Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Monday, November 25, 2024
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 11

    A Serving of Humble Pie, Minister?

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    6

    Arrogant and egotistical are the two words most equated with politicians.

    Australians who voted NO to enshrine race into our Constitution will no doubt confirm the veracity of these two terms now that some states have declared they intend to legislate it anyway.

    Despite the overwhelming NO vote, state politicians, through their arrogance and egos, are ignoring that majority by either pushing on, in the case of South Australia and Western Australia, or begrudgingly backing down for now while continuing to make excuses as to why it is needed.

    The question must be asked by every citizen who values their democratic rights and the rights of their fellows: how is this democracy at work?

    The focus here is not on pros and cons of the issue, nor the referendum result. Rather, it is to highlight the blatant disrespect of the citizenry by those who are elected to represent them – the “pollies,” to use Australian vernacular.

    It would be helpful, to say the least, if aspiring politicians would read his story in the hope that our societies would benefit from more humility and less hubris.

    Is it power they cannot resist? Or do they truly believe they know best?

    Undoubtedly, it is a combination of both. And it is as old as time. Most of them are caught up eventually in the net of hubris. As Plato wrote over two millennium ago, that “under tyranny of the master passion, a man becomes in his waking life what he was once only occasionally in his dreams.”

    Plato learned from his teacher, Socrates, considered to be the wisest man in history despite him declaring he knew nothing.

    Socrates was condemned to death on the charge of leading the youth astray by encouraging them to continually ask questions of everything. Here we are, 2400 years later, and the modern West is on the verge of censoring their citizens from forming their own opinions via strict misinformation laws. Not much has changed really. But I digress.

    The Death of Socrates

    Plato presents Socrates’ account leading up to his death in Apology. The God of Delphi declared that there was no man wiser than Socrates. In his defence to his accusers, he urged them to listen carefully to his account, as I likewise urge you to read it closely:

    ‘After long consideration, I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, “Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.” Accordingly, I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him—his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So, I left him, saying to myself as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know.’

    It would be helpful, to say the least, if aspiring politicians would read his story in the hope that our societies would benefit from more humility and less hubris. Then perhaps they, with the wisdom of Socrates, would look with eyes wide open at the upcoming Misinformation Bill that is slated to rob Australians of their right to think and speak as free people.

    Sure, we won’t be put to death by hemlock poisoning; but to censor what we as free people have to say and be threatened with jail terms should we resist the edict by what James Hol describes as the “Cult of Authority” is not acceptable in a modern democracy.

    It is very concerning when a Minister of the Crown fronts the media to say that “there are no lessons to be learned from the Voice referendum.” The Queensland Minister for Housing, Meaghan Scanlon, made this statement on 16 October. A few days later, the Queensland government announced it would not proceed with the legislation due to the Opposition withdrawing support. But the political indifference by politicians of people’s views is indisputable.

    It is past time for politicians of all persuasions to sit down to a very big serving of Humble Pie.

    Perhaps the Minister considers that in her very young life she has learned all there is to learn in this world. Socrates died 2400 years ago, yet his words still resonate for those who have ears to hear and the will to listen.

    Two millennium must count for something – wisdom via endurance.

    The most infamous of prideful kings of ancient Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus – Tarquin the Proud. Superbus is the Latin term for a proud man. So, in ancient Roman terms, Ms Scanlon would be referred to as Superba, the “ba” representing the feminine, compared to “bus” representing the masculine.

    It is past time for politicians of all persuasions to sit down to a very big serving of Humble Pie.

    Is Australia Becoming Untenable?

    By
    James Hol
    -
    3

    How does a country go from being highly investible to completely uninvestible? In many cases this seemingly happens overnight.

    Prior to the Chávez administration, Venezuela was a highly investible country, with an economy that was the envy of their South American counterparts. Now, thanks to an unstable socialist government and unexpected legislative changes, no prudent investor would put their money anywhere near Venezuela. In finance, this concept is known as legislative risk.

    AUSTRALIA: LEGISLATIVE RISK-OFF

    In Australia, we have always prided ourselves on an economy that punches well above our geopolitical weight. Despite being a small and distant country, we have adopted a favourable attitude towards foreign investment and maintained an active foreign exchange market with minimal capital controls. This has earned Australia AAA credit ratings and favourable dispositions from international bodies and foreign investors – as well as local investors.

    Simply put, legislative risk means we all must consider whether Australia is stable enough to be worth investing in – and not just financially.

    However, I cannot help the feeling that things are starting to change. During Covid, it did not take long for Australia to revert to its isolationist ways. By slamming our borders shut and keeping them shut well beyond many other countries, we began destroying our service and education industries – Australia’s biggest exports outside of the mining industry. While tourists and students are slowly returning to our shores, other legislative risks are beginning to present themselves.

    Tourists are slowly returning

    LEGISLATIVE RISK BEYOND COVID

    It is not just me that feels this way. Recently Binance, the biggest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, halted Australian-dollar deposits and withdrawals. It is evident their currency partner was simply unwilling to take on the growing risk of overburdening regulation in Australia’s financial sector. While Binance has assured Australian clients that Australian-dollar deposits and withdrawals will resume when they find a new partner, several months on they are all still searching. Is no one in the crypto space willing to touch Australia?

    The danger of unexpected legislative change is a concept West Australian farmers are all too familiar with. While the WA Labor Government has backed down from requiring farmers and regional landholders to consult with indigenous communities regarding any changes they wish to make to their land or farming practices, more subversive versions of this legislation are on their way. Had the Voice to Parliament become a reality, this may have been something we all have to learn – and it may well still be via state and territory legislation.

    Australian firearms owners and shooters have experienced legislative risk for decades, even if they were not aware of the term.

    WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN

    Simply put, legislative risk means we all must consider whether Australia is stable enough to be worth investing in – and not just financially.

    Is it worth pursuing higher education if the job you are studying for might be regulated out of existence?

    … other legislative risks are beginning to present themselves.

    Is it worth buying property in Australia, whether you’re a buying your first home or you’re a foreign investor, if you are not sure how long it’s going to be before you’re paying indigenous rent?

    Is it worth starting an alternative media platform if you are not sure how long it will take until you are shut down and fined by the Ministry of Truth?

    These are just some of the questions we all must ask ourselves before we start a business, pursue a degree or start a family in Australia. They are certainly questions I find myself asking more and more frequently.

    No Laffing Matter

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    3

    An Australian was on holidays in the south of France.

    Strolling along outside his hotel, the Aussie was suddenly attracted by the screams of a young woman kneeling in front of a small child.

    The Aussie knew enough French to determine that the child had swallowed a coin.

    Seizing the little boy by the heels, the Aussie held the boy up and gave him a few good shakes and out popped the coin.

    “Oh, thank you sir, thank you,” cried the woman.

    “You seemed to know just how to get that coin out of him, are you a doctor?”

    “No madam,” replied the man, “I’m with the Australian Tax Office.”

    In my last post, Prison Break, I spoke of rights and responsibilities.

    … when taxation rates are reduced revenues do not fall.

    Regulations that prevent people from working under terms and conditions which suited them, was, I said, an infringement on liberty, freedom and dignity. It violated a person’s right to get a job and their responsibility to provide for their families.

    I will now add a further hazard – it prevents them from paying tax to cover the many services the state provides to that person.

    Rights … responsibilities … and tax. They are all linked.

    Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Finance Minister to King Louis XIV of France, famously declared that “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

    A modern finance minister might rephrase this as, “The largest possible amount of revenue with the smallest possible amount of economic and political damage.”

    Which brings me to a man called Arthur Laffer.

    I had the privilege of meeting the famous US economist in Parliament House in 2015. Dr Laffer was in Australia on a speaking tour.

    Arthur Laffer is of course most famous for his Laffer Curve.

    It is self-evident that tax revenue would be zero if tax rates are set at 0% (bottom left corner of the graph).

    Revenue would also, of course, be zero if rates were set at 100% (bottom right corner).

    Starting at 0%, as tax rates rise, revenue also rises until at some point on the graph it starts decreasing as it heads towards that 100% point.

    Eminent Australian and UK economist Colin Clark once said economic growth declines if taxation is more than 25 per cent of GDP.

    It’s also been said, “When the taxes of a nation exceed 20% of the people’s income, there is a lack of respect of government. When it exceeds 25%, lawlessness.” 

    In Australia it is close to 30%.

    Take one example of this lawlessness – the cash economy, currently estimated at 15 percent of GDP, one of the largest in the developed world. An underground economy of that magnitude requires the involvement not only of a lot of businesses, but also of millions of consumers.

    As we know, laws only work when people believe in them and clearly, they have no respect for our tax laws.

    It’s also been said, “When the taxes of a nation exceed 20% of the people’s income, there is a lack of respect of government. When it exceeds 25%, lawlessness.” In Australia it is close to 30%.

    Despite what many advocating tax increases would have us believe, the total tax take in Australia is quite high. They say that compared with other developed economies, Australia is a low tax country, and that workers and companies could comfortably pay more. Not so.

    When it comes to taxing incomes, Australia is up there with the Europeans and is way ahead of most of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region.

    A paper published by the Adam Smith Institute stated, “If you look at the experience of those who have introduced a single-rate flat tax, and also the tax reforms of the 1980s which took place in Britain and America, reducing tax rates causes revenues to rise.”

    As Arthur Laffer showed, and as has been demonstrated many times, when taxation rates are reduced revenues do not fall. When the Australian company tax rate was cut from 39 to 30 percent, revenues went up, not down. The famous Reagan tax cuts from 70% to 30% in the 1980s produced a $9 billion increase in revenue when a $1 billion shortfall had been forecast.

    When Sweden halved its company tax rate from 60 per cent to 30 per cent, company tax revenue tripled.

    Nobody enjoys paying taxes, but in the 1950s and 1960s relatively low taxation and a comparatively simple set of tax rules meant that most people paid what was due without too much complaint.

    Today, however, the Government and the ATO find themselves locked into a destructive relationship of repression and resistance with ordinary taxpayers.

    Where people can avoid tax by exploiting loopholes, they will do so; where they can’t eg PAYG taxpayers, they become resentful at the unfairness of it all.

    Full House?

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    As Australia grapples with a crisis of housing supply and affordability, the ‘M’ word is rapidly re-entering the lexicon, this time from both the conservatives and progressives. Yet I can’t help but wonder whether and how much Australia’s current levels of migration influences issues such as housing affordability. I believe this is a red herring that has allowed proper scrutiny of resource allocation within Australia to be lazily sidestepped. 

    Everyone – from economists to politicians and everyday Australians – loves simple solutions to complex problems. The so-called ‘housing crisis’ is no different, and this time the primary culprit appears to be immigration. In the midst of skyrocketing costs and severe shortages of materials, new housing construction is far from meeting growing housing demand. 

    Not only do we have an unrealistic image of what type of dwelling or location we need to live in, but both taxes and regulation act as a disincentive to the type of nimbleness that a housing ‘crisis’ demands.

    The affordability of houses and land has long been an economic challenge in Australia and, as Bob Day pointed out, vested interests tend to keep it that way. High house prices are politically popular given many Australians own their homes, but they also form the backbone of state budgets through inflated stamp duty and land taxes. 

    There is another angle here too – Jobs and Skills Australia reported last month that a whopping 36% of occupations in Australia are experiencing a worker shortage. An economic vacuum exists that can only be filled in the short term by migration – yet apparently there is nowhere to house them. 

    Or is there? 

    Let’s take a look at a couple of graphs …

    What this shows is that the most common type of dwellings in Australia have three or four bedrooms, yet the most common household sizes are single or two occupants. There is also a trend towards rates of single and two person households that has slightly accelerated in recent years. Do we have a ‘housing crisis’? Or do we have a ‘misallocation of housing crisis’? 

    It sounded callous and out of touch when ex RBA Governor Phillip Lowe told Australians to rent out an extra room or move in with mum and dad if cost-of-living was beginning to bite. But perhaps he was right. Maybe it’s not a case of Australia lacking the space for migrants, but that we lack the capacity to house each single or two-person household independently in their own dwellings.  An attitude shift might be necessary.  

    This is highlighted by the fact that migrants on the whole – particularly the international students who anti-immigration economists have in their sights – are in fact adapting to the housing crisis much better than existing citizens. Housing researcher Dr Zahra Nasreen found that the majority of Sydney’s shared house accommodation was filled by international students and other migrants, along with young professionals. 

    Along with the drip-feeding of land supply, which artificially inflates prices, the difficulties in construction, the regulatory burden that stifles higher density infill, and the migration program, misallocation is a substantial contributor to our housing shortage. 

    Do we have a ‘housing crisis’? Or do we have a ‘misallocation of housing crisis’? 

    A major reason for this is stamp duty, which is an insidious block on housing mobility – punishing home-owners financially for up-sizing, down-sizing, or moving closer to employment opportunities. If we are to utilise our existing and future housing stock to its fullest capacity, we must abandon this tax. 

    Another reason is that family homes are not taken into account when assessing eligibility for welfare payments such as aged and disability pensions. This creates an incentive to remain in homes that, if sold for something smaller, would create surplus funds and threaten eligibility.

    So far governments around Australia, particularly in Victoria, have simply targeted landlords, holiday home owners, short stay accommodation providers and empty land owners with new taxes and regulations. It is about time we had a serious conversation not only about how to increase our housing supply but how to maximise use our existing stock. 

    Not only do we have an unrealistic image of what type of dwelling or location we need to live in, but both taxes and regulation act as a disincentive to the type of nimbleness that a housing ‘crisis’ demands. Before we as libertarians abandon important principles such as freedom of movement and succumb to the allure of protectionism, we ought to ensure migration really is the problem they say it is.     

    Live Sheep Export: Labor’s Sacrificial Lamb

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    1

    The Albanese government manufactures political support using sacrificial lambs. One lamb lined up for sacrifice is the live sheep export industry. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website currently states that “The Australian Government has committed to phasing out live sheep exports from Australia by sea”.

    Labor demurred when questioned pre-election, but the WA Labor platform clearly articulates the party’s position: “WA Labor recognises that there are strong economic, jobs and animal welfare reasons for transitioning from the live export trade to domestic processing of animals for local consumption and the chilled and frozen meat trade.”

    Farmers Forced to Cull

    Due to the La Niña system of the past three years, Australia has an excess of approximately 640,000 sheep. The incoming El Niño weather system will bring warm dry conditions, impeding feed growth. A recent report by Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences states that Australia’s agricultural sector will shrink by 14% in 2023-24. Simultaneously, Labor is pushing ahead with its live sheep export ban plan.

    Both have contributed to the mutton price dropping from $100 per head in January 2023 to a devastating $1 per head over the last couple of months.

    The government has played the live sheep export industry for a fool.

    Trucking sheep to sales yards is particularly expensive currently, and there have been cases of unsold sheep returned to the farm at the producer’s expense.

    In the face of this terrible confluence of factors, some farmers have been forced to shoot their sheep. A heartbreaking waste of life, work and resources.

    World-class Sheep Welfare

    Australia’s live sheep export is conducted by two exporters based in Western Australia. Sheep are sourced from across the state. An entire industry supports the complex logistics involved in this supply chain.

    Throughout the live export process, sheep welfare is subject to rigorous oversight. Of over 100 countries that export livestock, Australia is the only one requiring adherence to specific animal welfare regulations for exported livestock, including after arrival in the importing country. These regulations include:

    • Farmgate to the ship: Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock 2021; and
    • Importing countries: Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) 2011.

    On board the ships, sheep are accompanied by an Australian-accredited veterinarian. Vets complete three rounds of the decks per day. In addition to this, sheep are inspected before, during and after their journey by additional accredited animal health professionals. To ensure exporters are compliant with Australian welfare guidelines, each part of the supply chain across Australia and importing countries are also audited by independent, qualified entities at least once a year. Auditors review:

    • Animal handlers and their techniques; and
    • Facilities: ports, transport vehicles, feedlots, abattoirs.

    Treacherous Memo

    Known for its world-class standards, Australia raises robust and sought-after sheep. For multiple reasons, both cultural and economic, the countries in the Middle East prefer live export over chilled meat.

    Formerly, Saudi Arabia was Australia’s prime sheep market, reaching one million sheep annually until trade ceased in 2012 due to that country rejecting Australia being involved in welfare once the sheep have arrived. Efforts have been underway to reopen live sheep exports to Saudi Arabia, compliant with Australian standards, through a revised health protocol. This would significantly boost the Australian sheep industry and potentially more than double current exports.

    The Federal government states that access to the Saudi market is open, subject to meeting Australian requirements and ESCAS regulations. However, this statement is in direct contradiction to its own actions. Documents obtained via freedom of information state that bureaucrats advised Agriculture Minister Murray Watt in a department memo in January of 2023 that they were ending negotiations with foreign governments regarding new live export agreements.

    Australia’s agricultural sector will shrink by 14% in 2023-24. Simultaneously, Labor is pushing ahead with its live sheep export ban plan.

    This was months prior to Watt deploying his panel to consult on phasing out live export. The Department announced this in spite of interest in live sheep export agreements from multiple countries including Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Kuwait. The government has played the live sheep export industry for a fool.

    Kuwait has indicated it regards Australia’s live export ban policy as hostile. Kuwait’s Commerce and Industry Minister, Mohammad Othman Al Aiban wrote to Minister Watt stating the ban will imperil relations between Australia and importing countries.

    Farmers

    On the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website, the government assures us that, “The phase out will not take place during this current term of the Australian Parliament.” This attempt at reassurance rings hollow, considering the department’s memo on ceasing negotiations.

    The treacherous actions of the Department, and lack of a specific timetable, means that farmers have no way of planning for the future. Agriculture carries a high level of unpredictable risk, including droughts, floods and bushfires. The Labor government has heaped an unnecessary burden of risk and uncertainty on the industry.

    Labor’s duplicitous blundering will potentially deliver catastrophic consequences for the entire industry. As we have seen so often, government intervention in trade leads to tears.

    A Chinese Australian’s Voice: NO

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    1

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

    In Upholding the Principle of Anti-Racism

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

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

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

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

    In Respecting the Gravitas of the Constitution

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

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

    In Understanding the Core of the Voice

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

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

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

    Simply Put, I Don’t Give A F*ck

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

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

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

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

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

    What Happens After Saturday?

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    3
    hf

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

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

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

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

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

    Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese

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

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

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

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

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

    Ethno-separatist ideology at odds with liberal democracy

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

    Gary Johns is Principal of CloseTheGapResearch.org.au

    Victoria: The Nanny State

    By
    Caroline White
    -
    0

    *** Publisher’s Note: this article was written before the resignation of Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews ***

    Victoria is a Nanny State on steroids. Dan Andrews’ Labor government’s shenanigans are impossible to avoid, beginning every morning when you get in the car to drive to work. It’s like living in a video game that you have no chance of winning, that purely serves their purpose of keeping us supposedly “safe” within the uncompromising confines of their matrix.

    The biggest gripe I have at the moment is hidden speed cameras, particularly when they are on vehicles parked illegally (and dangerously – oh the irony). Apparently, I’m not the only one: last year three traffic camera cars were attacked within a 10-day time frame. Having recently received a fine for the victimless crime of travelling a whole 3km/hr over the speed limit, it’s only human nature to imagine the satisfaction felt from smashing those windows in.

    The Victorian Police assistant commissioner claimed the actions were “cowardly” and “really, really harmful to the broader road safety program”. In reality, the statistics suggest quite the opposite and that the attacks could possibly be justified as saving lives.

    Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.

    Over the border, when the New South Wales government removed the pre-warning signs for their camera cars during the pandemic, it doubled the revenue for the State. However, the death toll also increased tragically by 21. It is abundantly clear that hidden speed cameras have absolutely nothing to do with our safety and everything to do with government control through revenue raising that disproportionately punishes low-income earners.

    So, while no-one could argue that the attacks on these cars align with the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP), US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.

    Barry Goldwater, philosophical libertarian

    The New South Wales community took a different approach, responding peacefully by pushing back against the government. The public backlash forced pre-warning signs to be reintroduced.

    The contrast with Victorians became particularly apparent during Covid, when a certain percentage of our population seem to blindly trust what they are told by authority without question, making life extremely difficult for the rest of us.

    There’s an unhealthy dependency on the State here, as if a section of the population feels they’re incapable of making informed, adult decisions for their own health and safety and the health and safety of others around them because the government knows best and of course always has our best intentions at heart.

    They’ve been made to fear their neighbour; they no longer believe that the majority of people are good and can be trusted to do the right thing, and do not realise that those who disagree cannot be deterred by a traffic camera and the threat of jail or a fine. They’ve also been made to fear death, the only certainty besides paying taxes. I’m unsure at what point Victorians felt the need to wrap themselves in cotton wool.

    Hidden speed cameras are only one problem in an assortment of issues Victorian motorists have to contend with on a daily basis though. The number of speed humps and 40k zones in Melbourne makes me wonder whether there is any point having tarmac on the roads, because we might as well go back to travelling by horse and cart. Perhaps this reflects the real agenda, and why the government is making motor vehicle travel a warzone for commuters. My local council is currently pushing for bike riding to replace cars, an idealistic viewpoint to the single, soy latte sipping Labor and Greens affiliated councillors, but completely unrealistic and unattainable to a mother and small business owner like me and the majority of our community.

    Then there’s the issue of the surveillance state where new and highly invasive cameras are now catching people on their phones, or not wearing a seatbelt at a stop light. Ladies, don’t forget to wear undies under your skirt, because these intrusive cameras can even detect what you ate for breakfast.

    US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.

    There are licence plate recognition cameras on nearly every corner, ready at any second for our local “governments” to spring the 20-minute SMART cities nightmare on us. A similar concept to the 5k travel radius during Covid, except instead of being sold to the masses as a saving-granny exercise, we’ll be told we’re saving the planet from its impending doom.

    Trialled in the UK, locals insisted that they actually made congestion in the city worse. People responded by removing bollards at the 15-minute borders or concreting them in, destroying the cameras and refusing to pay the fines. Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.

    Death, Taxes and … Death Taxes?

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    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?   

    The Murray Darling Basin Plan Nonsense

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Riverland crops rely on irrigation from the Murrary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1...101112...16Page 11 of 16
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv