Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Monday, November 25, 2024
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 12

    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.

    Anti-Nuclear Policy Is A Tax On The Poor

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    1

    Some Facts

    In 2022, the Brotherhood of St Laurence released “Power pain: An Investigation of Energy Stress in Australia”. It found:

    •  2006 to 2020: Approximately 20% of Australian households experienced energy stress.
    • Energy stress is much higher in specific groups such as people with a chronic health issue or disability, renters, low-income workers and people on unemployment benefits
    • In the lowest 20% income group, energy stress increased up to 8 percentage points, from 40% in 2008 to 48%, in 2017.

    A study by the OECD in 2019 titled “Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle Class”, found:

    • 40% of Australia’s middle class are at financial risk.
    • Australia’s proportion of lower and poor households is higher than OECD average.

    Day-ahead energy prices set records in Germany. Between June and August, next-year electricity rates doubled.

    Australian energy prices have increased frequently over the past few years, outpacing inflation since the mid-2000s. Despite that, the middle class fears nuclear energy more than becoming poor. This apprehension is misplaced.

    Due to uranium’s phenomenal energy density, nuclear energy provides unrivalled price affordability. A ton of coal is required to produce an equal amount of power to a gummy-bear-sized pellet of uranium.

    Nuclear has the potential to alleviate financial burdens on the poor and struggling. Decreases in energy prices lead to lower prices on all goods and services.

    Germany – A Cautionary Tale

    In 2022, Germany’s government doubled-down on higher targets for the country’s Renewable Energy Act (EEG).

    Renewable electricity generation in Germany increased by ~9% in 2022 compared to the previous year, reaching 256 terawatt hours (TWh), short of the 269 TWh target set by EEG.

    Germany’s goal is 80% electricity from renewables by 2030. This requires an annual volume of approximately 600 TWh. To achieve this, they will need to double green electricity generation in eight years.

    In 2022, this aspiration crashed headlong into the German energy crisis, a result of low output from wind and hydro and closing down nuclear power stations. Germany also bore consequences of sanctions levelled by both sides of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 

    Record-breaking increases in energy prices drove inflation across Europe. Day-ahead energy prices set records in Germany. Between June and August, next-year electricity rates doubled.

    Originally aiming to phase out coal by 2030, the country’s energy crisis urgently necessitated ramping up coal power generation. Previously closed coal plants were brought back online. Shutdown of lignite and hard coal power plants was postponed until March 2024.

    German power output still lagged.

    While the energy crisis rolled on, Germany closed its last three nuclear plants in April 2023. Germany’s nuclear era spanned 6 decades, without incident.

    From 2023 onwards, Germany is expected to be a net importer of electricity from France, due to Germany’s increased reliance on renewable energy and France’s improved nuclear power availability.

    Finland – A Powerful Lesson

    Finland has the highest per capita energy consumption in the European Union; double the EU average in 2021. This is attributed to energy-intensive industries, a high standard of living, the cold climate and relatively large territory resulting in long distances travelled.

    However, there are no fossil fuels. The energy industry has kept pace with consumption by utilising nuclear power. Nuclear has ensured energy efficiency, reliability and affordability.

    A ton of coal is required to produce an equal amount of power to a gummy-bear-sized pellet of uranium.

    Finland’s reactors are highly efficient, being some of the most productive on Earth. With an average lifetime capacity factor of over 90%, Finnish reactors have been upgraded significantly since construction. Olkiluoto 1 & 2 have undergone substantial upgrades, with plans to further increase their capacity.

    In April 2023, the newest reactor Olkiluoto 3 was brought online. At 1600 megawatts capacity, it is the largest reactor in Europe. This single reactor produces 15% of Finland’s electricity. The three reactors at Olkiluoto now produce approximately 30% of Finland’s electricity.

    Olkiluoto 3. This single reactor produces 15% of Finland’s electricity.

    When Olkiluoto 3 came online, Finland’s electricity prices immediately fell by a staggering 75%. Jukka Ruusunen, CEO of Finnish grid operator Fingrid, said “We have more stability in the system because of Olkiluoto 3. It’s a giant nuclear reactor, one of the largest on earth, connected to a small system (Finland’s power grid).”

    Australia

    Interest in nuclear energy is fast-gaining political support in Australia. The Liberal Democrats / Libertarian Party and the Coalition have voiced support for an immediate repeal of Australia’s outdated moratorium on nuclear energy.

    The World Nuclear Association stated “Australia has a significant infrastructure to support any future nuclear power program.”

    Olympic Dam, South Australia

    Australia has the most uranium of any country, totaling 28% of the earth’s ore. Olympic Dam in South Australia is the largest known single deposit of uranium in the world.

    Conclusion

    When unencumbered by government and its meddling red tape, the free market will determine the energy source which is safest, most reliable and can be readily provided at the lowest price. In May 2023, across the globe, there were 410 operable nuclear power reactors, 59 reactors under construction, 100 reactors planned and 325 reactors proposed. It is time for the Australian market to embrace nuclear energy.

    5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 3)

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    6

    “We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice.”
    F.A. Hayek

    Let’s recap.

    In 5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 1), I addressed Duncan’s self-described ‘indifference’ to the Voice as an issue and that the ‘Yes’ case really acquiesces to systemic racism.

    This is:

    • Blind-Spot #1: Systemic Racism

    In 5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments’ (Part 2), I then tackled his leading two arguments, exposing the flaws in each:

    • Blind-Spot #2: Can’t Get Much Worse
    • Blind-Spot #3: Concede or Else

    This is the third and final instalment, in which I’ll conclude with two more blind-spots which, I suggest, no libertarian would accept:

    • Blind-Spot #4: Bureaucratic Expansion
    • Blind-Spot #5: Government Is Harmless.

    *****

    BLIND-SPOT #4: BUREAUCRATIC EXPANSION

    If the former Senator had diverted us from the libertarian freeway by this point, he next drives us into a philosophical traffic-jam with “The passing of the referendum would require the indigenous bureaucracy to be reshaped, and would likely increase it in the short term.”

    Not likely. Definitely. Not short-term. Long-term.

    Consider the half century bureaucratic history just on this issue alone:

    1967 – Council of Aboriginal Affairs

    1972 – National Aboriginal Consultative Committee

    1973 – Department of Aboriginal Affairs

    1977 – National Aboriginal Conference

    1981 – Aboriginal Development Committee

    1988 – Mabo (No. 2)

    1990 – ATSIC

    1991 – Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation

    1992 – Wik case

    1993 – Native Title Act

    He’d have you believe a politically-charged, constitutionally-enshrined Voice would be ignored

    1995 – National Inquiry into the Separation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Children

    1999 – Preamble Referendum

    2006 – Reconciliation Action Plan

    2008 – National Apology to Stolen Generation

    2010 – National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, Expert Panel on Constitutional Reconciliation

    2012 – Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Island People

    2013 – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island People Recognition Act

    2014 – Act of Recognition Review Panel

    2015 – Referendum Council

    2017 – Uluru Statement From The Heart calling for Voice, Treaty and Reparations

    2023 – Voice Referendum

    It’s a novel argument. I’ve never heard of a libertarian accepting an increase in the size of bureaucracy, short or long term.

    My simple fig farmer mind is more attracted to the libertarian satirist, P.J. O’Rourke, who wrote:

    Libertarian satirist, P.J. O’Rourke

    “The growth of government is like the spread of a dense jungle, and the average citizen can hack through less of it every year.”

    I’m still grappling with NDIS budgets growing from $4 billion in 2016 to $49 billion in 2023. I’m imagining that’s what the Voice will be, plus of course the $450 million just to run this Referendum!

    Further, what the former Senator dismisses as a ‘slippery slope’ argument in the next step to Aboriginal treaties is a stated ambition in the Uluru Statement From The Heart.

    I suspect he believes No campers are jumping at conspiracy shadows. You know, if our opponents write a 26-page mission statement called the Uluru Statement and conduct national roadshows talking about their plans for treaties, I listen.

    “Treaty” very clearly on the agenda. However, treaties are between countries. Yes camp separatists?

    And, ignoring this, if we do have a Voice, what would the logical argument from the former Senator be then: ‘They’re jumping at conspiracy shadows with reparations. Vote ‘yes’ to treaties.’

    Step by methodical step, we move in the wrong direction towards an expanding bureaucracy.

    *****

    BLIND-SPOT #5: GOVERNMENT IS HARMLESS

    Then there are the worrying one-line snippets which suggest very little by way of libertarian thinking, all downplaying the impact government has. In his language, he implies government is somehow harmless or innocuous.

    In one example, the former Senator says the Voice will have “little bearing on lives of individuals”.

    Then why push it? Libertarians are pro individual. Let’s not push the collective.

    The former Senator blithely continues, “the passing of the referendum would do nothing to reduce the existing ability of anyone to make representations.”

    I’d turn that line back on the good Senator as an argument against the Voice. If the Voice does nothing to reduce existing abilities to make representations, great. Let’s keep that benefit without yet another bureaucratic expansion.

    I’ve never heard of a libertarian accepting an increase in the size of bureaucracy

    He rails against “arguments against a body whose advice needs to be waited for and listened to, when no such body is being proposed”. Oh, it won’t be listened to? Why have it then?

    Further, he’d have you believe a politically-charged, constitutionally-enshrined Voice would be ignored. Come on. Look at the oxygen it’s already sucking from the public square. Look at the money suck over the last 50 years.

    *****

    There are other points to raise, but I suggest this is enough to dispatch the Yes case.

    Five blind-spots in the ‘yes’ camp arguments:

    Let me know in the comments whether you agree or disagree.

    And finally, I want absolutely nothing in my response to the former Senator to suggest disrespect. He is an honourable man. Rather, I began this three-part response quoting John Milton, so I’d like to conclude with what he wrote on the importance of playing the ball not the man:

    “ … to dwell at large upon the arguments, and to insist upon the reasons, and not to insult or domineer”
    John Milton

    5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 2)

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    2

    “The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism.”
    Wole Soyinka

    My inbox was jammed and my phone was ringing all day in response to the debut article It’s Not Our Fight Vote Yes by former Senator Duncan Spender.

    To see what all the controversy is about, read that article first.

    Then read 5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 1). That’s my initial response to the drama in which I identified an indifference towards systemic racism as a flaw from the Yes camp.

    Now, buckle-up, here’s instalment two, in which I confront:

    • Blind-Spot #2: Can’t Get Much Worse
    • Blind-Spot #3: Concede or Else

    Having dealt with the former Senator’s omission regarding systemic racism, next I tackle what he calls his “two half-decent arguments”. In my view, neither pass the smell test.

    BLIND-SPOT #2: CAN’T GET MUCH WORSE

    “Firstly, Aboriginal affairs couldn’t get much worse”, he asserts.

    Really?

    Warren Mundine once said to me that the vast majority of Aborigines live in the suburbs, have a job, are repaying their mortgages, educating their children, and coaching the footy team on the weekends.

    Former ALP National President, Liberal candidate, businessman and leading ‘No’ camp advocate, Warren Mundine

    Who are we to disagree? Sometimes, we political types focus too much on the problems without pausing for a moment to see what’s been achieved.

    Some facts might provide perspective.

    In the last 235 years, Aborigines in general have courageously transitioned from semi-nomadic hunter-gather societies to the Internet Age. Who can deny the seismic advance.

    In 1788, Aborigines spoke at least 250 languages across as many tribes, none of them written. Among today’s Aborigines are highly-literate doctors, barristers, senators, engineers, magistrates, authors and professors communicating in English, a Top 3 language of global penetration and advantage. You can see one shining exemplar here on Liberty Itch.

    In 2005, Aboriginal life expectancy was 67 for males and 72 for females. By 2015 it had advanced to 71 for males and 75 for females.

    In 1788, Aborigines couldn’t possibly comprehend a Westminster-style bi-cameral parliament, executive and judiciary. Today, there are eleven Aborigines in the Federal Parliament alone, an achievement proportionally greater than the entire Aboriginal population, Aborigines are also serving as Ministers in the Government and as judges. 

    In 1788, the records show Aborigines removed fingers to facilitate fishing activities for survival. Today some Aborigines play sport at elite levels, win Olympic Gold medals, with two ranking world #1 in women’s tennis in modern times.

    Evonne Goolagong. World #1. 11 Grand Slam wins.
    Ashleigh Barty. World #1. 4 Grand Slam wins. Olympic bronze.

    In 1788, Aborigines saw only the land they could physically walk. Today, they live and travel worldwide.

    In 1789, Aborigines were particularly susceptible to small pox and other introduced diseases. The earliest journals and official medical records point to tragic, widespread loss of life. However, the last case of smallpox in Australia was 1938. “Couldn’t get much worse” ignores our history.

    In 2005, Aboriginal life expectancy was 67 for males and 72 for females. In 2010, this improved to 69 for males and 73 for females. By 2015 it had advanced to 71 for males and 75 for females. Again, “couldn’t get much worse” is not accurate.

    The former Senator contradicts himself when he simultaneously says “Aboriginal affairs couldn’t get much worse” and then this incendiary, “We should consider ourselves lucky that, in Australia, the descendants of displaced inhabitants aren’t reaching for rockets.” So things could get worse now?

    Both these opposites are hyperbole and run counter to the facts I’ve listed.

    BLIND-SPOT #3: CONCEDE OR ELSE

    The former Senator continues with his leading arguments, “Secondly, saying no would disempower Aboriginal leaders pushing the Voice and empower militant Aboriginal leaders instead. If you say no to Martin Luther King you end up with Malcolm X.”

    My agitated mind is desperately trying to follow the former Senator in shoehorning Marcia Langton’s divisive comments into the soaring rhetoric of Martin Luther King. Maybe he has her in mind for the Voice when he writes “if we instead see the election of some Aboriginal leaders who believe in the individual rather than the collective, it would be worth it.” Forgive my scepticism.

    Today some Aborigines play sport at elite levels, win Olympic Gold medals, with two ranking world #1 in women’s tennis in modern times.

    I just can’t help but feel the former Senator is caving-in to keep the peace like a parent hectored by a naughty child. That only leads to more complaint and grievance.

    Or perhaps it’s driven by fear, like giving protection money lest the mob send in their henchmen to rough things up.

    Concede Czechoslovakia and hope the next claim won’t be Poland.

    No. Never buckle to fear.

    So far, I’ve deal with:

    In the third and final instalment, I’ll tackle two more blind-spots which, I suggest, no libertarian would have:

    • Blind-Spot #4: Bureaucratic Expansion
    • Blind-Spot #5: Government Is Harmless.

    In the meantime, let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

    5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 1)

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    10


    “Where there is much desire to learn,
    there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions;
    for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.“

    John Milton

    Libertarians believe in free speech.

    We do not have to agree with the arguments we hear.

    I therefore defend the publication of former Senator Duncan Spender’s debut article It’s Not Our Fight Vote Yes, and I welcome him to the publication.

    If you haven’t read his piece, you should before reading this response.

    I’ve read and reread his article. I’ve endeavoured to be as open-minded as possible, but he hasn’t convinced me.

    I am firmly in the ‘No’ camp and stand by my 14 Reasons To Vote No In The Voice To Parliament Referendum.

    In this piece and two others, I’m going to do my best to expose five blind-spots in his arguments.

    Today, the big one.

    BLIND-SPOT #1: SYSTEMIC RACISM

    One thing I’ll say in favour of the former Senator’s arguments is that, as a Yes camp advocate, at least he doesn’t slip into the ‘you’re a racist’ slander. Name-calling is never a winning formula when the burden to convince is on your shoulders.

    In fact, he concludes with an undeniable ‘indifference’ – his word. We are offered a kind of reluctant accommodation for race-based activism. For precision, I’ll use his words:

    “While there remains a constitutional power to make laws about race, and while we only specifically legislate about the Aboriginal race, it is reasonable for there to be an explicit constitutional provision about an Aboriginal body making representations to the Parliament and Government.”

    If it has a racial-entry criteria and is being put into our system, it is systemic racism by definition.

    I’m a simple fig farmer from the Adelaide Hills. But I’m left feeling empty at this meatless argument. More nourishing would have been ‘systemic racism is wrong’ and ‘race-based admission criteria to a constitutionally-empowered body is dangerous’.

    Knowing my limitations, I checked with leading libertarian minds. I’m reminded of the great Thomas Sowell who wrote:

    man
    Leading libertarian, Thomas Sowell

    “Racism does not have a good track record. It’s been tried out for a long time and you’d think by now we’d want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.”

    Is it just me or does the prospect of systemic racism under the new management of the Voice’s architects fill us with dread? At the risk of being accused again of ad hominem, these people are animated by collectivist values, whether race-based or communist. And I am no collectivist.

    Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.

    A properly-centred libertarian cannot simply rationalise the Voice as something to accommodate because we have a Race Power. We must say No, and fight to remove the Race Power at the very next opportunity.

    The former Senator either agrees the Voice is a race-based project or not. As I see it, it self-evidently is. If it has a racial-entry criteria and is being put into our system, it is systemic racism by definition. The burden of proof sits with the Yes camp to demonstrate why systemic racism is desirable.

    It is philosophically unmoored to say “this is not a libertarian issue.” Murray Rothbard, no less, wrote:

    Libertarian philosopher, Murray Rothbard

    “Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby an individual is presumed to possess certain characteristics and moral attributes, or defects, solely because he is a member of a particular race or ethnic group.”

    Should we Australian libertarians in 2023 limply concede systemic racism because it is “prudent and gracious”. Or should we listen to Ayn Rand:

    “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”

    Tomorrow, I’ll cover Duncan’s two leading arguments and their defects as I see them, being:

    Until then, I’d love to see your thoughts to this piece in the comments section below.

    It’s Not Our Fight. Vote Yes.

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    11

    I read hundreds of bills when I was advising Senator Leyonhjelm.  

    Some of the bills would significantly alter the size of government or the extent of government interference in the lives of individuals.  For these bills, my advice and the Senator’s decisions were aligned and easy to predict.

    But most bills were not like this.  

    We should consider ourselves lucky that, in Australia, the descendants of displaced inhabitants aren’t reaching for rockets

    Most of the bills wouldn’t make Australia less libertarian or more libertarian.  They represented tinkering with the labyrinthine statute book of a bloated state.  They were fiddles while Rome burned; a re-arranging of deckchairs on the Titanic.

    There were bills to change the composition of agencies that shouldn’t exist, the elements of pointless regulations, and the application process for unwarranted handouts. 

    I still provided advice on these uninspiring, run-of-the-mill bills.  If such a bill might marginally improve the functioning of our dysfunctional bureaucracy, and if it was supported by a smattering of individuals who had to deal with that bureaucracy, I would advise the Senator to vote for the bill.

    I feel much the same way about the Voice referendum, which is why I will be voting yes.

    … if we instead see the election of some Aboriginal leaders who believe in the individual rather than the collective, it would be worth it.

    The Voice referendum isn’t a particularly libertarian issue.   It has little bearing on the extent of government interference in the lives of individuals, or on the size of government.

    A bureaucracy making representations is not an infringement on anyone’s freedom, and the passing of the referendum would do nothing to reduce the existing ability of anyone to make representations.  The Voice is hardly the evil of affirmative action.

    The passing of the referendum would require the indigenous bureaucracy to be reshaped, and would likely increase it in the short term.  But the overall size of Australia’s indigenous bureaucracy, and the bigger issue of indigenous-specific handouts, would remain a question for Australia’s parliaments.  Reducing indigenous-specific bureaucracy and handouts will remain an important task for libertarians, whether the referendum passes or not.

    Some argue against introducing race into our Constitution.  But, unfortunately, race is already in our Constitution.  While there remains a constitutional power to make laws about race, and while we only specifically legislate about the Aboriginal race, it is reasonable for there to be an explicit constitutional provision about an Aboriginal body making representations to the Parliament and Government.  Just as, if we were silly enough to have laws about Dutch Australians, it would be reasonable to be explicit that Dutch Australians can make representations to the Parliament and Government.

    Some argue that the Constitution should remain limited to our major institutions.  But our Constitution already has provisions for minor institutions.  Consider Section 105A, inserted by referendum in 1928, to underpin the now moribund Loans Council.  I suspect that those who wax lyrical over our Constitution have only read bits of it.

    Other arguments against the Voice referendum represent a cavalcade of fallacies.  

    The passing of the referendum would require the indigenous bureaucracy to be reshaped, and would likely increase it in the short term.

    There are straw-men: arguments against a body whose advice needs to be waited for and listened to, when no such body is being proposed.  

    There are slippery slopes: arguments against separate things, like treaties and a different Australia Day, that will be argued for regardless of the referendum result.  

    And there’s ad hominem: arguments against proposers rather than the proposal.

    For me, there are two half-decent arguments in favour of the Voice referendum.  

    Firstly, Aboriginal affairs couldn’t get much worse.  If the Voice delivers more of the same, we haven’t lost anything.  But if we instead see the election of some Aboriginal leaders who believe in the individual rather than the collective, it would be worth it.

    The Voice is hardly the evil of affirmative action.

    Secondly, saying no would disempower Aboriginal leaders pushing the Voice and empower militant Aboriginal leaders instead. If you say no to Martin Luther King you end up with Malcolm X.  We should consider ourselves lucky that, in Australia, the descendants of displaced inhabitants aren’t reaching for rockets, as occurs in other countries.  We should not be so naive to think that such violence is not possible in Australia.

    Despite the popularity of tribalism, not every issue warrants a strong, certain, and unwavering response.  Some issues warrant only weak support or opposition, or even indifference.  This is one such occasion.

    As our libertarian principles are not at play, we should be prudent and gracious, and vote yes – then move on to more consequential matters.

    No Insults, Prime Minister

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    1

    Plato said that under tyranny of the master passion, a man becomes in his waking life what he was once only occasionally in his dreams.

    In his victory speech of 21 May 2022, Anthony Albanese declared to the Australian people that the government he leads “will respect every one of you every day.”

    One year later the insults began to fly.

    Those opposed to the upcoming referendum on the Voice have been referred to as conspiracy theorists, radicals, and racists.

    Perhaps the most vexatious comments were made in a speech given at the Lowitja O’Donoghue Oration on 29 May 2023 where he referred to opponents as “Chicken Littles of the past,” a comment which he later doubled down on in a radio interview with Nova FM on 30 May 2023, declaring the need to “be straight with people.”

    I confess to being confused. Was he being straight with people when he told them he would respect every single Australian on the night he won the federal election? Or is he being straight with people when he ridicules those who oppose his edicts on the Voice?

    He cannot have it both ways. Or can he?

    Had historians been on the Prime Minister’s staff, they could have guided him back 2000 years to review what Julius Caesar had done in his attempt to take the temperature of the people when contemplating his next big move.

    Caesar was ruthless in his pursuit to become sole ruler of Rome. He aimed for kingship. But the Romans had ended monarchy in 509 BC when the last king, Tarquinius Superbus, was banished and the Republic was born.

    Rome would never again be ruled by a king. Any move to usurp the authority of the Senate would be seen by the people as treachery.

    At the annual festival of the Lupercalia in 44 BC, Mark Antony, Caesar’s most trusted confidante and fellow Consul, attempted to place a laurel wreath on Caesar’s head as he sat on a gold chair in front of the rostra overseeing festivities. The historian, Appian, narrates the would-be king’s handling of the situation:

    Julius Caesar rejects the diadem offered by Mark Antony. The crowd roared its approval.

    “When they saw this, a few people clapped but the majority booed, and Caesar threw away the diadem. Antonius replaced it, but Caesar again threw it away. While they were having this altercation with each other, the people remained quiet, nervous of which way the episode would end, but when Caesar carried his point, they roared their delight and applauded him for not accepting the diadem.”

    Despite public opinion being against Mr Albanese’s proposal, and suggestions from various political quarters to withdraw, delay or compromise on the Voice referendum, he is refusing to do so.

    Now, the comparison I’m about to draw will undoubtedly elicit gasps of horror from the reader. But I assure you it is merely to make the point that hubris is the common denominator of political leadership no matter the skill of the leader or millennium.

    Caesar considered the Republic as insubstantial and admonished its very existence. The historian, Suetonius, wrote of Caesar’s arrogance:

    “The Republic is nothing – just a name, without substance or form; Sulla was a fool when he gave up the dictatorship; men should now have more consideration in speaking with me and regard what I say as law.”

    Today’s political left continually declares how progressive they are, hence, any talk of dictatorship in the modern West would be laughable – surely?

    Mr Albanese told 3AW’s Neil Mitchell on 14 August that if he were dictator, he would ban social media. Yes, this was a hypothetical question put to him, saying that he doesn’t support dictatorships. But two ominous points emerge:

    The Prime Minister interviewed by Neil Mitchell.
    1. Perhaps he should have declined to answer such a hypothetical and sinister suggestion given that we are a democracy.

    2. The fact that he highlighted social media, the very tool used to communicate and share thoughts and deemed to be the right of free people, is authoritarian in its very uttering.

    Add to that, his comments to faith groups on 22 February 2021 that individualism is a “dangerous fantasy,” and an “indulgence ill-suited to the current reality,” and it reveals a leader stuck more in the ancient past than in the progressive present.

    Here ends the one mirroring example of two very different leaders in very different times. Gasping can now cease!

    Caesar was a master strategist, so when it came to public admonishment, personal insults would not do for the man who would be king. A peek into his playbook would perhaps serve Mr Albanese’s cause better.

    Julius Caesar met his end with a brutal slaying by 23 stab wounds in the Roman forum. Australia in 2023 exists within the boundaries of law, not violence, so time will reveal the political fate of Anthony Albanese following the outcome of the referendum.

    Politicians love to tell the people how much they value their vote and respect their opinions. It would augur well if they recognised that winning respect is not achieved through coercion and insults.

    That, they must earn.

    4 Free Enterprise Policies Guaranteed To Make The Economy Roar!

    By
    Caroline White
    -
    2

    Red tape is a productivity-sapping and innovation-destroying virus on business. Australia is feeling the effects of a generation of governments that believe any problem in the world can be solved with another little rule, constraint or compliance requirement.

    Australian business is suffering death by a thousand cuts.

    There are too many rules to actually know and obey.

    It’s worse than a mere harmless intent though. Too many politicians and bureaucrats cannot help but paint business as the bad guy, an evil that needs to be contained.

    There are enforcers of the rules in all three levels of government. Workplace regulations, tax, superannuation, industrial relations awards and so on are dictated by the Federal government with their powerful agencies, particularly the ATO. The State governments are the most interventionist, with licensing, WHS, regulation and compliance of premises and properties, payroll taxes, stamp duties. These are enforced by an army of bureaucrats from scores of agencies. Then finally our dear local councils look over us to make sure we are operating according to their codes and plans, their rangers constantly on the lookout to catch us out. Sadly, they are aided and abetted by many citizens who see it is their duty to dob-in the smallest misdemeanour. 

    The Liberal Party are as bad as the left leaning parties, full of party careerists with little real-life experience. They talk of removing red tape, but the track record of recent Liberal governments has been to pile on more. They are incapable of addressing the problem because they do not genuinely believe it’s a problem.

    The system is so complex, many small businesses do the same as mine. We do enough to get our business open and what we can grow and prosper, despite the myriad of regulations we are knowingly or accidentally breaching. But there are too many rules to actually know and obey.  Ignorance of the law may not be a legally valid excuse, but ignorance is virtually inevitable when the law regulates almost every aspect of life and business. We are all commonly breaking the law because it is impossible not to.

    So, what would I do about liberating business from this byzantine morass of red tape? How do we unscramble the omelette?

    First, all new laws should have a sunset date of 5 to 10 years. The law lapses automatically if it isn’t extended.

    Second, we sunset all existing laws over the next 5 to 10 years. Yes, every single law would be assigned a sunset date to lapse. This can be a random date; it doesn’t matter. As long as the law is reviewed or lapses.

    Thirdy, we halve all fines and penalties. We remove incentives and rewards for the government to seek out non-compliance and confrontation. We reduce the size of the government to get rid of the people imposing the rules and bleeding off our hard work.

    Finally, we abolish and cut taxes. Abolish payroll tax as it taxes job creation and discourages investment. Cut company and personal income taxes to remove the disincentives. Australia’s company tax rate should be 15% to more closely align with our trading partners. Income taxes should be reduced to a top rate of 25%, so the best and brightest want to come to Australia.

    Talkin’ About My Generation (Part 2)

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    (For Part 1, click here)

    At a recent Senate Estimates hearing, Greens Treasury Spokesman Senator Nick McKim asked outgoing RBA Governor Philip Lowe, “On the supply/demand issue, are you aware of the work of economist Cameron Murray stating, at current rate of sales, there are twelve years of vacant land in Australia already zoned as residential?”

    This question goes to the very heart of the problem – a total lack of understanding of how markets (in this case, housing) work.

    There may well be twelve years supply of vacant land at current prices – over $400,000 per allotment.

    If that is the criteria, then why not double the price and there’ll be 24 years supply!

    If, however, land prices were what they should be – $100,000 per allotment – and there is no reason they should not be that price, how many years supply would there be?

    I suspect it would be all sold in twelve months, not twelve years.

    Recent tokenistic rezoning and land releases by some state governments – to great media fanfare – will no more make land affordable than the discovery of a new diamond mine will make diamonds more affordable.

    The land development industry of course welcomes the new lode because they know how to manipulate and drip-feed finished allotments (like diamonds) to the market, keeping prices sky high.

    So why does this zoned residential land cost upwards of two million dollars a hectare, when adjacent, agricultural land costs less than a tenth of that?

    Government zoning anomoly. Adjacent agricultural land is normally valued less than 10% residential land.

    The reason is that whenever there is money to be made, opportunities to do business with governments present themselves – particularly in tightly controlled markets like land. Relationships between businesspeople and governments is as old as regulation itself.

    What gives these relationships real potency is called the ‘Baptists and Bootleggers’ phenomenon.

    The term ‘Baptists & Bootleggers’ was coined during the 1920s Prohibition era in America. Makers of illegal liquor – ‘Bootleggers’ – made donations to elected officials (and to the ‘Baptists’ campaign to have alcohol banned) in order to maintain the ban. That led to sky high prices for their product. Members of Congress justified prohibition by publicly supporting the moral cause of the Baptists.

    These days we call those Bootleggers ‘rent-seekers’.

    Over the past 100 years, rent-seekers have perfected their dark art of extracting money from taxpayers and consumers.

    They are everywhere – energy, superannuation, higher education, land development, indigenous groups, public transport, manufacturing – you name it. They are a scourge. They tarnish the political process, distort the market and in the case of so-called ‘renewable energy’, distort the entire economy.

    Renewable energy rent-seekers have leapt onto the climate change bandwagon and are raking in billions of dollars gaming the system, raising energy prices, impoverishing consumers, destroying jobs, and fleecing taxpayers.

    Along with unions and superfunds, pharmaceuticals and health, universities and higher education, these Australian oligarchs have limitless amounts of money to both shore up their own positions and resist anyone who might try to challenge them.

    Previously, entrepreneurs went to the marketplace to make their fortunes. Today the public purse is the mother lode.

    When the NDIS was announced in 2012, it was forecast to cost $14bn a year. In April 2022, actuary firm Taylor Fry estimated that by 2030 the cost will blow out to $64bn a year– a $50bn a year increase.

    How did this happen in such a short period of time? Simple – professionalised politics and sophisticated rent-seeking.

    So, back to land development. MPs receive donations from rent-seeking property developers. MPs then publicly support urban planners who rail against the so-called evils of urban sprawl. That leads to restrictions on urban growth which force people into high density housing developments in the inner suburbs – a classic example of the Baptists and the Bootleggers phenomenon at work.

    It is also well-known that MPs themselves hop onto the property-owning bandwagon with numerous ‘investment properties’ of their own. Keen to maintain their wealth, they publicly support urban planning laws.  Let’s call it ‘the monetisation of urban planning’.

    The problem is, of course, that the younger generation of home buyers end up paying for all this. They are forced into overpriced apartments and prevented from achieving their primary ambition – a free-standing family home of their own.

    Bootleggers have stolen both their wealth and their future.

    For land to become affordable, the government should – as was the case with older suburbs – allow the development of basic serviced allotments – water, sewerage, electricity, stormwater, bitumen roads, street lighting and street signage. Additional services and amenities – lakes, entrance walls, palm trees, bike trails, etc – can be optional extras if the developer wishes to provide them and home buyers are willing to pay for them.

    The government should also abolish up-front infrastructure charges and so-called ‘developer contributions’ imposed by local and state government departments. All infrastructure services should be paid for through the rates system – pay ‘as’ you use, not ‘before’ you use.

    Trial The Voice At The ALP National Conference

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    Here’s a great idea. The Albanese government could trial the ‘Voice to Parliament’ by enlisting Aboriginal representatives to attend the national ALP Conference commencing in Brisbane on 17 August. The Prime Minister already has a posse ready to go, the members of his referendum working group, most of whom would be very familiar with ALP National conferences. Indeed, I observed a young Marcia Langton at the 1982 conference in Canberra having a very robust debate with delegates.

    The Aboriginal delegates could have a right to advise on all motions of concern put to the conference. This may extend the conference by several weeks, but it would be an excellent opportunity for Labor to demonstrate how the Voice would work should Australia vote yes in the forthcoming referendum.

    With the Conference dominated by left delegates, they would be falling over themselves to agree with whatever proposals the Aboriginal delegates would put to the floor. After day one, the Aboriginal delegates, emboldened, would put increasingly contentious proposals to the conference – what fun.

    The 49th Australian Labor Party National Conference is the first National Conference in Queensland since the 1970s. Labor was then in the grips of the ‘old guard’, union officials in brown cardigans, intent on controlling all conversations, to the extent there were any. It was a dark and antidemocratic time for Labor.

    Australian Labor Party National Conference

    Much of the party’s electoral and policy history since has been far more open and enlivened, which is good. Its recent obsession with identity politics which will see it destroy its otherwise firm grip on reality, is bad.

    This is most evident in Aboriginal policy.

    The 2023 draft platform contains the oft repeated statement by the Prime Minister, “Labor supports the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, beginning with enshrining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Australian Constitution.“

    To nail the lid on the coffin, the draft platform also reads, “Labor supports all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission for agreement-making and a national process of truth-telling. Labor will take steps to implement all three elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in this term of government.”

    But there is more. Labor commits to “a standalone piece of cultural heritage legislation.” Having leaned on the West Australian Labor government to withdraw its cultural heritage legislation, at least for the course of the referendum campaign, Federal Labor has vowed to step in to fill the gap. West Australian voters’ anger at the heritage legislation will become Australia’s anger. This is not a smart move. It is the opposite of Bob Hawke’s retreat from national land rights legislation under pressure from West Australian Premier Brian Burke in the 1980s. This time Federal Labor wants to double down on the foolishness.

    The Uluru Statement From The Heart

    A further disquieting step is “co-design” of “legislative reform, policy transformation, administrative improvement and governance”. It should be clear by now that the last 25 years in Aboriginal affairs has been an exercise in co-design. That is why there is a gap that needs closing. Aboriginal ownership and voice has ensured the livelihoods of university graduates of Aboriginal descent. It has locked poorly educated, non-integrated, Aborigines out of the market economy and the open society.

    For example, Labor believes that “First Nations people have a right to live on their traditional lands“. Labor also believes that it is crucial that “remote communities have essential services and are empowered to participate in the design and provision of those services as genuine partners”. All very well, but who pays for this ‘right’?  

    Labor also asserts that “Strong cultural identity is essential to the health, social and emotional well-being of First Nations people.” Sorry, the evidence does not exist. Aboriginal-controlled services assert such things, they never prove it.

    On one point we can agree. Labor believes what constitutes an ‘indigenous business’ should be re-defined to protect against ‘black cladding’ and ensure meaningful employment for workers. Who is game to ask who is an Aborigine?

    I would be proud of the Labor party if they announced at the conference, ‘No race based policies by 2030’. Delegates of any background could have their vote and voice. Such egalitarian claims used to be the stuff of the old Labor party. Alas, it is no longer.

    Gary Johns is the author of The Burden of Culture (Quadrant books) and a former Minister in the Keating government.

    1...111213...16Page 12 of 16
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv