can celebrate all facets of our community’s culture, including its core Western heritage, with balance and sensitivity.

    Thank you for considering my perspective. I look forward to any thoughts you may have on this matter and remain, as always, immensely appreciative of your commitment to our children’s growth and well-being.

    Regards,

    A Concerned Parent

    The Everyday Libertarian

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    In today’s politically charged atmosphere, evangelical libertarians often stray into polarising debates around topics like firearms or drug legalisation. Is there a subtler, more effective approach?  

    I suggest the “everyday libertarian mindset”. It involves reframing common complaints and concerns through the lens of smaller government and individual liberty.

    I often hear myself responding to complaints about government by saying “that’s why we need guns”.  When I say this, libertarians “get it”.  But this phrase causes our “normie” friends to switch off.

    Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power

    How about a more congenial conversational pivot:  “That’s why we need smaller government.”

    Picture this: A friend laments Australia’s low productivity. Instead of delving into a heated debate about employment policies, you respond calmly, “That’s why we need smaller government.” This simple phrase opens the door to a discussion about the role of government in the economy and the importance of prioritising individual liberties over interventionist agendas.

    Here are some instances where the everyday libertarian mindset shines:

    1. Healthcare costs: Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market. Advocating for smaller government and increased competition can give individuals greater control over their healthcare decisions and costs. Would there be a shortage of doctors, hospitals, and other services if the government got out of the way? 

    2. Education quality: When concerns arise about education quality, highlight how government monopolies limit choice and innovation in education. By advocating for school choice and decentralising control over education, parents and students can access a wider range of educational opportunities tailored to their needs.

    3. Bureaucratic red tape: Encountering bureaucratic red tape or inefficiency? Emphasise the need for smaller government and streamlined regulations. By reducing the size and scope of government, individuals and businesses can navigate processes more efficiently.

    4. Personal freedoms: Discuss personal freedoms and civil liberties, emphasising the importance of limiting government power to protect individual rights. Smaller government leads to less intrusion into citizens’ lives and greater respect for individual autonomy.

    Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market

    5. Publicly funded broadcasters: When discussing the publicly funded government broadcasters, such as the ABC and SBS in Australia, consider the implications of government involvement in media. Point out that taxpayer-funded media outlets compete with the private sector, which do not cost taxpayers anything. By advocating for smaller government and media independence, individuals can support a diverse and free press that serves the interests of the public rather than political agendas. Encourage exploring alternative funding models, such as private sponsorship or subscriber-based models, to ensure journalistic integrity and freedom of expression.

    6. Nuclear energy: Discuss the lifting of the ban on nuclear energy in Australia. Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power. Advocate for a free-market approach to energy production, where individuals and businesses have the freedom to pursue cleaner and more efficient energy solutions without burdensome government regulations hindering progress.

    Join Mailing List

    I find the phrase “that’s why we need smaller government” easy to apply to almost any situation.  Any mistake a government makes – “that’s why we need smaller government – less for these people to stuff up”.

    By incorporating these instances, we illustrate how the everyday libertarian mindset can be applied to a wide range of issues, promoting smaller government and individual liberty in everyday conversations. It’s about sparking thoughtful discussions and planting seeds of libertarian principles in the minds of others, one conversation at a time.

    The University Trap

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    As the university semester begins and students head back to classes for another year, it is worth examining the troubling history and reality of Western higher education.

    THE INCOME CEILING

    It is widely acknowledged that without a university education the ability to earn an income can be limited. While trades, vocational institutions and technical colleges do present lucrative opportunities, achieving a six-figure income is more difficult for those who choose not to pursue university study. A bachelor’s degree is even becoming an insufficient prerequisite in some cases, with employers demanding, whether overtly or covertly, post-graduate qualifications.

    But has it always been necessary to spend three to ten years at university to achieve a worthwhile income?

    ARTES LIBERALES

    Throughout much of human history, entry to most professions has been achieved via apprenticeship. Aspiring lawyers and doctors spent years working in law offices or hospitals shadowing actual lawyers and doctors – and providing actual value – instead of years in a centralised institution.

    Government should not only get out of the business of universities, but also regulating merit

    Even today in California, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, aspiring lawyers can practice law after several years of apprenticeship study. In Maine, New York and Wyoming practice is permitted with a combination of apprenticeship study and only one or two years of law school.

    In a similar vein, in many parts of the world it is possible to attain a PhD by publishing a collection of material that shows noteworthy advancement in the field of study; formalised post-graduate study with a dissertation is not required.

    While many conservatives and libertarians criticise the modern university landscape for providing useless degrees and failing to adequately prepare students for the modern workplace, this has never been their role. Universities were never supposed to be the employee-creation factories that people now expect them to be. Liberal arts education (septem artes liberales) has been the traditional academic course in Western higher education for centuries.

    It is only in very modern times that we have come to see university as a necessary piece of the education puzzle: a place where most late teenagers and young adults are expected to go after completing their state-mandated education. Throughout most of history, university was a place exclusively reserved for the children of elite, often noble, families; a place where rich parents sent their children to become more worldly and provide more interesting conversation at dinner parties.

    MODERN PROBLEMS

    For 90% of their history, universities were an elite luxury. From its ancient origins, it was a place to satiate those with a scholarly desire for understanding. And while there certainly is utility in such a pursuit, it was only for those not encumbered by the toils of labour.

    It is widely acknowledged that without a university education the ability to earn an income can be limited. 

    The reflection of this in modern universities is obvious: lush, green campuses stretch out across hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of prime real estate. And while scholars are no longer expected to be rich nobles, students still rely on the luxury of other people’s labour. In fact, the universities of old had more credibility because at least the cost was borne by a rich family rather than the ordinary taxpayer.

    Now, non-university-educated taxpayers not only pay for the cost of another person’s education, they pay them a modest stipend while they study. More than that, they pay for the privilege of further enhancing this bloated institution.

    MODERN SOLUTIONS

    While modern universities still provide value and certainly have a place within the education-workforce dynamic, that place is greatly overstated. I would have no problem being operated on by a surgeon who had no formal qualifications but had spent many years being trained in the real world by actual doctors – in fact, I would choose this surgeon over one a modern university had spat out.

    Join Mailing List

    The fact that governments have partnered with this obscure government-but-not-government institution and then insisted it is the only institution that can deem someone worthy of high-paying work is the kind of fascism that should have university students everywhere in uproar.
    Government should not only get out of the business of universities, but also regulating merit. The market is actually incredibly good at optimising for merit. Similarly, employers need to stop overvaluing the merits of university education, particularly post-graduate education, and realise that universities have never been concerned about their hiring preferences.

    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.

    Capturing The Glory Undeservedly

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

    12Page 1 of 2
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv