Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Monday, November 25, 2024
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 14

    Laughing In The Face of Tyranny, $1 Million Bounty On Their Heads

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    Imagine you lived in Australia and enjoyed a great life. Then the government became tyrannical, you protested for democracy, but an anti-democratic security law was passed and you were intimidated and arrested. Released, you fled to New Zealand and were granted a visa there. But the Australian Federal Police placed a bounty on your head of $A190,202 (US$127,728) and activated its security apparatus to ‘extract’ you.

    Can you image this breach of your basic civil liberties? In what kind of psychological state would you be?

    As far as Liberty Itch knows, this story is fictitious. However, it corresponds to a true story so similar that we need only change three facts. In the real-life version you were born and raised in British-ruled Hong Kong, a Commonwealth country. Your new home is Australia. And your name is Ted Hui. All other details are the same.

    If you default to the ‘don’t-rock-the-boat’ conservative position of, ‘Yeah, well, that’s none of our business because he’s not an Australian citizen’, let’s take Mr. Hui’s situation but assume the victim is an Australian citizen. You now have the factual circumstances of Australian lawyer, Kevin Yam.

    Ted Hui
    Kevin Yam

    The Hong Kong Police has issued a HK$1 million bounty on someone who is not only an Australian resident, but an Australian citizen!

    Slothful ‘status-quo’ thinking might argue, “These men have obviously broken the law. They’re criminals. Police issue bounties all the time.” But there’s a lot more to the story.

    When the British transferred Hong Kong to China in 1997, the City was imbued with all the benefits of British culture: a parliamentary democracy, small government, plus a robust common law judicial system protecting civil liberties and property rights. It was a stable, bustling success story. China agreed to preserve democracy there for at least 50 years.

    Hong Kong Handover. 1997.

    Six years in and the Chinese Communist Party couldn’t resist meddling. Small snippets at first, then an attempt to implement a security law in 2003, thwarted by democrats. The student Umbrella Movement resisted the tyranny from 2014. But by 2019, the communists had installed sufficient sympathisers to flex their coercive muscle. Pro-democracy protests continued, in some ways similar to Australia’s Freedom Rallies protesting against the Covid lockdowns, but with higher stakes. In 2020, the Hong Kong National Security Law was passed, establishing “crimes” of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign organisations, control mechanisms to entrench authoritarianism.

    In Mr. Hui’s case, he was elected to the Legislative Council as a Hong Kong Democracy Party MP. He lent his support to the protests. For his efforts Mr. Hui was arrested and imprisoned without trial several times, the duration each time becoming longer than the last. In jail, he was coerced to be silent about the loss of freedoms and assaulted. He was released, fled and today lives in Adelaide.

    Liberty Itch has covered Mr. Hui here and here.

    Mr. Yam’s story is that he is an Australian citizen and merely lived in Hong Kong for twenty years. He’s a legal scholar with Georgetown University’s Centre for Asian Law and lives in Melbourne.

    These aren’t the backgrounds of criminals.

    These are scholarly, principled men acting for democracy and freedom.

    The CCP-backed Hong Kong Government is using extra-territorial arrest warrants and bounties as an intimidation tactic against an Australian lawyer. In light of the new security law, Australia rightly cancelled its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020. Interpol has not been issued with a Red Notice by the Hong Kong Police. It would never be approved.

    In response to the Chinese Communist Party’s bounty, Mr. Hui said it “makes it clearer to Western democracies that China is going towards more extreme authoritarianism.”

    Mr. Yam stated, “It’s my duty to speak out against the crackdown that is going on right now, against the tyranny that is now reigning over the City that was once one of the freest in Asia. All they want to do is try to make a show of their view that the national security law has extra-territorial effect.”

    The freedoms of speech, assembly, movement, the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial are cornerstones of liberal democracy which libertarians cherish.

    It would be an error to view these men as an overseas problem. A CCP edict that Australian citizens and residents be ‘pursued for life’ is an affront to all Australians. If you support Assange’s freedom, you will find these bounties on Mr Hui and Mr Yam abhorrent. And, being the thinking, philosophically consistent libertarian that you are, you should express support for their human rights.

    If you don’t, who will support yours?

    Cut Taxes To 20%

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    It goes without saying that rules and sanctions should be clearly specified in advance so people know how they are supposed to behave and what will happen to them if they don’t.  Also, importantly, rules must apply equally to everybody.

    But the rules governing tax liabilities have become so tangled and complex that nobody can be sure any longer what they are or how they will apply in any given case. And behind the vast volume of laws – the actual legislation – looms an equally massive array of ATO public determinations, public rulings, bulletins, interpretative decisions, policy papers, circulars, administrative guidelines and practice statements. Some of these are supposed to be binding on ATO officers, and in general ATO staff rely on them rather than on the legislation. In practice that gives them something close to the force of law.

    But the ATO no longer simply implements a known set of rules; it develops and amends the rules case by case. In effect, the ATO makes its own rules. As a consequence, we have tax laws which have lost their intelligibility, certainty and predictability. It is not real law as we’ve come to understand that term.

    The resulting attitude of many taxpayers is to treat the law and the courts as irrelevant. “Forget legal advice, just give me an ATO ruling that will protect me from penalties or prosecution,” they say. Many taxpayers, of course, just surrender and pay up.

    Systems which are complex in their application, debilitating in the sense that the more you earn the less of each dollar you keep, and unfair and unreasonable in the sense that people feel penalized for working, are destined to fail in the long term.

    Take Australia’s cash economy, 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; clearly a lot of Australians have no respect for our tax laws.

    Despite what many advocating increases in tax would have us believe, the total tax take in Australia is quite high. Some say that compared with other developed economies, Australia is a ‘low tax’ country, and that workers and companies could comfortably pay more. This is ridiculous. When it comes to taxing incomes, Australia is right up there with the Europeans and way ahead of most of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region.

    High tax rates undermine enterprise and destroy the will to work.

    You don’t have to be a Laffer Curve true believer to accept that behavioural response is a reality. When you add to this the corrosive effect on the moral relationship between the state and its citizens, the case for fundamental tax reform becomes even more compelling.

    There comes a point when the prospect of giving up half or more of any additional earnings leads people to decide that it is simply not worth it.

    Taxation then starts to produce gross inefficiencies as people stop working as much or as hard as they used to, and governments find their taxes are not producing the revenue they expected. Politicians and bureaucrats who lack real world experience and an understanding of how an economy and markets work are drawn into a vicious spiral, jacking up tax rates to try to compensate for the falling revenues that their high tax demands have created.

    Similarly, many on welfare reject opportunities to work because of the punitive effect that small earnings and high tax rates have on the security of their benefits and the value of extra work.

    And people on very low incomes fare worst of all, for as they increase their earnings, higher rates of income tax combine with the loss of means-tested benefits deprive them of up to 80 cents of every extra dollar they earn.

    If we are to extricate ourselves from this dysfunctional system, the goodwill of the public needs to be restored by getting tax levels back to something which most people would see as reasonable. To achieve this, we need to remove one of the most significant tax avoidance avenues and align personal tax rates with company tax rates.

    There is certainly a pressing need to reduce the current company tax rate (25% for companies with turnover below $50m, 30% above that). I accept it can’t be done overnight, but the Government would do well to start cutting the rate by one percentage point in this Budget, and then announce its intention to make a similar reduction every year while in office. That would hold out the prospect of a 20 per cent company tax rate and, if it is really serious about an internationally competitive tax system, a 20% personal tax rate.

    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.

    14 Reasons To VOTE NO In The Voice To Parliament Referendum

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    On Monday 19 June 2023, the Australian Senate passed a bill for a referendum to occur later in the year to establish a constitutionally-enshrined Voice to Parliament.

    In short, and especially for our subscribers outside Australia, the Voice proposal is for a consultative body – let’s be blunter and say it’s a representative body – to which all federal government policies and legislation impacting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will be referred for consideration.

    The battle for and against is now formally engaged.

    Here are 14 reasons Australians should vote against the proposal.

    1. Systemic Racism

    Libertarians are Australia’s leaders against racism. We reject collectivism of any kind and judge individuals on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin or any other group attribute. Labor and the Greens are seeking to introduce a procedural body into the legislative process based on race, hints of Caucasian rule in Rhodesia or South Africa. The Left’s much hackneyed phrase of ‘systemic racism’ applies. If it’s part of the system and it’s based on race, guess what? It’s systemic racism.

    Libertarians say Vote No.

    And frankly, that’s sufficient reason.

    But I have 13 more reasons …

    2. Fractious Treaties

    Supporters of the proposal have said the next step after a Voice are formal treaties. It’s a slippery slope. Freedom House says there are only 17 genuinely free nations in a world of 197 countries and that Australia is one of them. As a libertarian, I’d like to keep it as free as possible. That’s not compatible with negotiating treaties with 500 ethno-state ‘First Nations’, as woke activists now strategically call this part of our citizenry.

    3. Communist Mastermind

    The author of the Voice To Parliament is Thomas Mayo. He is a communist, a supporter of an ideology which has thus far killed 100 million people.

    Don’t believe that he’s a communist?

    Here he is in his own words …

    4. Preferential Rents

    Ethno-nationalists Senator Lidia Thorpe and Mr Mayo are openly calling for freehold title holders to pay rent to indigenous leadership groups. Will Australian mortgagees and tenants be required to add an indigenous rent?

    5. Economic Drag

    With the ambiguity on not knowing what the Voice To Parliament will recommend to the Government, will there be new permits required for economic activity.? What grifting black tape will be placed on a business sector already constrained by green and red tape?

    6. Impossible Reversal

    If the Voice To Parliament, enshrined in the Constitution, became a corrupt rabble like ATSIC, we would not be able to remove it from the Constitution except through another referendum. We’d be stuck with the constitutional vandalism.

    7. Ambiguous Scope

    As much as we’ve asked, we still have no understanding of the scope of the Voice To Parliament. Will its recommendations be binding on Parliament? What are matters affecting indigenous people? Remote communities? Native title property portfolios? Aboriginal-only businesses? United Nations treaty implications? Australians need to know the scope of this body before voting. We ask. We get no answers.

    8. Undefined Structure

    How many people will sit on the Voice To Parliament? 5? 18? Will there be one per tribe, so 500 of them? None of us know. Who will be eligible to serve on the Voice? Certainly not all Australians. Again, this is systemic racism in action. How is aboriginality defined? DNA? Statutory declaration? Tribal declaration? Still, no answers.

    9. Uncosted

    From a standing start, the NDIS now spends more of our hard-earned tax dollars than Medicare and Defence! With form like this and the same people pushing this new proposal, can you imagine the cost of the Voice To Parliament? We’ve asked for a budget. No dice!

    10. Ignored Communities

    It’s not as if most aboriginal communities on the ground were consulted or were yearning for a Voice To Parliament. Videos are emerging of everyday indigenous citizens explaining that they’ve never heard of a Voice To Parliament.

    11. Elitist Gravy Train

    The proposal is being pushed by Canberra-based, virtue-signalling, snouts-in-the-trough, activists. Decades of collectivist molly-coddling by Labor has created a gravy-train of the most bloated kind. Woke identitarian activists trying to create an indigenous industry, with all the non-productivity of the old-world European aristocracies.

    12. Partisan

    This is a Labor and Green project. A weepy-eyed, spend-what-may socialist wet dream. A one-sided wank job.

    13. Referendum Funding

    To drive home the point, Government is funding the yes campaign while struggling citizens under cost-of-living pressure are expected to fund the no campaign. Equity? Shhhhhh.

    14. Ends Reconciliation

    The Reconciliation Movement had noble ideals when started. After 20 years, we now see clearly where it is heading. An elite land grab, the fracturing of Australia into ethno-microstates and the distribution of a lot of money for a non-productive industry.

    But as I say, none of this matters. It is sufficient reason to Vote No that they are proposing a race-based system.

    The moment freedom lovers regain power, a priority must be to repeal s51(xxvi) of the Constitution to end this race-baiting once and for all.

    Let The People Set The Limits

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0
    qe

    Speeding fines are a significant source of revenue for state governments. In 2017, they amounted to more than $1.1 billion Australia wide and are probably higher now.

    Speed cameras are a major contributor, particularly the mobile ones. In NSW, between July 2019 and February 2020, less than 18,900 fines worth $3.9 million were issued as a result of mobile speed cameras. Between July 2020 and February 2021, they were nearly 4.5 times that amount. Speeding ticket revenue for offences less than 10km/h over the limit increased from $2.3 million in 2019-2020 to $23.3 million in 2020-2021, coinciding with the government’s decision to remove speed camera warning signs.

    This camera took $3 million from Queensland taxpayers on first deployment

    Whereas speed limits were once advisory, with drivers expected to drive to the conditions, they now have the status of one of the ten commandments, with fines the price for sinning.

    We are repeatedly told by ignorant police and bimbo journalists that road accidents are invariably due to excess speed. There are gory advertisements warning of lifelong injuries, with enforcement via fixed and hidden cameras, double demerits, average speed cameras, aerial monitoring, and highway patrols.

    The underlying assumption never varies – below the speed limit is safe, above the limit is not.

    Although the degree of correlation is disputed, there is a link between speed and the risk of accidents and injuries. Most people, libertarians included, accept that the roads are shared, and that individual freedom does not extend to harming others. The question is whether that means obeying speed limits.

    The public does not necessarily think so. In the absence of visible enforcement or perceived hazards, voluntary compliance with speed limits is low. A 2009 survey found less than 20% of drivers claim to always drive at or under the speed limit. In NSW, of the 1.3 million speeding fines issued by cameras in 2021, 76 per cent were for exceeding the limit by under 10km/h. Outside narrow suburban streets, modestly exceeding the speed limit is rarely seen as a problem.  

    Australia has a National Road Safety Strategy, intended to provide a framework for prioritising the road safety activities of federal, state, territory and local governments. It is written by a small group of bureaucrats from each jurisdiction. Relevant ministers sign off on it but have minimal personal input.

    For decades, the strategy has had a strong emphasis on speed accompanied by a coercive approach to enforcement. The 2010-2021 strategy, for example, argued for lower speed limits, increased penalties and enforcement that included in-car speed monitoring.

    That changed somewhat in the 2021-2030 version. Although it has an objective of zero road deaths by 2050, there is less worshipping at the altar of speed limits. It also concedes that its past objectives have not been achieved. I suspect one of the key bureaucrats has retired.

    If the aim is zero road deaths, and speed is the main causation, the obvious solution is to adopt very low speed limits. The problem is, that would be unacceptable to the community. There is an implicit assumption in current speed limits that a certain level of deaths and serious injuries is the price paid for convenient travel. The vision of zero road deaths is not only unobtainable, but irrational.

    That raises an interesting question.

    When the law says one thing and most people have a different view, which should prevail? And perhaps more to the point, should we have speed limits and,
    if yes, who should set them?

    Speed limits are currently set by anonymous, unaccountable bureaucrats. Perhaps the most powerful people in Australia, they have substantial influence over how many people should die on our roads. Governments and ministers come and go, but they and their speed limits are always there.

    This is massive bureaucratic overreach. It is the public, not bureaucrats, who should determine the trade-off between travel convenience and the road toll. There is even an internationally recognised method of achieving this, known as the 85th percentile formula. Briefly, it involves the temporary removal of speed limits while speeds are monitored. At the conclusion of the period a limit is reimposed at or slightly above the speed at which 85 per cent of drivers travel.

    The method is based on the assumption that the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, do not want to crash, and wish to reach their destination in the shortest possible time.

    Evidence shows that those who drive above or substantially below speed limits based on the 85th percentile are far more likely to cause accidents. Enforcement directed at those drivers has a positive impact on road safety and enjoys a high level of driver support.

    If the public was to become concerned about any increase in road deaths or injuries, this can be expressed through periodic retesting of the 85th percentile.

    If the government serves the people rather than vice versa, speed limits should have the approval of most drivers. And instead of being treated like sinful children and a source of revenue, motorists ought to decide what the limits are.

    INTERVIEW: Former Chinese Diplomat Embraces Liberty

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0

    Since a new Labor government in Australia was elected in 2022, there has been a warming trend in Australia-China relations. Our ministers are back engaging with Beijing officials and trips to China by our elected leaders are resuming.

    The CCP influence whistleblower, Sydney based former Chinese diplomat Mr Yonglin Chen, who defected to Australia in 2005, issued a warning many years ago that Beijing aimed to transform Australia into ‘a stable and obedient resource supplier’ and, if we are not vigilant, we could be economically colonised into becoming a Province of China.

    Mr Yonglin Chen. Former Chinese diplomat. Defected to Australia in 2005.

    Chen’s chilling reminder resurfaces, as Australia-China relations begin to thaw.

    Having been part of the ‘CCP body’ in the past, Chen’s ‘flip’ is invaluable in helping us understand how the Chinese Communists operate within Australia.

    Despite his efforts to lead a simple life, Chen and his family receive regular threats from Beijing operatives in Sydney. But threats and coercion only make him more determined to defend universal principles and values.

    Chen has agreed to an interview with Liberty Itch and has drawn from his personal experience to reveal the key functions of Chinese consulates in Australia.

    In this interview, Chen asserts that these consulates engage in harassment of the Chinese diaspora and conduct activities aimed at interfering in the host country.

    Unlike consulates of other countries,
    Chinese consulates prioritise political interference over consular affairs,
    with various offices aggressively involved in surveillance and espionage activities.

    Beijing currently operates 275 diplomatic posts worldwide, surpassing the United States’ count of 267 and Australia’s count of 125, according to the Lowy Institute’s Global Diplomacy Index. These figures highlight China’s ambition to exert influence globally.

    Here is the interview with Yonglin Chen.

    LI: Tell us about the inner workings of Chinese Consulates in Australia.

    YC: China gathers local intelligence through multiple avenues. General Staff focuses on military intelligence and high-tech innovations, while the Ministry of State Security (MSS) focuses on high-tech intelligence, counterespionage, and political interference.

    The Ministry of Public Security (Police) focuses on Operation Fox Hunt, targeting individuals from the Chinese community and Chinese companies in Australia. Chinese missions also collaborate with Australian governments through Sister Cities or Sister State Relationships and oversee United Front organisations and Chinese Students & Scholars Associations (CSSA) at Australian universities.

    They seek to control the majority of local Chinese language media and utilise the Confucius Institute system to influence opinions.

    Beijing also promotes propaganda in mainstream local media
    and attempts to bribe and lure Australian MPs for their personal gains.

    Additionally, China employs the Thousand Talent Plan and similar programs to recruit scientists and experts in order to acquire top-secret intelligence, as Australia shares academic research with the US. China’s methods for gathering intelligence are extensive, aiming to collect comprehensive big data on individuals.

    LI: Please tell us more about the scale and tactics of the Chinese Spy network in our country.

    YC: China’s spy network in Australia operates on a significant scale, with over 1,000 professional operatives not only deployed in various Australian sectors, including government institutions, universities and laboratories, but also located in China’s state-owned enterprises, media outlets, commerce, and trade organisations in Australia.

    China’s spy network in Australia operates on a significant scale,
    with over 1,000 professional operatives

    The CCP targets individuals within the Chinese diaspora and Australian elites, such as local, state, and federal politicians, their staffers, scientists, and academics, aiming to obtain valuable information. Confucius classrooms specifically target younger generations in Australia.

    LI: We have seen an increasing number of seemingly ‘pro-CCP candidates’ running for our local councils and state parliaments. How are they ‘endorsed’ and ‘selected’? How do they interfere with Australian elections?

    YC: The CCP’s United Front Work Department initiated the Chinese for Political Participation Program globally in 2005. Before that, politicians and officials of Chinese descent usually received preferential treatment, including luxurious trips to China and free accommodation and education for their children in Chinese universities.

    After 2005, even more favorable treatment was provided, funded through the Ambassadorial Fund and other Special Budgets. Chinese missions may also arrange secret funds from Chinese state-owned enterprises and pro-CCP individuals in the Chinese community in Australia.

    China’s media promotes election candidates through CCP mouthpieces such as China Central Television (CCTV), People’s Daily, and authorised WeChat red groups, boosting their popularity.

    This increases their chances of winning elections in areas with a dense Chinese population. Chinese immigrants, who use WeChat, and Chinese language media in Australia, including Media Today Group, massively influenced by China, are utilised to disseminate CCP propaganda and influence voters.

    Chinese volunteers, particularly young international students, are recruited to support ‘selected candidates’. Secret funds are also utilised in these efforts.

    To protect Australia’s national interests, Chen emphasises six urgent actions:

    • Uphold principles when dealing with the Communist Regime and avoid appeasement, recognising that China relies on Australia’s resources and market, not the other way around.
    • Enforce the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 and the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021 effectively.
    • Reduce by half the number of PRC diplomats in Australia and expel CCP spies, removing specific operatives located within consulate’ premises.
    • Exercise strict oversight on funds directed towards election candidates.
    • Provide education on universal values and democratic principles to the mainland Chinese immigrant community and international Chinese students.
    • Expose spies’ activities in Australia and ensure the protection of Australian nationals.

    As Beijing continues to entice our elected representatives, let’s hope that the Australian Parliament and the State MPs will consider Chen’s well-meaning advice.

    Trade Minister, Don Farrell, was given a tour of the Forbidden City in Beijing in May 2023

    Taxing The Country Into Welfare And Disability

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    0

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

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

    Winston Churchill. Economic liberal and twice UK Prime Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Immorality of Medicare

    By
    Lionel Orellana
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Betrayal for Bucks: A Seduction Story

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0
    hgf

    If Foreign Interference is still a strange concept for laid-back Aussies, we will all soon be familiar with it – directed, supervised or financed foreign meddling and, unfortunately, citizens who knowingly assist with such foreign meddling for various reasons.

    The most common reason, of course, is financial benefits. And the most rampant meddler is not Iran, or even Russia, but Communist China, a fact the Albanese Government refuses to admit. But they know. We also know. It is the elephant in the room.

    Playing by the rules is not in the Beijing psyche. We can, therefore, expect more and more of these novel criminal charges to occur in Australia.

    On 14 April 2023, Sydney man, Alexander Csergo, was charged with one count of ‘Reckless Foreign Interference’ by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for allegedly selling sensitive Australian defence and economic information to the Chinese Communist Party.

    Australian businessman, Alexander Csergo

    That was the second time anyone had been charged with a Foreign Interference Offence in the country since the relevant legislation passed in the Australian Parliament in 2018. The first Australian charged with Foreign Interference, a Melbourne man with Vietnamese heritage, was reported in Liberty Itch in February 2023.

    A savvy Australian entrepreneur, a UNSW graduate, Mr Csergo, aged 55, had taken cash payments from the CCP proxies in exchange for his reports on Australia’s defence and trade matters, Sydney Court heard on 17 April 2023.

    Mr Csergo was approached by two individuals via LinkedIn, calling themselves ‘Ken’ and ‘Evelyn’, who told Mr Csergo that they were from a ‘think tank’. They asked Mr Csergo to assist with their ‘research’ by providing information on highly sensitive national security matters to their make-believe research centre.

    Mr Csergo was arrested at his Bondi NSW home on 14 April 2023

    Magistrate Michael Barko denied bail for Mr Csergo, stating that the prosecution had a compelling case and the defendant was a “sophisticated, worldly businessperson” with flight risks.

    According to court proceedings reported by The Australian Financial Review on 14 April 2023, Mr Csergo admitted that he knew the two individuals who approached him were from China’s Ministry of State Security.

    The reports compiled by Mr Csergo included data on Australia’s AUKUS defence technology partnership, the QUAD, iron ore and lithium mining. They had been discovered by the AFP three weeks after Csergo returned to Sydney. Mr Csergo had been on the AFP radar since 2021, the court was told.

    On 23 April 2023, The Guardian reported that Mr Csergo’s defence lawyer, Bernard Collaery, was requesting the Attorney General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, to drop the matter before the court.

    As libertarians, we may have conflicting emotions regarding these charges. While we advocate for personal freedom, privacy, and limited government intervention, we are also becoming increasingly aware of the growing threat posed by the CCP, as it aggressively abuses and exploits our open and ‘lenient’ democratic policy.

    Liberty Itch has reported on numerous CCP influence operations in our institutions, including in Higher Education and Political Parties.

    Without tough legislation in place, our freedom, sovereignty and the integrity of our institutions will be, if not already, in jeopardy.

    As democracy loving liberals, of course, we presume Mr Csergo innocent until proven guilty. We also appreciate how important it is to have separation of powers between the executive and the judicial system.

    Asking the AG to exercise his executive power to drop the prosecution is questionable to those who believe in the rule of law. This is a national security matter for all Australians and a matter of public interest.

    In light of this, Liberty Itch earnestly hopes that the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP will continue to resist pressure from the defense lawyer which could obstruct the discovery of truth and the delivery of justice in our court.

    Amidst the disappointments that we have held in recent times as a nation, I hope that we have not all completely lost our faith in the institutions that form the backbone of our society. Otherwise, we would only serve to amuse the manipulative Chinese regime that seeks to exploit our discord and disunity.

    This Tax To GDP Rate Is Mind-Blowing!

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    0

    With the Commonwealth Budget due to be presented later today, Australians should reflect on the words of Winston Churchill, who wisely observed that “there is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place.”  Such clarity seems missing from our contemporary economic and public finance debates.

    There is a myth, even an attempt at deception, perpetuated by the tax and spend industrial complex that Australia is a low tax jurisdiction.  (Hint – it’s not).  And, based on this myth, that there is capacity for further tax rises in Australia to fund existing and new programs.  (Hint – there isn’t).

    In its recent report titled ‘Back in Black?’, the Grattan Institute presented a chart and commented that “Total tax collections across governments in Australia represented 28 per cent of GDP in 2019, about 5 percentage points lower than the OECD average of 33 per cent”.  The clear implication is that there is capacity for government to increase (tax) revenues.”

    Sadly, for Australian taxpayers, this is not an accurate representation.  Once other State, Territory and local government receipts are added, Australia’s tax to GDP rate represents approximately 36 percent.  When further adjusted for superannuation contributions, as other countries tax for social security, then Australia’s effective tax to GDP rate is approximately 40 percent.  Significantly above the OECD average.

    Add in the hidden taxes imposed by the massive and highly complex regulatory and compliance edifice that is pushed onto the private sector, and Australia’s tax to GDP rate starts to look very Scandinavian.  But without the competence and efficiency of the Scandinavian public sector.

    Those advocating for more taxes to fund more spending seem blind to the consequences.  The more national resources are transferred from production to government and quasi-government activity, the lower will be productivity and economic growth.  Given the MASSIVE expansion of government in Australia over the past 20 years, it should surprise no-one that GDP per capita is flat to declining.  Just at the Commonwealth level, spending as a percentage of GDP has increased from about 18 per cent in 1972 to about 23 per cent in 2000, to just under 28 per cent in 2020.

    What is required is a fundamental assault on Government spending, not new schemes to increase taxes. 

    It can start at the Commonwealth public service which has a workforce of over 250,000 public sector employees, despite the vast majority not providing front line services.  That includes 10,000 employees within the Departments of Education and Health and Ageing  Departments, which do not operate a single school, university, hospital or aged care facility.

    The wages and salaries of Commonwealth public sector employees totalled $24.5 billion in 2022 and would increase by $5 billion if the CPSU’s claim for a 20 percent pay increase is successful.

    All eyes on team Chalmers and Gallagher today

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher need to embrace the legacy of Paul Keating and Peter Walsh and undertake the hard but necessary work to bring Commonwealth Government spending back under control.  Better yet, they should learn the expression Just Say No.

    14 Crackerjack Ideas To Revivify Education

    By
    Caroline White
    -
    1
    g

    It’s no secret our education system is one of many government institutions at breaking point. Our children are the ones who are suffering with student academic results showing a steady decline and an increase in youth mental health presentations. Staffing shortages and unprecedented violent attacks are at the forefront of the crisis.  

    I have worked in the system implementing my performing arts programs witnessing firsthand where its failings lie. An overhaul is long overdue. A holistic approach needs to be taken to policy with the priorities of supporting our teachers, protecting our children, improving their academic outcomes and bridging the equality gap for socioeconomically disadvantaged children. Parents need to be given more school choices and the opportunity to take their power back.

    The author, Caroline White, with one of her students.

    Australian families have begun homeschooling their children, 30,000 at last count, in response, citing philosophical reasons as the main motivation behind their transition.

    Curriculum at a local primary school includes assignments on the LGBTQIA+ mob. The transgender industry is worth billions to big pharma and, with the Government’s new conversion bill in Victoria, it’s illegal to deny your child treatment as child mutilation becomes suddenly “safe and effective”.  

    My 9-year-old son is enrolled at his second primary school after a tough decision to move. He wasn’t the only child uprooted due to a teacher’s incompetency. Underperforming teachers seem commonplace and they are safeguarded by unions which just enables detrimental impacts to our children’s progression, health and wellbeing.  

    I believe good education is the answer to a lot of problems in our society and is undeniably a vital part of our children’s social development. My suggestions for education reform to improve our school’s culture and student outcomes include:   

    • Introduce Charter Schools
      The United States has charter schools, privately-operated, government-funded schools with flexible staffing arrangements. If introduced in Australia, I’d like to see them have the ability to opt-out of the National Curriculum. Studies have shown charter school students have improved academic performance compared with their traditional public school counterparts, creating healthy competition in a country’s education system.
    • Scrap School Zoning
      Zoning restricts schools with specialist programs. Students with rare talents are, by definition, drawn from a wider geographical catchment. Zoning thwarts this which, in turn, makes it hard for schools to keep their specialist programs running. The Government, in effect, is stifling the market. So parents are restricted from selecting a school that is the right fit for their child. Solution? Scrap school zoning.
    • Arts Training & Specialist Classes
      Statistics show that children who consistently participate in arts education are four times more likely to be recognised for academic achievement, especially in maths, science, and English language arts. Including specialist classes creates happier children, helps them identify their talents faster, and relieves educators with the extra time they need for class planning. 
    • Grant the Authority to Hire & Fire Teachers
      Why should poor quality teachers become a responsibility of the State? Allow principals to recruit and terminate teachers.
    • Teacher and Principal Performance Reviews
      Let’s institute KPIs so high-quality teachers and principals grow professionally. Weed-out those who don’t care or are ill-suited to education.
    • Greater Professional Development
      Here’s an idea whose time has come: Mandatory professional development and ongoing training of all teachers in evidence-based practices in line with current pedagogical research to provide our teachers with every opportunity to succeed. Let’s upskill our educators.
    • Performance Pay
      Giving good teachers financial incentives to stay, and encouraging more good educators into the profession. It works in business. Let’s do it in education.
    • Cut Red Tape
      Streamline compliance and policy paperwork to take the burden from teachers so they can spend more time nurturing their students.
    • Camps Are Part of the Job
      Scrap teacher’s time off in lieu payment arrangement so that schools can afford to take children on camp again.
    • Investigation into Spending
      Victorian schools are sites for blowout big builds not fit for purpose. Our public system is becoming another bloated government cesspool open to corruption. While new facilities can enhance education, money in the sector should be spent where it’s needed most.
    • Back to Basics
      A school’s main purpose should be delivering structured learning of fundamental academic subjects. We need to focus on getting this back on track.
    • Opt-Out of Curriculum
      With the government determined to use schools to push its social and political ideologies, content transparency and the option to opt-out of certain topics if it doesn’t align with a family’s values is essential. Children are receiving information they are not developmentally ready to process which is a cause for great concern.
    • Parents Know Best
      School councils and parent-teacher associations are being marginalised more and more. Parents deserve a say in how their child is educated and how their school is run.
    • Reasonable Behavioural Standards & Respect
      A rigorous culture of high expectations implemented using structured, predictable and accountable disciplinary measures (including handing phones in to a homeroom teacher at the start of each day) is proven to have better academic performance and achievement outcomes particularly for disadvantaged students.  

    Let me know what you think in the comments below.

    1...13141516Page 14 of 16
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv