Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 2

    Welcome to Borroloola Land

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

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

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

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

    Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

    Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research

    This article was first published in The Spectator.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    A Nation of Takers

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    1

    One of the many inequities of Australia’s welfare system is the exclusion of family homes from the means test. Recipients of age or disability pensions can own houses worth millions of dollars while remaining eligible for pensions funded by the taxes of people who cannot afford to buy a house at all. 

    In private, many politicians agree that excluding the family home leads to unfair consequences. However, neither side of politics is willing to change it. There are simply too many Australians who insist they are entitled to a pension. 

    It is much the same with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). It is widely known to be extensively rorted, with scheme providers charging participants several times what they charge non-participants for the same service. It is also well known that many people on the scheme are only mildly disabled, if at all. And yet, even as the cost threatens to bankrupt the country, even minor reforms prompt screams of protest. 

    Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries

    Also threatening the national budget is the cost of childcare. It is no longer sufficient to keep small children happy while their parents are at work; it is now early education. Advocates have created a narrative that children who remain home with their mothers are somehow deprived. Childcare is rapidly becoming yet another entitlement to be funded by the government.  

    There was a time when Australians liked to think of themselves as self-reliant and quick to help each other, while receiving welfare was an embarrassment and an indication of failure. 

    This has been replaced by a culture of entitlement in which there is absolutely no compunction about receiving money from the government. Many people insist they have a right to a pension simply because they have paid taxes, despite that never having been the situation in Australia. Even those who have never paid tax (apart from GST), or who frittered their savings away on gambling and ‘substance abuse’, demand it. 

    Some of this thinking is attributable to the fact that a proportion of immigrants originate from countries which have contributory pension schemes. They assume it is no different in Australia. But a far bigger factor is the entitlement mentality. If someone else can get a pension, I should also get it. If someone else is receiving benefits via the NDIS, it’s only fair that I obtain them too. In fact, if there is money being handed out for anything, I’m entitled to it. 

    There is no longer any disgrace in receiving government benefits. Indeed, a thriving industry of accountants and Financial Planners specialises in rearranging their client’s affairs to meet eligibility requirements for government benefits, especially pensions and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. 

    There is even intergenerational welfare, with extended families living on welfare their entire lives. This is particularly the case with certain indigenous communities, while “Lebanese back” is apparently sufficient to qualify for a disability support pension.

    Some admit that ‘government money’ originates with taxpayers, but it makes little difference. The sense of entitlement defies guilt, facts and reason, hence the reluctance of politicians to make changes for fear of losing votes. Even worse, many politicians use taxpayers’ money to buy votes. 

    The sense of entitlement owes it origins to the growth of the welfare state over the last half century, together with the rise in taxation that accompanied it. Although Australia has had an age pension for more than a century, disability assistance, childcare subsidies, unemployment benefits, medical benefits and many other handouts and subsidies are far more recent. 

    It has led to the perception of an all-pervasive government with unlimited resources. Moreover, if you go about it the right way, money can be extracted from it. 

    Also a factor is the level of income tax. Getting something back from the government to compensate for the amount of tax paid makes sense. Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries, on average taking 25% of earnings. Plenty of people see little benefit for themselves. 

    Join Mailing List

    Obviously, this situation is unsustainable in the long term. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” 

    Australia is already living beyond its means, with budget deficits year after year. It is also actively discouraging industries that support the economy – think coal exports, gas exports, sheep exports – while increasing energy costs. It obviously cannot last. 

    What the country needs is a government that encourages self-reliance rather than dependence on the state. Unfortunately, there is no sign of that.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    Olympic Dam’s Gold Medal Performance

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    It is exactly 50 years since Western Mining first discovered the massive gold, silver, copper and uranium ore body at the aptly-named Olympic Dam in South Australia. A golden anniversary indeed!

    But discovering the ore was just the beginning. 

    The fight to allow uranium mining at Olympic Dam was brutal. 

    The ruling Labor Party, under then Premier Don Dunstan, was vehemently opposed to uranium mining and particularly opposed to uranium mining at Olympic Dam.

    One of the key opponents of Olympic Dam, calling it a ‘a mirage in the desert’, was one Mike Rann, an anti-uranium campaigner from New Zealand who had come to South Australia to work for Dunstan. Rann eventually became Premier of South Australia in 2002.

    The Liberal Party, led by David Tonkin and his deputy Roger Goldsworthy, won the next election and in 1980 set about implementing their proposed ‘Olympic Dam Indenture Agreement’, building both the mine and nearby township of Roxby Downs.

    Its final passage, through the SA parliament’s Upper House in 1982, came down to a single vote – Labor’s Norm Foster. A former wharf worker, Foster had sat on the select committee into Olympic Dam and did not agree with Labor’s position that uranium mining was an environmental or ethical scourge. 

    On the day before the final vote on the project Foster resigned from the Labor Party and, the following day, crossed the floor of parliament to give his vote to the Tonkin government thereby clearing the way for the new mine.

    For years following his actions, Foster was vilified by the ALP. However, his role in establishing one of South Australia’s most successful projects (and biggest earners!) was later acknowledged by the Labor Party and his membership restored.

    Fast forward to 2024, and Australia is experiencing a similar political challenge closely related to uranium mining – nuclear energy.

    The case for nuclear power has been well argued, but there are more than just economic and energy reliability reasons for embracing nuclear power. There could also be significant strategic benefits.

    First, if there’s one thing we learned from the pandemic, it’s the importance of self-reliance. 

    Australia has for too long been dependent on overseas supply chains – fuel and energy being no exception.

    Australia’s future energy needs are currently being assessed against three criteria – reliability, affordability, and emissions intensity. 

    Unfortunately, the laws of physics and economics do not allow all three. Two out of three yes, three out of three no. 

    As emissions intensity has pretty much been mandated, this leaves only reliability and affordability to choose from. Clearly, reliability has to win.

    No form of renewable energy generation yet invented or discovered is reliable enough to meet Australia’s base-load demand.

    Nuclear power is both reliable and emissions-free. 

    It is, however, expensive to build. Again, two out of three.  

    In addition, there is a fourth aspect worthy of consideration – regional security.  

    South Korea, Japan, India and Pakistan all have nuclear power. Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh and the Philippines are looking to develop it. 

    All have, or will have, spent nuclear fuel.  

    As Australia engages more with Asia, we bring a unique perspective and relationship devoid of the centuries-old enmities and history that exists between some of these countries.  

    We could be the Switzerland of the South.

    Australia could establish an Asia-Pacific office for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  We could host conferences and bring the world’s best nuclear minds here.  

    We could bring together expertise on the ways in which other nations are storing their spent nuclear fuel.  We could, as the 2015 SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission heard, store that fuel in South Australia, and not have it stored within the borders of nations with fractious relations and/or unstable geology.  

    Join Mailing List

    “The International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) could establish an Asia-Pacific office in Australia. We could host conferences and bring the world’s best nuclear minds here.”

    The countries whose spent fuel was stored here would have an interest in our security.

    And as well as the multi-billion-dollar economic benefits – abolishing Stamp Duty, Payroll Tax, Occupational Licencing charges and many other taxes, charges and levies – with the latest technology we may even be able to extract more recycled power from the spent fuel in the future.  

    The more we engage with the nuclear question, the more positive the opportunities arise.  

    But first we must remove the regulatory obstacles and legislated bans blocking Australia’s economic and energy independence. 

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    More Political Competition

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    0

    According to Treasurer Jim Chalmers, increasing competition among supermarket giants will help deliver lower grocery prices: “If it is more competitive, more transparent and people are getting a fair go, better outcomes will be seen at the supermarket checkout“.  

    The ACCC also notes that competition encourages innovation.  

    But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes: the former through lower prices and better quality, and the latter through lower taxes and better services.

    And just as those in the commercial sector prefer less competition, so too do the players in the political sector; the dominant political parties frequently colluding to modify electoral laws to defend their incumbency.  

    The Albanese government, while pursuing a business competition reform agenda, is also surreptitiously running an electoral reform agenda which will have the opposite effect, reducing political competition.

    Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”

    In his 1776 magnum opus The Wealth of Nations, the father of economics Adam Smith wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    This quote is often used to describe the potential for anti-competitive behaviour within business.  However, with politics now more of a trade than a calling, Smith’s description equally applies to our elected class—a group that regularly meets, often for merriment, in a well-appointed building, to conspire against the Australian public.

    While Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh pursue new competition law amendments claimed to “make our economy more productive, more dynamic, and more competitive”, Special Minister of State Don Farrell is developing plans to make it more difficult for small parties and independent candidates to compete in the political marketplace.  Farrell even recently stated that “the Westminster system provides for a two-party operation.”  A duopoly that is.

    Recently also South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas proposed to ban electoral donations.  Were such a reform implemented, it would further privilege and embed the major parties by making it exceptionally difficult for new parties to emerge.  Raised barriers to entry lead to reduced competition.

    Political parties are exempted from many important laws including privacy and the proposed mis- and dis- information laws.  This makes their perpetual assault on political competition and concentration of political power even more nefarious.

    At a time of declining support for the major parties as measured by first preference voting and polling, the major parties continue to work together to maintain their political duopoly.

    Although the latest electoral proposals are being driven by a Labor Government, the Coalition also has dirty hands.  In 2021, the Coalition government passed laws, with Labor’s support, to shorten pre-polling periods and force the deregistration of some minor parties.  As part of this the major parties confiscated the words “liberal” and “labor” from the political lexicon, perpetually vesting these terms in themselves.

    Even Gough Whitlam’s grand dream of fixed four-year electoral terms has received bipartisan support with both John Howard and Peter Dutton offering endorsement. Extended terms transfer power from the people to the elected with no recourse, such as binding citizen-initiated referenda (as occur in Switzerland) or recall elections (as occur in the US).

    It was not always thus.  Over recent years, our neo-professional political class has increasingly and incrementally colluded to raise the barriers to entry for alternative parties and candidates.  This has contributed to a homogenization of personnel and policy, making the differences between the average Labor and Coalition candidate barely discernible to the average voter.

    For all the talk of diversity, this homogenization has led to much reduced experiential, cognitive and policy differentiation among politicians.  Many members of our parliaments, irrespective of party, gender, race, sexual preference or religion, follow similar educational and pre-parliamentary career paths.  While elected governments may change, there is a consistent trajectory of permanent government expansion and price rises through ever higher taxes.

    Since the turn of the millennium, it has been bipartisan policy and practice to increase spending, taxes, and the volume of regulations to ever greater levels.  The assaults on civil liberties and the crowding out of civil society similarly continue unabated.

    But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes

    It is not just a reduction of competition at the political level.  There has been a long-term de-federalisation project to aggregate power in Canberra; a manifestation of the French “disease” described by Alexis de Tocqueville as the tendency to concentrate authority in central government; something Tocqueville believed to be detrimental to political and social health.

    Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”, a term coined by US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.  Death duties in Australia were abolished not through some fiat from Canberra but because of competition between the states and territories.

    However, today some 81 percent of total tax revenue is collected by the Commonwealth, leading to policy centralisation and standardisation.  Matters constitutionally the provenance of the states, such as health and education, are now increasingly directed out of Canberra; fidelity to the intent of the Australian constitution and of tax and policy competition be damned.  

    Join Mailing List

    Just recently, the United States celebrated 248 years of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, it included this famous sentence: “… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.

    Just as politics is downstream from culture, policy is downstream from politics.  It’s time to change the way politics is done in Australia.

    How Sunk Cost Fallacy Drives Authoritarian Policies

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    Sunk cost fallacy is the tendency of people to stick with a decision or course of action that isn’t having a positive result because the person has invested time, money and/or resources that cannot be recovered and do not want to feel that they have wasted them. In many cases, sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action. 

    Here are two real life examples of how people can be affected by sunk cost fallacy.

    Example 1: 

    Amy buys a ticket to see a movie and goes into the cinema to watch it. After about 30 minutes she concludes the movie is not very good but watches it to the end because she doesn’t want to feel she has wasted her money on the ticket nor her time watching it.

    Example 2: 

    Kiara has gambled away thousands of dollars hoping one day to win big. Kiara does not want to stop gambling because she thinks she will win big one day and doesn’t want to think her ‘investment’ was a waste. She continues to double down and gamble away even more money in the hope it will one day pay off.

    What is authoritarian policy and what drives it?

    Authoritarian public policy restricts the choices of individuals or violates recognised civil rights and liberties. It is typically driven either by a desire to control others or to solve a problem or perceived problem within society. 

    Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

    It can be driven by malevolent forces, such as a group or individual wanting to increase their power or cause harm to a person or group they don’t like, or by benevolent forces wanting to solve a problem or make society a better place in the belief that the end justifies the means.

    How is sunk cost fallacy relevant to authoritarian policies?

    The imposition of any policy requires time, money and resources. Authoritarian policies also involve sacrificing rights and liberties, often even including those of the people supporting and perpetuating the policy.

    Most people like to think they are decent and not causing harm to others and society. We each want to be the hero of our own story. Those who support and perpetuate authoritarian policies often have good intentions. But good intentions do not alter the harm they cause to individuals and society. To these people, any so called ‘sacrifices’ are a means to an end, and the erosion of civil liberties and human suffering are an investment. Any attempt to reverse such investment is considered an attempt to turn an investment into waste. 

    Some real-life examples of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

    I will use two real life authoritarian policies as examples of sunk cost fallacy: the War on Drugs, and the Authoritarian Covid Response. Both came with significant social and economic costs, leading to major restrictions on individual freedom and causing significant suffering within society.

    The War on Drugs:

    The war on drugs has been waged for over half a century. Although there were laws that restricted and criminalised drugs in various countries, in the early 70s US President Richard Nixon found a way to criminalise groups that he did not like such as hippies and black people. 

    He knew that he couldn’t directly criminalise people for being hippies or black, but he also knew that drug use, in particular marijuana, was popular in both communities. From this, he enacted a policy in 1971 called the War on Drugs and created a government agency called the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) using the excuse of public safety. 

    And in a fashion typical of the US government, the policy began to be promoted to other countries, with many falling into line.

    The War on Drugs has proven to be incredibly destructive, with billions spent on enforcement around the world. Arresting people and putting them in jail uses a lot of resources and costs taxpayers a lot of money.

    The criminalisation of drug use has also had many negative social effects such as making criminals of those who were otherwise causing no harm to others, and being used an excuse to introduce policies such as civil asset forfeiture. 

    On top of this, the War on Drugs has been a failure:  drugs have won the war. People still use drugs. Yet governments around the world remain determined to make the policy work. New excuses are offered to justify the policy, such as public health and the cost to taxpayers in countries with socialised healthcare. Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

    Sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action. 

    Authoritarian Covid Response:

    The authoritarian Covid response (ACR) is a set of government responses to the Covid-19 virus which originated in China in late 2019 and proceeded to spread throughout the world. Although some people such the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions can get very sick, most people have mild symptoms and many don’t even know they have it.

    In reaction to the virus, governments threw out their prepared pandemic plans and implemented extreme restrictions on everyday life that severely curtailed civil liberties and derailed the lives of millions of people all over the world. 

    People were subjected to rules that were overly restrictive, made no scientific sense and were counterproductive. The rules were constantly changing, often confusing and practically impossible to follow even for those who wanted to follow them.

    The first two weeks and maybe even the first two months could have been forgiven but once it become obvious the rules were excessive and needless, they continued with significant societal support. The perpetuation of the policy had significant social and economic costs, has permanently eroded civil liberties, and has permanently and negatively altered the trajectory of the lives of many people including myself.

    Whenever the excessive nature of the ACR was mentioned, those who support it wouldn’t just disagree but would respond in a manner that can be best described as emotional and angry. I noticed many Gen Z peers to be very supportive of the ACR policy despite our age group disproportionately experiencing many of its negative effects.

    Join Mailing List

    The longer a person supported the ACR, the less likely they were to stop supporting it, with their support becoming more aggressive over time, even to the point of cutting off close friends and family. Given the extensive personal and societal ‘sacrifices’ created by ACR policies, many who supported the ACR came to view the ‘sacrifices’ caused by the policy to be an investment. 

    Ending the ACR policy would mean that the ‘sacrifices’ were a pointless sunk cost and a loss of their investment, and that they had needlessly harmed society. This desire to avoid losing out on their investment helped perpetuate the ACR policy and continue its existence.

    The implications of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

    Knowing that sunk cost fallacy drives authoritarian policy emphasises the importance of working to stop authoritarian policies before they even take hold. Once they do take hold, people become invested in their continuation which makes it more difficult to eliminate them. 

    The Contradictions of Environmentalism

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    There is an unresolved contradiction at the heart of environmentalism: are humans special, or not?

    That may seem like a pretty basic question, but from it flow a raft of challenges to environmentalist thinking.

    For most of human history, the answer was taken as a given: of course humans are special. Creation myths around the world, Christian, Babylonian, Hindu or Māori, emphasise the unique creation of humans.

    This human-centric worldview was rudely overthrown in the 19th century by the march of scientific discovery, especially the discovery of evolution. Nowadays, it is fashionable to argue that “Humans are nowhere near as special as we like to think”, or even deride humanity as mere “chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet” (Stephen Hawking).

    If it’s true that humans are just another animal, no better than pond-scum, then why does it matter how we affect our environment? After all, every living species affects their environment, from elephants to cyanobacteria. But no environmentalist rails at elephants for their destructiveness. No-one holds cyanobacteria personally accountable for blooming uncontrollably and poisoning waterways.

    Speciesism is allowing the interests of one species to override those of other species.

    If humans are just another animal, we are just another part of nature. Nothing we do can possibly be “unnatural”.

    Even driving other species to extinction.

    After all, extinction is the natural destiny of nearly every species. What matter if humans push a species off its perch rather than, say, competition from another species? Consider the Pedder Galaxias, a species of fish only found in Lake Pedder in Tasmania. Yet, Lake Pedder was only destined to exist in isolation for a geological eyeblink. The Pedder Galaxias was doomed, either way. Humans are no more “responsible” for its extinction than a landslide or a flood.

    The reason other species are not held accountable for their environmental destruction reason seems plain: they don’t know any better. Rabbits are incapable of making a collective decision not to over-graze and thus ensure the continuation of other species. Cyanobacteria cannot choose to avoid choking waterways.

    Humans alone are capable of making such decisions. Humans are the only species who choose to place the interests of their own species behind others. Environmentalists would surely argue against that claim, but it’s self-evident every time humans practise environmentalist decision-making. When, for instance, the Tasmanian community forgoes the building of a dam, or dismantles its forestry industry – both tremendously costly decisions to the human inhabitants of the island – they are choosing to place the interests of other species ahead of humans.

    That may seem right and proper to environmentalists, but it’s a form of speciesism – a moral failing equivalent in environmental thinking to racism or sexism. Speciesism is allowing the interests of one species to override those of other species. Richard Dawkins states that he doubts there can be a defensible rationale for speciesism. So environmental action stands damned by its own assumptions.

    Still, it might be argued that humans are not really placing their interests second at all. Refusing to dam a wild river serves human interests because its preservation simply pleases us. We value the natural environment of the river above that of a dam. The value of a pristine forest is greater than that of a thriving forestry industry.

    If humans are just another animal, we are just another part of nature.

    Each of those may be true – but they bring us right back to the initial question: the uniqueness of humans.

    Value is a human construct. More accurately, it is the construction of persons: which, so far as we currently know, means humans. 

    Perhaps in an effort to dethrone human uniqueness, there are arguments by environmentalists to extend the concept of personhood to other animals, notably great apes and cetaceans. Which seem suspiciously to be merely the species which most environmentalists find especially winsome (although others try to extend personhood to all living things, some, even non-living things, like rocks).

    The problem with such arguments is that personhood is a forensic concept. That is, personhood does not merely convey rights, it demands responsibility for a person’s actions. Are environmentalists willing to try and convict dolphins for their well-documented proclivities for gang-rape, or senselessly murdering baby porpoises? Should a chimpanzee which turns on its keeper be tried and punished? 

    Join Mailing List

    In fact, in the early 20th century, several circus elephants were publicly executed for killing humans. Those acts are now widely regarded as grotesque travesties. Which is a tacit admission that the animals were not, in fact, persons.

    Thus it seems that humans are indeed unique.

    If so, are we not entitled to demand a privileged place in the ecosystem, and not be subjected to demands made of no other species?

    Childcare – Why should you pay for it?

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

    The Coming Populist Revolt

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    Populism occurs when the masses revolt against the elites’ view of the world. Elite opinion does not often deal directly with popular opinion, that is, with the people who have to pay for elite opinion. When elites get it wrong, the masses revolt through the ballot; the Voice referendum being a good example. The question is, when is the next chance?

    Currently, the elite consensus on issues like net zero, immigration and identity politics is so far removed from the reality of the masses that it is no wonder they are pushing back. The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

    International

    Net zero is a preposterous notion. The world population is eight billion people. By 2050, it could be 10 billion people, a 25 per cent increase. These people will need energy. World energy consumption is 600 BTUs. By 2050, it could be 900 BTUs, a 50 per cent increase: more people, higher living standards, more energy. Electricity generation will rise mainly in the Asia-Pacific among developing nations. Renewables do not generally feature in developing countries’ energy mixes anywhere near developed nations’ proportions.

    Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia.

    Of 144 nations tracked for net zero, only 26 have placed in law their commitment to net zero by 2050 (or sooner). For example, the Maldives has pledged net zero by 2030 but it has no plan or accountability mechanism; it is pure hot air. Even Goody Two-Shoes Finland leaves out aviation and shipping and has plans but no mechanism for carbon removal. The US (2050), Russia (2060), China (2060), India (2070) and Brazil (2050) have a ‘policy document’, but nothing in law.

    Australia has a plan written in law that is sure to kill the nation’s wealth. Industrial and economic mayhem, loss of reliable energy and higher energy prices will reduce living standards. Minister Bowen’s deployment targets are logistically impossible in the time frame.

    Kenneth Schultz estimates a total cost of $1.4 trillion for the Coalition’s renewables-nuclear option. He estimates the cost for Labor’s renewables-battery option at $4.4 trillion, nine times the federal government’s total annual revenue.

    National 

    Migration in Europe and Australia is dangerous at levels that challenge national unity. Numbers count. If one million Palestinians settled in Australia in a short period, for example, the result would undermine Australian society. Palestinians would settle in a few suburbs and recreate a Palestinian society, i.e. one that recreates the hatred extant in Gaza and the West Bank.

    Values also count. Australia would do well to distinguish migrants by the nature of their observance, which is apparent in the laws on marriage, succession, or rape in marriage among our key Islamic migrant source countries: Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. A striking feature of those laws is that they distinguish the application of the law by religion. Religion first; the rule of law second. The question is how to distinguish this at an individual level. Classing people by source country is too crude and unfair, but not to distinguish people would be foolhardy. Why should Australia invite those unlikely to integrate or, worse, become an enemy?

    Those who appreciate the benefits of the nation-state would support Prime Minister John Howard’s view that, ‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.’ Howard and the Australian electorate recognised that some people are not welcome as they are unlikely to fit in. In the long term, Australia will be much more Indian and Chinese. Of the three million permanent migrants who arrived in Australia since 2000, almost 450,000 were from India, and nearly 350,000 were from China. The assumption of integration must be reinforced.

    The easy assumptions of integration post-World War II no longer hold. Since 2022, the Netherlands has required a substantial investment from a person applying for permanent residence before that privilege is granted. The civic integration requirements are set out in the Civic Integration Act 2021. The point of the Netherlands law is that applicants must be sufficiently integrated before they become permanent.

    The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

    Personal

    Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia. They are free to sing the praises of Palestine. Homosexuals are free to marry and raise children. But the trans lobby wants to abolish gender, which is dangerous to the mental health of trans people. Sex must be understood in evolutionary terms. There must be sperm and eggs for reproduction. Two women do not create a child, and two men do not create a child. They may care for them, and we wish them well. The proposition that sex is not binary, that it is socially determined, is dangerous, especially to those who find that they are not at ease with their sex and want to reassign their sex to suit their ‘gender’.

    Anyone should be free to express themselves as male or female. But when sex is detached from reproduction, there are consequences. As Zachary Elliott argues in Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth, ‘If we abandon sex as an important category in our society, how can we conduct safe and effective medical research and treatment; fight sex-based injustices; record accurate crime statistics; maintain fair, safe, and competitive sports categories; and implement equal opportunities for both sexes?’

    There is a claim that almost two per cent of the population is intersex, neither male nor female. The numbers consist almost entirely of those who suffer developmental disorders, such as late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia. People with these conditions account for nearly all the males or females who do not appear to be one or the other. The disorders occur in nature and do not result in good health. They are not socially determined.

    Join Mailing List

    Populism in the service of correcting the madness of net zero, overplayed migration and undermined sexual identity are ground zero for the populist fightback. The masses await the right leader and the right policies. Populism? More please!

    Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research 

    This article was first published in The Spectator.

    Smoke ‘Em If You Got ‘Em

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    For those of us who still occasionally like to check in on what the mainstream media is doing, there has been a topic that has got chins wagging and jowls flapping lately: “the tobacco wars”. 

    While the mainstream media, in typical fashion, has sensationalised the story, it is true that black and grey market tobacco is abundant in the community.

    BLACK, WHITE AND GREY

    As a (recently quit) smoker, I see it everywhere. My smoker friends brag about the newest place they discovered, with even cheaper prices, while they pull a cigarette out of their fully branded pack. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I saw a drab-brown (plain packaging) pack of cigarettes. And I wouldn’t be much of a libertarian if I didn’t confess that I haven’t bought a pack of cigarettes through a shop compelled to display a “retail tobacco merchant license” in well over a year.

    The obvious appeal of black and grey market tobacco is the near-two-thirds savings. I can buy a 20-pack of Marlboro Reds for under $20, while an authorised tobacco merchant is selling the same pack for over $50 (which I had to look up because it has been that long). And as more shopfronts pop up, the price is pushed down – a testament to the free market. 

    Anybody serious about removing the illicit tobacco market

    Even your poorest friends can afford to smoke chop-chop, illegally grown roll-your-own tobacco, at 50c per gram – a sixth of the price compared to roll-your-own tobacco in the authorised market.

    ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR

    Despite the fact that, I would guess, most smokers are paying less for cigarettes than they have in over a decade, there are serious concerns that accompany a rising illicit market for an addictive product. Bikies and organised crime groups are starting to muscle in on the market, aggressively extorting tobacco merchants (as opposed to the more passive extortion of tobacco tax) and violently vandalising competitors.

    Stories of tobacco shops being vandalised and torched are becoming a near-weekly occurrence. And while I have little sympathy for organised criminals, it is not only criminals being affected: legitimate tobacco merchants are in their crosshairs and innocent victims are inevitably caught in the blaze. So week-in and week-out, the mainstream media trots out some new “expert” on the matter who declares another hair-brained measure will solve this problem once and for all.

    One of the more popular new measures being touted is to implement a licensing system to regulate tobacco merchants, similar to booze. The one problem with that is it already exists and has done precisely nothing to stem the flow of illicit tobacco. In South Australia, where I live, we have a had a tobacco merchant licensing system for as long as I have been a smoker (15 years) and illegal tobacco – and the organised crime that comes with it – is thriving.

    Even your poorest friends can afford to smoke chop-chop, illegally grown roll-your-own tobacco

    STATING THE OBVIOUS

    At the risk of sounding like another idiot who has the solution for this problem once and for all, there is actually an incredibly obvious solution to this problem: lower the price of cigarettes. There is only one way for those “evil”, “scary” big tobacco companies to sell their products at a loss and for merchants to make pennies on the dollar: abolish (or at least significantly reduce) tobacco tax. Well over half the price of the average pack of cigarettes or pouch of roll-your-own tobacco goes to the government in tobacco excise alone. Tobacco, like petrol, is also double-dipped on tax with an additional 10 per cent of GST.

    So while even someone with a cursory understanding of economics knows the only way to combat this problem is to compete on price – especially in a market where almost all forms of non-price competition have been outlawed – the obvious remains unspoken. To even suggest we use the only realistic solution to combat the illicit tobacco market, while also removing the most regressive tax in Australian history, is complete heresy.

    UP IN SMOKE

    Instead, we’ll pile on more regulations, evaporating the few legitimate tobacco merchants left, and “crackdown” on illicit tobacco, as governments continuously claim to do for no avail. We have known for a long time now that prohibition never works, and now we know that a surreptitious prohibition, via ever-increasing prices, achieves the same result.

    Join Mailing List

    Anybody serious about removing the illicit tobacco market, preventing organised crime from gaining a foothold in another industry and legitimately saving the lives of those caught in the collateral damage, knows the answer to this problem. Now it’s time to say it out loud.

    GST is Better than Income Tax

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    0

    In my last article I argued that a flat and broad-based income tax is much the same as a broad-based GST, so we have little reason to hate the concept of income tax more than the concept of GST. I argued this by setting out an imaginary scenario with five citizens, one business, and no government.

    But there is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better. I will argue this by adding an additional year to the imaginary scenario, and by honing in on three of the citizens – the three employees.

    Year 1

    In year 1 each employee earns a salary of $100,000, enough to buy 100,000 products at $1 each. 

    One employee is short-sighted and borrows $100,000 from another employee, who we will call the long-sighted employee. So in year 1 the short-sighted employee buys 200,000 products while the long-sighted employee buys nothing.

    Year 1 with no government

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$100,000 of salary, plus $100,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee$200,000 for 200,000 products
    The long-sighted employee$100,000 of salary, less $100,000 lent to the short-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$100,000 of salary$100,000 for 100,000 products

    To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent.

    Year 2

    In year 2 each salary is $104,030, but this amount now buys only 101,000 products because the product price has risen from $1 to $1.03.

    The salary of the short-sighted employee is transferred to the long-sighted employee to pay off the previous year’s debt. As such, the long-sighted employee buys 202,000 products in year 2, while the short-sighted employee buys nothing.

    Year 2 with no government

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$104,030 of salary, less $104,030 paid to the long-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The long-sighted employee$104,030 of salary, plus $104,030 paid by the short-sighted employee$208,060 for 202,000 products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$104,030 of salary$104,030 for 101,000 products

    Bring Out The Government

    Now imagine instead a scenario where there is a government, and let us assume the government’s taxation does not discourage the citizens from producing as much as in the absence of government.

    In year 1 the government demands enough money from the three employees to buy 60,000 products. The government could get the money via a 20 per cent income tax on the salaries of the employees.

    Year 1 with income tax

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$80,000 of after-tax salary, and $80,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee$160,000 for 160,000 products
    The long-sighted employee$80,000 of after-tax salary, less $80,000 lent to the short-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$80,000 of after-tax salary$80,000 for 80,000 products
    Government$60,000 in tax$60,000 for 60,000 products

    In year 2, the government ups its demand, and now seeks enough money from the three employees to buy 60,600 products.

    If the government gets the money via income tax, it ends up taking more from savers compared to the amount taken from borrowers, and compared to the amount taken from those who neither save nor borrow.

    Consider the long-sighted employee, who lent $80,000 to the short-sighted employee in year 1, and who receives $83,452 from the short-sighted employee in year 2. 

    Year 2 with income tax

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$83,452 of after-tax salary, less $83,452 paid to the long-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The long-sighted employee$83,452 of after-tax salary, plus $83,452 paid by the short-sighted employee, less $683 of tax on interest $166,221 for 161,379 products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$83,452 of after-tax salary$83,452 for 81,021 products
    Government$62,418 in tax$62,418 for 60,600 products

    The pre-tax income of the long-sighted employee in year 2 is $104,030 of salary plus $3,452 of interest, summing to $107,482. So the long-sighted employee has higher pre-tax income than the other employees, simply because of a deal struck between peers.

    There is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better.

    To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent. The rate is lower than in year 1 because the government has dreamt up more income to tax than just salary income.

    The long-sighted employee pays more tax in year 2 than any other citizen ($21,261 compared to $20,578). The long-sighted employee ends up purchasing less than double what the take-it-as-it comes employee purchases, despite the long-sighted employee having gone without all purchases in year 1.

    This intrusion into the deal struck between the long-sighted employee and the short-sighted employee is how income tax punishes saving.

    Even if the long-sighted and short-sighted employees respond to the imposition of income tax by negotiating a change in the interest payment involved in their arrangement, this would just mean they share the punishment of deal-making meted out by income tax, a punishment that the take-it-as-it-comes employee avoids.

    As income tax penalises deal-making between savers and borrowers, while GST does not, income is inherently inferior to GST.

    123...16Page 2 of 16
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv