Raw Deal

By

-

14 May 2024

A local rag (The Geelong Advertiser) reported* last month that some sort of strange secretive trade was taking place in the quiet backstreets of affluent Highton. The article heavily implied that this was an illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria.

I found two things rather confronting about this story.

First, it seemed the main concern of the other residents of this quiet cul-de-sac was that once a fortnight their street attracted some extra traffic. “It was really invasive”, claimed a local resident.

The article explained that ‘customers’ were turning up to this particular house brandishing empty white buckets, then returning to their cars with a full one.

Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock.

Second, this saga represents yet another example of Australians loving a rule and hating a rule breaker – a sad inversion of how we are traditionally portrayed. We saw the same attitude during Covid when people dobbed in neighbours who held gatherings at their houses during lockdowns.

It exposes a distinctly ugly side to the modern suburban Australian – spying on their neighbours and obsessed with everyone’s business but their own. It was apparently too much to ask of a suburban neighbourhood to ignore a few extra cars on their street every second Tuesday evening.

I don’t believe it has anything to do with health and safety. It’s a twisted manifestation of tall poppy syndrome where Australians seem to believe we should all suffer together under the tyranny of useless laws and regulations.

The basis for why raw milk is banned in Victoria (until 2015 it could be sold as ‘bath milk’) is a tall tale, based largely on hearsay and a coroner’s report drawing a (weak) link between a child’s death and possible raw milk consumption. Put it this way: the same health department that shut down the Dandenong I Cook Foods business made the decision.

Illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria

Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock. Our stance on vape products is infamous internationally for how not to regulate them, alternative treatments for Covid 19 were needlessly banned in favour of novel vaccines (such as the recently discontinued AstraZeneca vaccine). Worse, the relentless pursuit by APHRA of renegade doctors who break rank and provide medical advice to the contrary of the national standard drives their valuable advice and expertise underground.

And so it is with raw milk, where in New Zealand, England, and across much of the USA and Europe, consumers can access it under the protections of a strong regulatory environment. In Australia, consumers discreetly drive to suburban distribution points at night and try not to disturb the nosy neighbours while lugging buckets back to their cars.

Join Mailing List

“In general, safety takes priority over freedom of choice” was the catch cry of a Dairy Food safety regulator in response to the Geelong incident, summing up everything wrong with the attitude of the public health system.

Australians love rules, and health departments love making them. Thus, those wishing to exercise their freedom to choose end up needlessly on the wrong side of both the law and public opinion. At least everyone else can sleep easy at night, lest they be disturbed by some extra cars on their street!
*https://www.melissa-payne.ca/trending/8ad51675cd36/

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Broken Systems and the Deteriorating Psyche of Our Nation.

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

8 May 2024

2

Australia is on life support – politicians “and” the people are both to blame.

Few people could deny that Australia is not well.

The cost of living is unacceptably high. Home ownership is a long-lost dream. Our mental health is deteriorating rapidly. We are at war with one another over almost every issue. Polite debate has disappeared from our public discourse, and in many cases, from our personal interactions.

Who is to blame? Because, hey, we must have someone or something to blame. It simply cannot be our own fault!

Mostly we blame the politicians, but we also hear a lot of talk about how broken the system is, as if the system itself is responsible.

Systems don’t break themselves, just as they don’t build themselves. They are created from human endeavour, and they collapse from the impact of human force and negligence.

The tragedy is that we do not lack examples on how to avoid disaster.

Our political systems and institutions are only as good or bad as the people who construct and manage them. While it is easy to blame the politicians – those who we elect – for the decimation of the framework that was designed to serve us all well, blame must also land on we the people for not paying more attention to how it works, and the calibre of those we send to serve us.

Most people look to Great Britain for the roots of our Westminster system, but in fact the Western world inherited the core principles of our representative democracy from the ancient Romans. Not only were they brilliant builders and engineers, but they created a political system that would endure for two thousand years.

It was comprised of three levels of government – Consuls, Senate, and the People. The Ancient Greek historian, Polybius, described it as the best form of Constitution due to its interdependence and reliance on all three elements.

“For whenever some common external threat compels the three to unite and work together, the strength which the state then develops becomes quite extraordinary.”

What a rousing endorsement this is!

While it served Rome well enough during its rise and dominance of the then known world, it deteriorated steadily from the second century BC through lack of preservation, and eventually was replaced by an Empire. Polybius cites its demise as owing to the cycle of political revolution:

“…the law of nature according to which constitutions change, are transformed, and finally revert to their original form.”

Our political systems and institutions are only as good or bad as the people who construct and manage them.

Cicero, however, places its downfall squarely on the shoulders of men.

“Thus, before our own time, the customs of our ancestors produced excellent men, and eminent men preserved our ancient customs and the institutions of their forefathers. But though the republic, when it came to us, was like a beautiful painting, whose colours, however, were already fading with age, our own time not only has neglected to freshen it by renewing the original colours, but has not even taken the trouble to preserve its configuration and, so to speak its general outlines.

For the loss of our customs is due to our lack of men, and for this great evil we must not only give an account, but must even defend ourselves in every way possible, as if we were accused of capital crime. For it is through our own faults, not by any accident, that we retain only the form of the commonwealth, but have long since lost its substance…”

Mankind envisions, and they destroy. And most often the destruction occurs dramatically fast. Cue what we are witnessing now in our own time.

It remains debatable as to whether it is intentional or a result of sheer incompetence. I argue it is a lethal combination of both.

The tragedy is that we do not lack examples on how to avoid disaster. The Roman historian, Livy, said it best:

“The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”

Join Mailing List

Democracy is a cautionary tale. I’ve presented here examples from the past by some of the finest historical minds, gifted to us in the hope we may learn from their mistakes and misfortunes.

Alas, the cycle continues. We rise, and we fall. I ponder if there will ever rise a generation who can put a spoke in the wheel of this endless ignorance. Of course, that would require a fundamental shift in the willingness to heed lessons from the past and apply only those new principles where they are truly needed.

Gerardine Hoogland

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

Too Much Government

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

26 April 2024

0

Expectations of the role of ~~the~~ government have been rising steadily over the last decade. They rose substantially during the eastern states’ bushfires in late 2019 and early 2020, and again in response to the floods that followed in NSW and Queensland. And they reached stratospheric levels during the Covid panic.

Judged by the number of lives lost, those bushfires were far from the worst on record. Nonetheless, they were characterised as ‘unprecedented’ and prompted a chorus of demands for the Prime Minister to get involved. When it was discovered he had gone to Hawaii for a holiday with his family, he was accused of being negligent for leaving the country at such a time.

The Prime Minister did not leave the country when NSW and Queensland were hit by floods, but the opprobrium he attracted could hardly have been worse if he did. The floods were again described as unprecedented amid a chorus of claims the government should have acted sooner and done more.

The Covid schemozzle was obviously unprecedented and nobody could go anywhere. Once again, the Prime Minister and federal government were blamed – there were insufficient vaccines, the border should have been closed sooner, hotel quarantine was a failure, lockdowns were inadequate, plus a multitude of other perceived failures. All this despite the worst harm being done by state governments.

Thousands of kids were inspired to join the surf lifesavers, setting an example for the rest of the world.

Perhaps it is not surprising that many people think of the Prime Minister and the federal government when they think of ‘the government’. Federal politics tends to dominate the news, while the public’s understanding of our system of government is pretty dismal. Much of the media is pretty ignorant too, although hostility to Liberal leaders is also a factor.

But what these narratives reveal is that the expectations now placed on governments, of any kind, are higher than they have ever been. Whether it is floods, fires, droughts, earthquakes, cyclones or disease outbreaks, there is a popular and growing view that the government should not only be there to pick up the pieces, but should have anticipated the calamity and done everything possible to head it off.

By any standard this is both ridiculous and contradictory. Government is, after all, made up of politicians and public sector bureaucrats. Neither are experts at how the real world works so cannot possibly know what to do.

Most people readily acknowledge that governments are inefficient, bureaucratic and slow, yet somehow cling to the belief that next time will be different and more government will get it right.

In fact, Australia’s problem is too much government. From petty, intrusive local councils to authoritarian state governments and over-taxing, over-spending, ‘more money will fix it’ federal government, there is just too much of it.

The problem with this is obvious. The world is complex and changing – in social attitudes, world economics, geo-politics and of course technology. There is no way that politicians, public sector bureaucrats or regulators can hope to supervise or manage it. They are also often remote from the problems – how, for example, can a bureaucrat in Canberra possibly know enough to make a decision about a cyclone in Broome?

The famous economist Friedrich Hayek noted how difficult it was for people to fathom that local decision making leads to more efficient outcomes than central planning by politicians and public sector bureaucrats.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions.”

Expectations of the role of government have been rising steadily over the last decade.

There was a time, not that long ago, when Australia was a proud volunteer society. Moreover, almost everything was local.

Thousands of kids were inspired to join the surf lifesavers, setting an example for the rest of the world. Volunteer fire fighters saved whole communities. Dozens of charities, not just the Salvation Army and Red Cross, all volunteers, provided help and hope to those in need.

Indeed, prior to the emergence of the welfare state in the second half of the twentieth century, volunteer charities were involved in health care, childcare, education, unemployment and disability support. In the nineteenth century you would have been considered weird if you had predicted that most of these would end up being run by governments. These days you’d be called weird for suggesting volunteers might do them better.

Volunteers are still the first responders in many fire and flood emergencies as families, neighbours and friends rally around. Next are typically agencies such the State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service in NSW, and their equivalents in the other states. Both are still volunteer based, although increasingly under the control of full-time public servants and subject to the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy. In Victoria, the sad decline of the CFA at the hands of the unions is an example of that.

A tragic example of the harm being done to our volunteer society was seen during the Covid pandemic when many volunteers were required to be fully vaccinated. Unvaccinated volunteers were turned away and not permitted to fight fires or rescue flood victims, even when working outside where infection was rare.

Join Mailing List

Even after it became obvious that Covid vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission, the obligation to be fully vaccinated was retained. This was not only unscientific but also destructive. It seriously undermined the capacity of those organisations to help people. In NSW, RFS volunteers on the Central Coast fell by about 50% and in other areas SES volunteers left and some SES stations closed.

It also led to increasing demands for the federal government to bring in the ADF. Obviously ADF members are not volunteers, but they are also not intended to be used as emergency workers. Indeed, using the ADF for anything other than the defence of the country undermines its purpose and reduces its capabilities.

While we sometimes hear governments claiming to honour volunteers, the trend is downhill. The more red tape, bureaucratic oversight and regulation imposed, the more volunteers bail out.

David Leyonhjelm

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

Pro-Natalist Policies – The Jury is Out

By

Meaghan Whyte

-

19 April 2024

2

“By 2050, over three-quarters (155 of 204) of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time; this will increase to 97% of countries (198 of 204) by 2100.”

Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021, Lancet.

Fertility rates around the world are falling off a cliff. From 1950 to 2021, total fertility rate (TFR) more than halved from 4.84 to 2.23 globally. By 2021, over half of all countries and territories were below replacement level of two births per woman.

Prolonged fertility rates of 1.3 children per woman reduce a country’s population by half in less than 45 years. Many European countries have already reached this point. Australia’s current fertility rate is 1.63 births per woman.

The world is experiencing a real baby bust.

Robust fertility rates are essential for economic prosperity and societal stability. They ensure a continuous influx of a younger workforce, fostering economic growth through increased productivity and innovation. Moreover, higher fertility rates stabilise social systems by providing intergenerational support for older demographics. Additionally, growing populations drive consumer demand, promoting market expansion and providing business opportunities crucial for sustained economic development.

Economic downturns, including a lack of affordable housing, also often prompt couples to delay having children, at least temporarily.

From a libertarian standpoint, robust fertility rates underscore individual freedom, allowing people to make autonomous decisions about family size without undue interference. Furthermore, they contribute to economic self-sufficiency, reducing reliance on government welfare programs and fostering a culture of personal responsibility. Sustainable population growth also maintains market dynamics, encouraging competition, innovation, and entrepreneurship organically, without the need for artificial population control measures.

Governments know that a population in decline is a bad thing. In a bid to increase fertility rates, numerous countries have implemented pro-natalist policies. According to the United Nations, 10% of countries had such policies in 1976, 15% in 2001 and 28% in 2015 (being their most recent data). However, assessing the results of these is quite challenging.

Governments often fail to reevaluate their policies, including those designed to increase birth rates. This phenomenon was described by Milton Friedman: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Governments are spending big, but have not stopped to study the results of their pro-natalist policies. From the available evidence, it appears clear that pro-natalist policies result in small and transient effects on total fertility rates.

The USSR pioneered the implementation of pro-natalist policies. Following the fall of the union, some countries in Central and Eastern Europe continued pro-natalist benefits in spite of severe economic conditions and budgetary pressures.

Two examples from 2005 – in Czechia, spending per child equalled 60.8% of GDP per capita, and 51.3% in Slovakia. These are twice the average of OECD high income countries, which was 26.8%. The birth rate increase in both countries was modest: Czechia’s birth rate in 2005 was 1.29; by 2010 it was 1.51 and by 2021 it was 1.83, still not at replacement level. Slovakia’s birthrate in 2005 was 1.25. By 2010, it was 1.34 and in 2023 it was 1.55.

By 2021, over half of all countries and territories were below replacement level of two births per woman.

From 2007 to 2016, Russia offered mothers who had their second or third child 250,000 roubles (about US$12,000), approximately the average annual income. Evidence suggests that the birth rate for women aged 25-29 increased from 78.4 per 1000 women in 2006 to 99.8 in 2011. However, the annual birth rate change dropped from +2.460% in 2013 to -0.320% in 2014 and has remained negative ever since. In other words, it only had a short term effect.

Complex social and economic factors intersect to shape fertility patterns. These are far beyond the purview of government control. High-income countries particularly witness a steep decline in fertility rates, possibly influenced by increased educational opportunities and changing societal expectations. Later marriage, postponed childbearing and an increase in single motherhood all emerge as trends, as a country’s income levels increase.

We also see factors such as higher levels of education empowering women, and evolving cultural norms around marriage and career aspirations. This is particularly noticeable in the United States, which has decreased fertility rates among second-generation immigrants.

Economic downturns, including a lack of affordable housing, also often prompt couples to delay having children, at least temporarily. This has been seen in the United States, where fertility rates have been declining since 2008.

Join Mailing List

From a libertarian perspective, declining fertility rates are of concern. However, the question is whether governments should continue to spend money on costly pro-natalist policies. For example, is spending billions on childcare and paid parental leave preferable to allowing single income families to split their income for taxation purposes? Not likely.

The government should concern itself with removing obstacles. By prioritising individual freedom and self-reliance, individuals would be encouraged and empowered to make their own decisions regarding their own family size, without government intrusion.

By promoting a culture of autonomy and self-reliance, libertarian solutions would address declining fertility rates while respecting individual liberties and preserving economic vitality.

Meaghan Whyte

Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.

No, Men are not OK

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

25 March 2024

2

As a society, we generally do not like to talk about suicide. And when we do, we tend to avoid a key issue – why do so many men take their own lives, and why are so many of them middle-aged?

The statistics are stark: of 3,249 Australians who took their own lives in 2022, 2,455 were males. That’s more than the number of women dying from breast and cervical cancer combined.

Close to nine Australians are taking their own lives each day, of which seven are men. The overall suicide rate was 12.3 deaths per 100,000 population but for men it was 18.8.

The absolute highest rate is among men aged 85 or over (32.7 per 100,000 versus 10.6 for women), but the next highest is middle-aged males (45-59) at 32.6 (versus 8.8 for women). These rates have also increased over the last decade.

By contrast the murder rate, at less than 1.0 per 100,000, has been declining for decades, while deaths from road accidents (4.6 per 100,000 people) are also trending down.

Society has many champions speaking up for women, children, Aborigines, gays and lesbians, but precious few for men.

Someone taking their own life at 85 probably has a reason we can understand; there are downsides to life at that age. But men in middle age have many years of active life ahead of them. They are often at the peak earning stage and are obviously somebody’s son, brother, husband, partner, father or grandfather. That so many are killing themselves is a tragedy of enormous proportions.

And yet, while we hear plenty about youth suicide, blamed on everything from NAPLAN tests to sharing dick pics, and indigenous suicides, for which incarceration rates and white supremacy are supposedly responsible, when it comes to apparently normal middle-aged men taking their own lives there is stony silence.

The reasons for the high rates are not well understood. Even the common assumption that it is a mental health issue is probably wrong. Mental health has become a growth industry, with the problems of everyday life increasingly medicalised, but certainly no worse among middle aged men.

To the extent that the causes are known, they conflict with current narratives about the place of men in today’s society; that masculinity is toxic, all men are responsible for domestic violence, all men are potential rapists, and society is patriarchal. Indeed, unless they are indigenous, men are blamed for just about everything wrong with the world.

To the extent that there is evidence, it appears family and relationship breakdown may be a major underlying factor. Statistics show men live longer and happier lives when they are in a committed relationship.

That goes some way to explain the suicide rate among men affected by separation or divorce, particularly with children involved. Not only can they be made liable to pay child support that leaves them unable to support a new family, but false allegations of violence and sexual misconduct are routinely used to deny them access to their children.

Close to nine Australians are taking their own lives each day, of which seven are men.

But there are obviously other factors too. If they work with women, men are at constant risk of accusations of bullying if they disagree. If they stare, it is sexual harassment. If they work with black or brown people, practically anything can be interpreted as racist (although they can never be victims of racism themselves). If they employ women, paying them less than men is misogyny, irrespective of the roles or hours worked.

Increasingly, men risk accusations of rape and the onus to prove consent, years or decades later.

It is likely most men take their own lives because they believe they are failing. There are many reasons for that belief, but failure as a bread winner is probably the main one; protecting and providing for a family is hard-wired, notwithstanding the claims of radical feminists that it is social conditioning. So when men lose their job, fail at business or are simply unable to meet expectations, they suffer. The all-time highest rates of suicide were in 1930 during the Great Depression, when unemployment was huge.

Libertarians believe in self-ownership and accept suicide is a matter of personal choice. But that does not preclude encouraging a different choice; indeed, it is arguably a moral obligation. The question is, how to do that?

Society has many champions speaking up for women, children, Aborigines, gays and lesbians, but precious few for men. It needs more of them.

Join Mailing List

We need more people making the case for lower taxes and less red and green tape, so there is less unemployment and fewer business failures. We need more who refuse to judge others on the basis of gender, race or sexual preference. We need more who defend the role of masculinity in strong, brave and selfless men. And we need more who insist that children need their fathers.

There’s something we can all do, and we might just save a life.

David Leyonhjelm

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

The Everyday Libertarian

By

Nicholas Samios

-

13 March 2024

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.

Nicholas Samios

Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.

25 Provocative Predictions For 2024 From The World’s #1 Political Observer

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

26 February 2024

0

GOVERNMENT OVERREACH

Habeas corpus will not be restored in Australia.

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENT

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

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

STOCK MARKET

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

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

HEALTH

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

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

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

SOCIAL TRENDS

The sale of sex dolls will increase in Australia.

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

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

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

At least 25% of Australians will attend church monthly.

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

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

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Space X’s Starship will successfully reach orbit.

ECONOMICS

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

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

Cash transactions will decrease below 17% of total transactions.

Australian coal exports will increase from last year.

ELECTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

GEOPOLITICS

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

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

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

There will be no resolution of the conflict in Ukraine.

At least two international borders will change.

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

Join Mailing List

DEATHS

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

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

SUMMARY
Correct: 5
Pending: 19
Incorrect: 1

Kenelm Tonkin

An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.

E-Scooters: A Two Wheeled Burden?

By

Meaghan Whyte

-

23 February 2024

2

Since approximately 2016 there has been a rapid increase in personal and for-hire electric scooters (e-scooters) in cities around the world. Over 600 cities now have e-scooter for-hire services and, globally, the electric scooter market is valued at more than AUD $49 billion and growing at 10% per year. In Australia, there was an 800% increase in e-scooters from 2016 to 2021.

However, there are serious concerns regarding e-scooter related injuries.

The Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset has released figures regarding e-scooter riders seeking emergency care in hospitals: 502 in the 2022 financial year, then 958 in the 2023 financial year; nearly a twofold increase year on year. Victoria introduced its e-scooter trial with 2500 rental scooters in Melbourne, Port Phillip, and Yarra council areas in February 2022, and legalised private e-scooters on public roads in March 2022.

Despite the minimum riding age being 16 there have been 193 presentations by children below this age over the past 3 years. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Victorian chair Dr Patrick Lo has stated that 3 children presented in one week with a brain haemorrhage, brain swelling and a broken neck. 42 unfortunate pedestrians have also been treated for e-scooter-related accidents.

Mortality due to e-scooter traffic accidents was 9.2%.

Queensland has released similar figures. In that state, e-scooter injuries admitted to hospitals were as follows: 279 in 2019, 877 in 2022, and 801 by September of 2023.

In Western Australia there was a 386% percent increase in hospital admissions in the year July 2021 to June 2022. There was a 200% increase in injuries between 2017 and 2022.

A study by the University of California San Francisco found that in the US, e-scooter-related injuries and hospital admissions increased by 222% from 2014 to 2018, climbing above 39,000. Hospital admissions expanded by 365%.

Severe Injuries, Lack of Helmets

The study “Comparison of Injuries Associated With Electric Scooters, Motorbikes, and Bicycles in France, 2019-2022”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), looked at 5,233 e-scooter injury patients. Mortality due to e-scooter traffic accidents was 9.2%. The risk of severe traumatic brain injury, 26%.

In a study done by University of California San Francisco, electric scooter injuries included fractures 27%, contusions/abrasions 23% and lacerations 14%. Most concerning, almost one third reported head trauma.

The study “Characteristics of Electric Scooter and Bicycle Injuries After Introduction of Electric Scooter Rentals in Oslo, Norway”, published in the JAMA, found that e-scooter injuries often occur at night, to young adults, who aren’t wearing helmets, and have a high blood alcohol reading. Dr Sarah Whitelaw, an emergency doctor in Victoria, echoes this sentiment. She said in addition, riders were often travelling at high speeds.

In Australia, there was an 800% increase in e-scooters from 2016 to 2021.

Economic Burden

In the US, UCLA research reveals that the healthcare cost of e-scooter injuries increased from $6.6 million in 2016 to $35.5 million in 2020.

Doctors in New Zealand reviewed data of surgeries on injured scooter riders from October 2018 to February 2019. Adding up costs including anaesthetic, theatres, staff, implants, time in hospital and lost income, each injury averaged $19,282 NZD. Over $400,000 was spent in less than five months.

The study “The impact of electric scooters in Melbourne: data from a major trauma service” published on Wiley, looked at e-scooter injuries admitted to Royal Melbourne Hospital from January 2022 to January 2023. 247 riders and 9 pedestrians presented for treatment. 33% of riders were wearing helmets at the time of incident. 50% reported head injuries. Hospital cost totalled $1.9 million, and median cost was $1321.66 per patient.

According to the hospital’s website, “The Royal Melbourne Hospital is part of Australia’s public health care system and offers hospital care to any Australian resident under Medicare arrangements.” This also applies to the 696 other public hospitals across Australia many of which would be treating e-scooter injuries, paid for by the taxpayer.

Solution

The question for libertarians is not whether to restrict or ban e-scooters, which is what authoritarians prefer, but how to move the financial risk and economic burden of injuries from taxpayers to e-scooter riders.

Join Mailing List

One potential solution is to establish an insurance requirement for both rental and private e-scooter owners. Purchased by riders, this would function like first-party and third-party car insurance. In the event of an accident, the insurance would cover resultant medical costs.

Consistent with the concept of personal responsibility, this approach would shift financial liability to individual riders and decrease reliance on public healthcare funds. It might even become a model for managing other health risks.

Meaghan Whyte

Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.

Go Where You Are Treated Best

By

Damon Hayhow

-

10 January 2024

2

‘Go where you are treated best’ is the tagline of entrepreneur, Andrew Henderson, founder of the business Nomad Capitalist. Andrew and his team help entrepreneurs, retirees and others move their lives out of countries like Australia to countries where they will be treated best. It is a business that has being growing exponentially in recent years.

When I first heard Andrew speak those six words during the earliest days of the Covid sham, it hit me like a power-slap from Mike Tyson. What the hell was I still doing in Australia? For years I thought I had been fighting to build small businesses. But I had not; I could do business just fine. I had a bunch of great products and services in an interesting niche. I liked my customers, and my customers liked me. The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it. The reality was Australia no longer treated me well, let alone best.

The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments.

“We crush many a dream around [here]” was proudly proclaimed to me by an officer of Melbourne’s Stonnington Council when I applied for a permit to open a simple, small business. He also bragged how new laws rendered thousands of commercial properties “completely unlettable”. Sadly, the only thing shocking about his statements was his candor. His malicious and malignant attitude towards honest citizens, small business operators and the future success of the country was what I had come to expect from Australian bureaucrats.

Being an unwilling participant in an abusive relationship with local government was only part of the problem. The bigger problem was the direction of the country as a whole.

The absolutely disgusting and immoral human rights abuses orchestrated by the Victorian Government, media and law enforcement during the Covid sham was not an aberration. Nor was the Victorian public’s willing complicity. It was unequivocal proof of the direction society had been headed.

So what is a patriotic Australian supposed to do? Vote? For whom? Protest? And get shot with rubber bullets or sprayed with mace for not supporting the Government-approved message? Exercise your free-speech online? And get arrested in your home, in front of your kids, even if you are pregnant? Or have your government-permission to practice your profession cancelled? Or have your bank accounts frozen?

Australia does not have a bill of rights. You have no legislated right to free speech or right to protest. The Government could not care less about having signed the international treaty for human rights. Their Covid shenanigans proved that unequivocally.

When democracy has been hijacked, like it has been in much of the so-called “free world”, your most powerful option is to vote with your feet and go where you are treated best. If enough people leave, the people and government left behind will be forced to change, to stem further losses and attract good people back. If they do not change, the country will fail as their beliefs and policies were destined to anyway.

The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it.

Unfortunately, for most people leaving is not an option. The nature of most people’s vocations, businesses, finances and/or families makes leaving all but impossible. There will always be people who have no option but to stay and fight against bad governments. But that does not mean staying and fighting is noble; in most cases throughout history, staying to fight your own government has been a terrible option.

For the few people who can move their lives and business elsewhere in the world, they owe it to themselves and their country to go where they are treated best. It is not weak or cowardly, as many jealous people will say. Nothing is harder than leaving family and a lifetime of friends, to face the uncertainty of restarting life in a new country. But it can be the most patriotic thing you can do; not to mention cathartic, enlightening and positively life changing.

Join Mailing List

A country is not its government. Being so disgusted and disillusioned with a government that you move says nothing about your feelings toward the country or its people. The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments.

Australians are lucky to be welcomed all over the world. Wherever you go, you will always be Australian (or whatever nationality you are). If you go where you really are treated best, you will almost certainly be more financially, emotionally and spiritually successful than you could have been under the current government in Australia.

Nomad Capitalist has a website. I recommend taking a look at it.

Damon Hayhow

Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.

Polite Inquiries

By

Max Payne

-

21 December 2023

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join Mailing List

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

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

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Australia No Longer Has Informed Consent For Medical Procedures

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

20 December 2023

6

As the Publisher of Liberty Itch, I receive six industry briefings, exposes or whistleblower tips weekly. Some are anonymous, others with a name.

Most don’t advance the debate on public issues.

Recently though, I spoke with a doctor, frustrated at the way government has ruined a once proud and independent profession.

His firm conclusion: informed consent, the underlying component for any doctor-patient relationship, is no longer possible in Australia.

He has been practicing medicine in Australia for 15 years, so his career is well-advanced. He presents as a professional who loves his job, with all the challenges and rewards it brings.

Until the governments around Australia coordinated on Covid-19, he said he never cared much for politics. It wasn’t part of his life. But witnessing politicians trample over human rights, intrude and violate the sacred relationship between doctor and patient, was enough to activate him.

He’s not in the mood for forgiving the perpetrators.

Australians were openly bullied into taking vaccines on the coercive promise –that once inviolate freedoms would be restored.

When a patient presents with any health problem or condition, a doctor must convey all of the available relevant information to the patient in order to gain his or her voluntary consent for any medical procedure. When a government hides or lies, and a patient is coerced into a procedure, informed consent is dead!

Relevant information regarding a vaccination might include the side effects, relevant and absolute risk of prevention, trial information, and any other safety data. Yet the Australian Government signed secret contracts with pharmaceutical companies to supply novel medications for a new virus without disclosing any of this.

The British Medical Association’s BMJ has written that Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration is dependent on funding by pharmaceutical companies at a worrying 96%, the highest among peer international organisations. This leads to obvious questions about independence and whether there are conflicts of interest.
In July 2023 the TGA stated: “As reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination are very stable, we will not include this section in future COVID-19 vaccine safety reports”.

Yet as our doctor-friend pointed out to me, “The rates were in fact stable, at the highest levels recorded in history. What are they now? We don’t know, because the TGA won’t give us this information.”

Australians were openly bullied into taking vaccines on the coercive promise –that once inviolate freedoms would be restored. Vaccine mandates were slapped on a trusting populace on the basis of the greater good – of protecting others. Even now there are many places where these mandates remain despite overwhelming evidence that vaccination against Covid-19 does not prevent either infection or transmission of the disease. And despite numerous reports of adverse side effects, still no reliable data is provided.

Australian Government signed secret contracts with pharmaceutical companies to supply novel medications for a new virus without disclosing any of this.

I listened to this doctor’s contempt for authorities as he described himself watching the CDC change its definition of the words ‘vaccine’ and ‘vaccination’ in real time to accommodate the shortfalls of the available Covid vaccines.

One could perfectly understand his visceral reaction to the deplatforming of professionally-acclaimed, peer-reviewed medical experts simply because they shared research data that did not fit the narrative of ‘safe and effective’.

But then witness Dr Jeanette Young, the Queensland Chief Health Officer at the time, who cautioned against one vaccine whilst promoting another while, as the Courier Mail reported, her husband, Professor Graeme Nimmo, was financially incentivised by Pfizer.

Dr Young should have been punished for failing to declare a major conflict of interest, but instead was promoted to Governor of Queensland, a handsome reward from her friend Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has now resigned without facing the consequences of her own Covid-19 decisions.

“So what happens if your doctor wants to caution you about any of this information?”, I naively asked our whistleblower doctor.

The sobering answer should send chills down the spine of all Australians.

“They will likely be suspended. The governing body of Australian doctors, AHPRA, has done just that that to several who were brave enough to speak out. As a registered doctor with AHPRA, I am not allowed to publicly state my opinions on health policy (including on social media), as it may undermine the confidence in those in political positions making up the rules. Any Australian doctor who denies this statement does not fully understand their conditions of registration with AHPRA.”

Join Mailing List

To protect his livelihood and family, he only talks to me.

The greatest discoveries in medicine and science have come from testing a hypothesis that contradicts traditional schools of thought. When the health system is hijacked by conflicted bureaucrats, problems inevitably arise. The past few years have left our doctor with an absolute disgust for our Chief Health Officers and Health Ministers, and for the first time a sense of embarrassment at what should be an honourable profession without government interference.

Most disconcertingly of all, he feels most concern for patients who are now subject to near-complete control by the collectivist bureaucrats and their centralised treatment plans for diseases which are yet to come.

Kenelm Tonkin

An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.

The Farce of NZ Ministry of Health Data Leak

By

Simon Anderson

-

14 December 2023

0

Dealing With A Number of Organisations Concerning These Data For More Than A Year.

Several days ago Database Administrator Barry Young emerged as the Ministry of Health whistleblower. Mr Young had appropriated more than a terabyte of Covid vaccine data and released it to selected contacts in the vaccine sceptical community within New Zealand and overseas. The data was presented alongside excess mortality rates to draw startling conclusions.

Subsequently it emerged that Mr. Young had been dealing with a number of organisations concerning these data for more than a year. Sacrificing whatever little credibility he might have enjoyed, Mr. Young decided to use the NZ Loyal political party as his vehicle to announce the data release.

It is information pertinent to the health and well-being the vast majority of New Zealanders who got vaccinated against Covid.

NZ Loyal is a party founded by the journalist Liz Gunn, with a policy agenda consisting of a typical grab bag of poorly considered responses to conspiracy theories. Garnering a mere 26,000 votes at the recent general election, NZ Loyal is the epitome of a ‘fringe political movement’ – anti-globalisation, anti-international institutions, fluoridation is a conspiracy to keeps the population docile, and vaccines turn people into WiFi terminals.

Party leader Liz Gunn interviewed Mr. Young in the ludicrously titled Mother of All Revelations podcast. It was anything but: Mr Young squandered the opportunity to appear as a dispassionate analyst of the data and revealed himself to be a partisan acolyte of the Church of the Holy Mother of Idiotic Conspiracies. Compounding his error, Mr. Young issued a variety of highly suspect pronouncements concerning the causality (conflated with correlation) between the vaccine and excess mortality rates in New Zealand; pronouncements simply unsupported by the data and so tenuous and tangential as to be laughed at by anyone who cared to look.

Which of course the conspiracist community, revelling in confirmation bias, refrained from doing. Mr Young became the overnight sensation of vaccine sceptics worldwide, conducting interviews with such bastions of empirical evidence, the scientific method and dispassionate enquiry as Alex Jones of InfoWars and Steve Kirsch. Even Russell Brand got in on the action as the news of the leak spread around the world, amplified and exacerbated with salacious detail.

Three days after the disclosure Mr. Young was arrested by New Zealand police and charged with accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes, an offence which carries a sentence of up to seven years in prison. He had his home ransacked and electronic equipment seized and, doubtless to keep him in communicado, was remanded in custody for several days.

(Such is the New Zealand justice system: murderers awaiting trial typically do so on home detention and serial rapists have been sentenced to home detention instead of prison. Potentially embarrassing the state through misappropriating information is a far more serious offence.)
The data itself was subject to injunction and many websites complied with the New Zealand court’s ruling notwithstanding it was ultra vires, further piquing the curiosity of the conspiracist community.

The data was presented alongside excess mortality rates to draw startling conclusions.

New Zealand’s whistleblower protection laws are weak. To enjoy their protections (such as they are), a whistleblower must follow the disclosure policies of the organisation concerned in the first instance and subsequently, a suitable authority such as the office of the ombudsman. Mr. Young maintains that he followed this procedure, raising concerns with the Ministry of Health and then the Deputy Prime Minister. He has not so far released any documentation to provide corroboration, as he will require if he is to mount a robust defence against the charge he now faces.

One would hope he mounts such a defence. Losing his employment and gaining the opprobrium of those capable of critical thinking ought to be punishment enough for this fantasist who, in the final analysis, is little more than a distraction from the real issues.

Because he is, fundamentally if accidentally, correct.

There was an unexplained increase in excess mortality rates in New Zealand during the pandemic response and vaccine roll-out. The New Zealand authorities should be releasing the data they hold for independent analysis, suitably anonymised. Hiding behind commercial relationships with pharmaceutical companies and spurious interpretations of privacy provisions is improper, bordering upon malfeasance.

Join Mailing List

These data should be the property of the New Zealand people. It is information pertinent to the health and well-being the vast majority of New Zealanders who got vaccinated against Covid, and to the decisions taken by the authorities on our collective behalf. In the interests of both public health and the democratic body politic it should be available for scrutiny.

Never mind the distraction of useful idiots, the data must be released.

Simon Anderson

Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.

The Covid Precursor Everybody Ignored

By

Damon Hayhow

-

8 December 2023

1

You May Be Shocked To Learn This

Imagine the Australian government weaponising an engineered health crisis to rob citizens of their freedoms and destroy businesses. Then imagine the public fully supporting the government’s grotesque overreach, parroting the government’s pseudoscientific propaganda and even pimping the dubious chemical cocktail disingenuously offered to solve the crisis by the same people who sponsored it.

You may be shocked to learn this did actually happen, several years before the Covid scamdemic. The health scare in question was the skin cancer epidemic supposedly caused by commercial sunbed operators.

You probably barely remember the crisis because, well, who really cares about sunbeds? The attitude of most Australians was that people who used sunbeds were narcissists. But the solarium ban seemed to open pandora’s box. Australia’s famous sense of humour soured. Australians started calling for more and more activities to be restricted and regulated. The government eagerly obliged, increasing its rate of law making by almost 30%.

Just as it was omitted that more than 90% of people who caught Covid had mild to no symptoms.

The propaganda formula for selling the solarium ban was an early prototype of the formula we saw employed for Covid. It also showcased the components used in the great climate scam and many of the other liberty-leeching cons being perpetrated by governments around the world.

Like Covid and climate change, the propaganda began with nonsensical, reality-bending lies. Suddenly, what people had known for millennia was said to be wrong. “Tanned skin is damaged skin”. “A tan does not protect from the sun”. Until this, a tan was known to be a natural adaptive process that protected skin from burning in the sun. Sun damaged skin was not golden brown; it was red and blistered.

Next came the hysterical fear-porn based on largely irrelevant, cherry-picked statistics. “Two of every three Australians are expected to develop skin cancer”. “More than 1,200 Australians will die of melanoma this year”. Conveniently omitted from the discussion was that only 0.5% of Australians used solariums. Obviously, 130,000 people using sunbeds cannot significantly contribute to 15,000,000 people developing cancer. So the relevant statistic was redacted, just as it was omitted that more than 90% of people who caught Covid had mild to no symptoms.

Then came the extraordinarily abnormal, non-representative case studies. With the solarium ban, one 26 year old girl died of melanoma. With no evidence, she claimed her cancer was caused by just 20 solarium visits. Over 1,200 other Australians died of melanoma that year, but none mentioned using a solarium. 130,000 other Australians used solariums without dying of melanoma. Yet this one girl was plastered all over the TV, internet, radio and newspapers as the obvious proof of the danger of solariums.

You probably barely remember the crisis because, well, who really cares about sunbeds?

Next was the absence of any genuine science. No study actually showed that solariums cause skin cancer or that skin cancer rates were higher in solarium users. No study showed that prohibiting commercial solarium businesses would reduce skin cancer. The Queensland legislation even acknowledged that the sun was the primary risk factor, and the sun was not being banned.

There is strong evidence that suggests a strong link between skin cancer and a dietary imbalance of essential fatty acids (EFA’s). The average Australian diet reflects this imbalance. It is also directly responsible for epidemic levels of heart disease and diabetes, costing billions of dollars in healthcare and lost productivity. Any serious discussion about public health, including skin cancer, could not ignore Australia’s nutrition. But, like Covid, there was no place for any discussion that contradicted the dominant narrative and predetermined course of action.

Finally, just like Covid, the solarium ban featured a product so awful it needed a government sponsored con to sell. Fake tan was the solarium ban’s equivalent of the Covid vaccine, and the climate con’s carbon credits. In virtually every story covering the solarium ban was the sales pitch for the ‘safe and effective’ fake tanning products that would ‘save lives’ from the dangers of sunshine and solariums. It was as blatant as it was shameless.

Join Mailing List

Now that almost a decade has passed, we can fairly assess the government’s success in reducing skin cancer by banning solariums. More Australians are now diagnosed with skin cancer than before, the rate of skin cancer has increased, and more die of melanoma. In other words, the government failed as dismally as basic logic and math predicted. The forcible closing of over 400 small businesses, the dozens of prosecutions, the thousands of hours and tens of millions of dollars spent on propaganda and legislation all achieved absolutely nothing. Nothing except the pointless erosion of freedoms of citizens.

Damon Hayhow

Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.

Death, Taxes and … Death Taxes?

By

Max Payne

-

21 September 2023

0

“We know that there is a growing pot of wealth, sitting in the hands of older Australians that will be passed on in coming decades.”

Gosh, that sounds juicy. What government could refuse the temptation to take a slice of that pie?

However, that sentiment speaks to the fundamental flaw in the approach of our policy makers towards balancing our books – always trying to increase revenue without doing much to cut spending.

While it would take a brave government to set their sights on inheritance as a potential source of tax revenue, comments from incoming Productivity Commission boss, Danielle Wood, indicate the wrong question is being asked.

Structural Budget Pressures

Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who is arguably among Labor’s more agile and pragmatic front-benchers, has flagged the NDIS and aged care as key budgetary pressures going forward. While high commodity prices are currently keeping the wolves from the door, the rapidly rising cost of Government funded services and a forecast drop in revenue over time has even the typically Keynesian Labor camp concerned.

Australian Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. Are death taxes next on the agenda?

Although Labor has denied plans for an inheritance tax are on the agenda, Danielle Wood’s comments and the wider conversation nationally on debt and deficit are clearly not focussed on fixing the most glaring issue facing the budget – spending.

Out of control spending

For example, since its inception in 2013, the NDIS has grown astronomically and now accounts for the biggest cost of any social program the Federal Government runs – $30 billion last financial year. Originally designed to help those with genuine disabilities, the NDIS faces many unforeseen challenges. Its expansive criteria means that over 500,000 people now use the NDIS, participants don’t leave the program as quickly as first envisioned, and up to 20% of NDIS payments are estimated to be fraudulent!

Aged care is not immune either – one of the key recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission was to establish a ‘blank cheque’ style funding model. This would ensure outcomes remained uncompromised by ‘fiscal challenges facing the government of the day’. With attitudes like that, it’s no wonder social programs are growing at such a speed and are open to rorts – the government is being told the cash tap can never be turned off! What message does that send to users or providers? Of course, the first proposed solution to the issue of funding was to slap a levy on taxpayers – in other words, more tax.

Cutting through

Dramatically reducing the size and scope of all government programs would be a more ideal solution (Caroline White knows it!), but at the very least Chalmers and the relevant ministers could begin with more palatable reforms in the service sector. For example, a user-pays model for aged care services – reducing the share paid by the general tax-base and increasing accountability for providers. Meanwhile the NDIS could benefit greatly from increased scrutiny of payments made and more stringent eligibility criteria.

The government is being told the cash tap can never be turned off!

While governments fear the political ramifications of being seen as ‘gutting’ social services, perhaps the issue needs re-framing. The Australian Taxpayers Alliance found in 2021 that a Victorian worker earning an average salary costs about $73,000 to employ. Of that amount, 55% is taxed! Our lifestyles, our productivity, our time and our future are being gutted – and all for what? So that whatever we have left when we finally kick the bucket can be taxed one last time?

We can only hope that one day governments will attempt some introspection, but it doesn’t look likely just yet. Apart from talk of scrapping the Stage 3 tax-cuts, aged-care levies and death taxes, Jim Chalmers has also flagged that he expects future nation-building funding to fall at least partially on the super funds.

At what point will we finally see the leadership required to start treating the problem of spending rather than the symptom of revenue?

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Retaining The Bargaining Chip of Indemnities For Vaccine Companies

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

14 August 2023

4

Should we legislate to stop a government offering indemnities to vaccine manufacturers?

This was a matter which came before the Senate last week in a private members bill.

Some of the reasons given for the Bill were:

“Companies work for shareholders first and it is profits that motivate their decision and actions. People should always be put before profits”;

“Indemnification has created an incentive for risk-taking in the pharmaceutical industry which is not aligned with the fundamental principles of medicine. Where indemnity exists, it is human nature to take larger risks, whether it be a conscious decision or subconscious, the outcomes are poor”; and

“The pharmaceutical industry has a taste for your money.”

Vivid language for the impressionable mind!

The most amicable and well-meaning of senators championed the cause with a rousing speech. A personal friend of mine adroitly negotiated it behind the scenes. It was a case study in politicking, and even attracted the support of one Libertarian state division.

Then with the support of all but Labor, it went to committee for investigation and so will become news again soon. Yes, the centre-right crossbench attracted the Greens and even Senator Thorpe for a moment.

What is not to love?

Against such a juggernaut of consensus, this simple libertarian fig farmer has his misgivings. Have sympathy for me. It’s in my DNA to search for a principle.

We libertarians are fond of paraphrasing John Stuart Mill’s 1859 Harm Principle with phrases like “live and let live, as long as you don’t harm others.”

We are not so persistent in reminding our parliamentary friends that the Harm Principle requires that we ‘weigh such harms.’

The great horror of the last 3 years was that our leaders did not do this. Ignore psychological damage to infant school children plastered with a mask. Ignore the cheap, unhealthy food on the dinner table of a family with dual incomes lost to mandates. Ignore the evaporated life savings of ‘non-essential’ small business owners. Ignore the suicides and mental health flair-ups caused by lockdowns. Ignore the business collapses.

It was one flu-like covid-19 harm, all other harms be damned!

One must weigh the harms.

The problem with the Bill is that it applies a blanket ban and fails to weigh harms.

Just say the next virus is more potent. Let’s say it’s Ebola or something with a 50% mortality rate!

In the end, we need politicians who apply John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in full. Live and let live as long as you don’t harm others. When there are competing harms, weigh them and choose the least harmful option.

I want our government to have the same commercial tool as any private sector party. Indemnification, or the transfer of risk, is used by outdoor adventure operators, mining equipment hire companies, and many others. Why ban the government?

As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be able to transact like the private sector.

As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be ready to act in the case of genuine pandemic threat. As established, I want the government to potentially offer indemnity to vaccine providers in the case of emergency.

And as a libertarian, I want politicians who’ll use skilled negotiators so offering indemnity won’t be necessary.

Further …

As a libertarian, I’m unimpressed by populist attacks on free enterprise, especially pharmaceutical companies which keep us alive. As a libertarian, I’d be more curious to know why anyone believes a vaccine company should absorb near sovereign-level risk for a government intent on releasing vaccines before they pass the government’s own safety standards. As a libertarian, my focus is on that government maladministration, not the vaccine company.

As a libertarian, I’d prefer my government weren’t both umpire, with its TGA vaccine approval processes, and player, being the acquirer and dispenser of vaccines. I’d prefer to eliminate this conflict of interest.

As a libertarian, I’d like to rollback government from healthcare delivery, replace tired old public hospitals with private hospitals, and to protect charities which run hospitals.

And as a libertarian, I’d prefer our allies in parliament did not run adrift philosophically into the dangerous and choppy waters of the anti-capitalist. I am left in little wonder why the Greens and Senator Thorpe kept the Bill alive.

I believe the correct approach for a libertarian here is to vote against the Bill. In our current system, the Government needs to make it easy for vaccine production to occur in the event of a genuine calamity.

Our government already has one hand tied behind its back running a socialised system. Let’s not tie the other one by banning the free-enterprise bargaining chip of indemnities.

Kenelm Tonkin

An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.

Taxing The Country Into Welfare And Disability

By

Dimitri Burshtein

-

13 June 2023

0

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity
is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
It is impossible.”

Those were not the words of an Australian Commonwealth Treasurer but rather of Winston Churchill addressing the House of Commons in 1925 arguing against a proposed increase in taxes.

Winston Churchill. Economic liberal and twice UK Prime Minister.

Almost 100 years after Churchill’s comment, Treasurer Chalmers presented his second Budget, in May 2023. It showed yet another record amount of tax collected and sums spent. For the coming 2024 financial year, the Government expects to collect $668 billion (25.9% of GDP) to fund $684 billion of spending (26.6% of GDP).

Of course, spending is higher than revenue so yet again
there is a deficit to add to the national debt pile
for our children and grandchildren to pay.

Of the $684 billion of spending, it is estimated that $356 billion or around 52% will be spent on health and welfare.

And within the social security and welfare line is the following:

From a standing start around ten years ago, assistance to people with disabilities, ostensibly NDIS, is now the second largest Commonwealth government program.

Over the life of the budget (FY23 to FY27), the average annual increase in spending on the aged pension increases by 6.5%, but the average annual increase in spending on the NDIS is 7.9%. Both increases are faster than economic growth and the average annual increase in receipts (3.7%).

Like much of the developed world, Australia is experiencing an ageing population. It could be reasonably expected that spending on aged pensions might increase, but so much for superannuation.

Yet given the rapid growth of NDIS spending, one might conclude that
Australia is also experiencing a dramatic increase in disability.

Maybe there is something in the water. Or perhaps the education system.

Parked near the back of the budget papers is an analysis of real per-capita spending and taxing: per-capita to adjust for government activity increasing due to population increases; real to adjust for inflation over time. And in these numbers, the true state of budget disrepair is evident.

On a real per-capita basis, in the 2024 financial year:

Commonwealth receipts are expected to be $18,102;
Commonwealth payments are expected to be $18,479; and
Commonwealth net debt is expected to be $15,574.

Impressive. From an average four-person household, the Commonwealth expects to extract $72,408.

But here is the interesting part. Thirty years ago, in per-capital real dollars:

Commonwealth receipts were $8,866;
Commonwealth payments were $10,110; and
Commonwealth net debt was $11,364.

So basically, in the space of 30 years, on a per-capita basis, we are paying double the amount of tax, the Commonwealth is spending almost twice as much, and debt is 4.5 times larger in real terms. And 30 years ago was 1983-84, when Bob Hawke came in inheriting a national economic basket case.

It is worth noting that the inclusion of historical real per-capita data in the budget papers is owed to the negotiation efforts of former Senator David Leyonhjelm. Such important government finance transparency highlights the value of a strong classical liberal voice in Australian parliaments.

Improved budget reporting. Legacy of former Senator, David Leyonhjelm.

During the 1980 US Presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan asked the (rhetorical) question: “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?” Here is a question for Australians. Is Australian government better than it was 30 years ago? Given the doubling of taxing and spending, are services better? Is Australia safer? Are we healthier or smarter?

Perhaps Churchill was only half right. A nation can’t tax itself into prosperity, but Australia is trying to tax itself into welfare and disability.

Dimitri Burshtein

Dimitri Burshtein is a Principal at Eminency Advisory and a former government policy analyst. He is a contributor to The Australian newspaper, Spectator Australia magazine and various libertarian blogs. Dimitri has also appeared on SkyNews and 2GB radio.

The Immorality of Medicare

By

Lionel Orellana

-

24 May 2023

0

In May of 1973, a year before the first incarnation of Medicare became law, the Australian Medical Association sent a letter to its members warning about the dangers of socialised medicine. They were concerned about the “interference by governments in the relationship between doctor and patient“[1] and highlighted key freedoms that they said should be protected:

No barrier separating the patient from free choice of specialist or hospital.
Minimum intrusion between doctor and patient by governments.
Freedom and opportunity to practise on a fee-for service basis without threat of coercion or compulsion.
Freedom to provide a personal service based on personal responsibility within a system based on quality rather than quantity.

They were concerned about the
“interference by governments in the relationship between doctor and patient“

The AMA abandoned these goals long ago and now merely lobbies Governments for favours. But 50 years later, their worst fears have become a reality: an impossible melee of item numbers, rules and coercion stands between Australians and their doctors.

Consider the case of Dr. Andre Leong in WA. Dr. Leong was harassed for billing a series of item numbers more frequently than other GPs. His training and experience (including leading a medical team in Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami) prepared him for performing operations that most GPs do not. Other doctors frequently referred patients to him to perform these procedures. He stood out and was subjected to lengthy audits and investigations until ultimately forced to stop billing these items. He retired altogether shortly after. There is overwhelming community support for him online.

Dr Andrew Leong. Audited and then forced to stop practising particular medicine in which he had expertise.

47% of GPs report they either avoid providing certain services or claiming certain rebates due to Medicare compliance fears, while 61% report that the complexity of Medicare is something that worries them outside their workday. [2] Many choose to under-bill, fearful of compliance action, claiming 20-minute consultations despite spending up to 45 minutes with a patient. This pressure on doctors to quickly finalise a consultation is a common experience for patients.

Some doctors are fed up: ‘We have had enough of the coercive control, of the abusive relationship that is Medicare’[3], they protest. To add insult to injury, doctors are constantly accused of rorting The System. It is no surprise there is a shortage of GPs.

The situation with mental health is even more depressing. The number of hoops you have to jump through, and the fight you have to put up, can make anyone give up and surrender to their daemons. In a way it is reassuring when you realise that GPs, psychologists, psychiatrists, and nutritionists are all as confused and perplexed by The System as you are. I once spent 3 hours on the phone with Medicare, explaining to them the difference between related mental health items, the corresponding mental health plans, and the review process of these plans. All to convince them to pay me the refunds they were supposed to. It is absurd, demoralising and abusive.

It ought to be so simple. You go to a doctor (of which there would be many more), you pay, you receive the care that is right for you, and you form lasting relationships with your healthcare providers. No man in the middle setting arbitrary barriers and obstacles.

If we really are an egalitarian society that genuinely cares for the less fortunate, why would anyone think that without the Government we would just leave people to die on the streets? Despite losing half their income to the different levels of Government[4], Australians still donate generously to charity.

Not-for-profit organisations like the Little Company of Mary, which run the Calvary Hospitals, demonstrate society’s responsible concern. But like all monopolistic predators, Governments react to competition by trying to shut it down. That is the case with the Calvary Hospital in Canberra, now subject to a hostile takeover by the ACT Government. What then is the opportunity cost of this socialised experiment? How many foundations have not been created, how many research labs, how many hospitals?

And yet, calls to protect “our health system” are made repeatedly with a quasi-religious fervour. Protecting The System takes precedence over any individual’s best interest. It is the main reason why, for example, bringing your parents from overseas to live in Australia can cost up to $70k. Their old age is too big a threat to The System. The (involuntary) contributions you have made to fund it matter very little.

The overriding of your individual best interest by a collective abstraction which the Government claims to represent was in full display during the pandemic years.

It is clear that protecting The System is more important than going to see your dying mother, your job, your business, your wedding, your graduation, your first big gig; anything meaningful in your life can and will be sacrificed on the altar of the collective good.

Medicare, the crown jewel of Australia’s universal healthcare system, is an immoral, ruthless, conniving partner that manipulates Australians into paying for and celebrating their own abuse.

Please support the Calvary Hospital at www.savecalvary.com.au.

[1] https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110709423?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FC%2Ftitle%2F11%2F1973%2F05%2F14%2Fpage%2F12209327%2Farticle%2F110709423

[2] https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/racgp/health-of-the-nation-investment-needed-to-secure-t

[3] https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/a-kick-in-the-guts-frontline-gps-respond-to-medica

[4] https://www.taxpayers.org.au/submissions/the-cost-of-tax-finding-the-total-tax-burden-for-a-resident-of-victoria-australia

Lionel Orellana

Lionel is an IT engineer with more than 20 years’ experience developing enterprise applications in the private and public sectors. He completed his computer science degree in Venezuela in 2001. Then in 2002, Lionel moved to Australia after obtaining an international internship in Canberra. He became an Australian citizen in 2008.

I’ve got a little list

Resisting centralist power – Part 3

No Headspace Evidence

Childcare – Why should you pay for it?

The Myth of Speed

Health, Aged Care, Medicare & Disability Support

Raw Deal

Broken Systems and the Deteriorating Psyche of Our Nation.

Too Much Government

Pro-Natalist Policies – The Jury is Out

No, Men are not OK

The Everyday Libertarian

25 Provocative Predictions For 2024 From The World’s #1 Political Observer

E-Scooters: A Two Wheeled Burden?

Severe Injuries, Lack of Helmets

Economic Burden

Solution

Go Where You Are Treated Best

Polite Inquiries

The Farce of NZ Ministry of Health Data Leak

Dealing With A Number of Organisations Concerning These Data For More Than A Year.

The Covid Precursor Everybody Ignored

You May Be Shocked To Learn This

Death, Taxes and … Death Taxes?

Retaining The Bargaining Chip of Indemnities For Vaccine Companies

Taxing The Country Into Welfare And Disability

The Immorality of Medicare

EVEN MORE NEWS

Why We Must Defend the Right to Protest Outside Places of...

The Reckoning is Coming

Under-16 Ban – Protecting Kids or Power?

POPULAR CATEGORY