Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Monday, November 25, 2024
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 7

    The New UAE Corporate Tax

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    0

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is famous for, among other things, zero tax. That ended this year. The UAE now has a 9% tax rate for all but a very few exempted industries.

    The implementation of a corporate tax is not because the UAE needs the money to build new roads, hospitals, schools or public facilities. The UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world. None of it required tax revenues. Nor was it all paid for with money from oil revenues.

    Similarly, the UAE is not implementing a tax regime to fund public services such as policing, rubbish collection, healthcare or education. Again, the UAE embarrasses high-tax countries when it comes to public safety, maintenance of public spaces, healthcare and education. People in the UAE cannot even conceive of being robbed, let alone mugged; or even seeing a homeless drug addict. The unparalleled safety and cleanliness of the UAE has not required tax revenues; nor was it all funded by oil revenues.

    The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.

    The UAE is also not implementing a tax regime to fund a social welfare program. 89% of the UAE’s 9 million residents are expatriates. They must support their residency through work sponsorship or business profits, or else they have to leave. Technically, there is limited assistance available to the 11% minority of native emirate citizens. In reality, there is an unspoken positive discrimination applied to emirate citizens for various job positions. So taxes are not needed for welfare.

    The UAE is also not implementing a corporate tax to cover a ballooning government bureaucracy and out-of-control public indebtedness, like that seen throughout the “developed” Western nations, such as Australia. The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.

    The idea that Governments need an instrument as crude as tax to monetise a national economy is as archaic as it is absurd. We live in a world in which some of the largest and most successful companies lose money on their core business in order to drive greater profits from tangential sources. Airlines, for example, knowingly lose money from the business of flying planes, because greater profits come from the financialisation of their frequent flyer programs. Google and Facebook also stand out as companies whose revenues exceed the GDP of entire countries despite their ‘core products’ being ostensibly given away for “free”.

    The UAE has attracted literally trillions of dollars of foreign investment, hundreds of thousands of companies, millions of residents, tens-of-millions of visitors each year, and built some of the most incredible cities on earth in scarcely a few decades; primarily, arguably, as a result of eschewing taxation. So why would the UAE change direction after achieving such success following a far more sophisticated business model?

    UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world.

    The reason the UAE is sacrificing the zero-tax brand it worked so hard to build, is due to political pressure from socialist, globalist, kleptocratic politicians in high-tax, western nations. That is, the same politicians responsible for the terminal decline and humiliation of the West – the exponentially increasing debt, monetary debasement, deindustrialisation, illegal migration, growing homelessness, increasing crime, energy shortages, insane ‘woke’ politics, military weakness, civil unrest etc etc etc – are demanding that other nations, like the UAE, follow their lead.

    Unfortunately, the last time the UAE ignored the bullying of Western politicians they were placed on a so-called international ‘grey list’ by the Financial Action Task Force (FTAF) for not doing “enough” to “fight money laundering”. Compared to the money laundering taking place in the US, the volume going through the UAE is a pittance. But the issue was never about money laundering; it was demonstrating fealty to the Western political cabal. The ‘grey-listing’ was to embarrass the UAE rulers. The practical effect was simply to increase the paperwork burden placed on UAE banks moving money to and from overseas. That burden has made routine banking more difficult and expensive for legitimate SMEs, while having virtually no impact on companies and individuals transacting large sums. 

    Join Mailing List

    So the embarrassingly incompetent boobs overseeing the decline of the world’s richest countries have finally forced the UAE to start penalising businesses for being successful. The question now is: what is the likely impact going to be? 

    In 2018, the UAE was similarly pressured into implementing a goods and services tax (VAT) that included precious metals. The new 5% tax caused a 75% reduction in precious metal trade. Just 6 months later the Government exempted precious metals from the tax, restoring trade to previous levels.

    So it will be very interesting to see what comes of the new UAE tax.

    The Misguided Quest for “Fair Share”

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    “Grab your torch and pitch-fork” was the rallying cry of the left in the recent debate over stage three tax cuts.  And so the mob was led to follow a trail of sprinkled money to the door of high income earners to rob them of tax relief. 

    In the debate over Australia’s tax system, the concept of “fair share” has been wielded like a moral cudgel. Advocates argue high-income earners should pay more under the guise of affordability. Yet when we examine the impact of progressive taxation, especially through the lens of real-life financial pressures, the narrative of fairness starts to show cracks. 

    Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

    Consider someone earning $200,000 annually. Contrary to the image of affluence often portrayed, they face substantial financial obligations: mortgages, rising living costs, and family expenses. Despite these challenges, they’re taxed at a rate significantly higher than those earning $70,000.

    Under the new “Stage 3” regime, the person on $200,000 pays $55,000, which is $45,000 more than the person on $70,000 who pays $10,000. That is, more than five times as much in absolute dollars. Fairness isn’t just about percentages; it’s about the impact on individuals’ lives. The dialogue around tax rates frequently ignores these actual dollars paid, masking the true disparity. (See graph).

    Furthermore, this focus on rates overlooks a critical issue: bracket creep. As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power. This is an insidious form of taxation that exacerbates the burden on middle and higher-income earners, eroding the principle of fairness the system claims to uphold. 

    Moreover, the strategy of progressive taxation, while politically popular, overlooks the broader economic implications. High tax rates for top earners disincentivize the innovation and investment that drive economic growth. It is a short-sighted approach that prioritizes immediate political gain over long-term prosperity. 

    As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power.

    But the conversation about fairness must also challenge the government’s role in fiscal management. Instead of relying on tax increases, especially through bracket creep, as a default solution for budget shortfalls, there’s a pressing need for government to exercise fiscal restraint. This involves cutting wasteful spending, prioritizing essential services, and treating taxpayers’ money with the respect it deserves. Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

    A fair tax system would mitigate the effects of bracket creep, ensuring that individuals are not penalised for nominal increases in income that don’t reflect real gains in wealth. Alternatives such as a flat tax could offer more equitable solutions, ensuring everyone pays their share in a manner that encourages economic growth and innovation. 

    Join Mailing List

    In advocating for a truly “fair share” we must demand comprehensive tax reform that addresses not only the rate of taxation but also the underlying issues of bracket creep and fiscal responsibility. The aim should be a system that encourages prosperity, treats every taxpayer with fairness, and holds the government accountable for the stewardship of public funds. The quest for fairness in taxation is not just about adjusting rates; it’s about crafting policies that encourage a vibrant economy, respect individual contributions, and ensure the government treats taxpayer money with the care it warrants.

    Lawfare

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    1

    “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” is the famous statement attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief. This is an example of lawfare: the manipulation of legal processes, civil or criminal, to serve political, ideological, or personal interests rather than upholding justice. 

    Lawfare involves the misuse of the law by various means including selective enforcement, biased prosecutions, and politically motivated judgments for reasons unrelated to justice. It targets individuals or groups based on their political beliefs, policies or affiliations, and uses the law as a weapon to suppress dissent.

    Civil Law

    Civil law is traditionally employed to resolve disputes between private individuals or entities. However, it has increasingly become a weapon in the hands of powerful interests to silence critics. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused. These lawsuits are often filed with the primary aim of intimidating, censoring, or bankrupting individuals or organisations critical of those in power.

    Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech.

    SLAPP suits typically lack merit but serve as a tool to burden defendants with legal expenses and time-consuming litigation. The fear of financial ruin can force individuals or groups to retract their statements, cease their activities, or settle out of court. 

    Criminal law

    Governments and powerful organisations have increasingly turned to criminal law to suppress dissenting voices. Laws that criminalise defamation, sedition, or spreading false information can be exploited to target political opponents, journalists, activists, or any individual expressing dissenting views.

    Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech. Ostensibly drafted to address the dissemination of false information, the legislation raises concerns due to its broad scope, leaving individuals uncertain about what constitutes a violation. Such ambiguity can be exploited to selectively enforce the law, enabling those in power to target specific individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the alleged offense.

    The absence of precise definitions allows for the manipulation of the law to serve political interests, allowing authorities to interpret and apply it selectively. This raises concerns about the erosion of democratic principles, as those in authority exploit legal measures to silence opposition and stifle public discourse.

    One of the key concerns in the misuse of civil and criminal law is the selective prosecution of individuals or groups based on their political beliefs or affiliations. Authorities may use their power to target specific dissenting voices, leaving others untouched, thereby creating a chilling effect on those who oppose the status quo. 

    Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused.

    An example of this is the prosecution of Donald Trump, who many people believe is being persecuted rather than prosecuted to defeat him as a presidential candidate. Many believe Joe Biden has weaponised the Department of Justice to go after his political opponent, contrasting its treatment of Trump to that of Joe Biden in spite of widespread allegations of Biden’s corruption.

    The repeated prosecution of Pakistan’s former prime minister, Imran Khan, is another example. The Pakistan military has used the country’s courts to impose jail sentences that ensure he and his party are unable to participate in forthcoming elections. 

    When legal actions are driven by political motivations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice, it erodes the credibility of the legal system. The rule of law is founded on the principles of fairness, due process, and the objective application of legal standards, not on the whims of those in power.

    Frivolous civil lawsuits targeting individuals or groups and selective prosecution in criminal law depart significantly from a rule of law approach. In a rule of law framework, legal processes are expected to be impartial, fair, and based on established principles rather than arbitrary decisions or personal biases. Frivolous civil lawsuits, often driven by ulterior motives such as harassment or silencing dissent, abuse the legal system by burdening individuals with unnecessary litigation, straying from the principle of justice and fairness.

    Join Mailing List

    Similarly, selective prosecution in criminal law undermines the rule of law by targeting individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the merits of the case. A rule of law system requires equal application of the law, ensuring that legal actions are not used as tools for persecution or favouritism. When prosecution becomes selective, it compromises the foundational principles of fairness, due process, and equal protection under the law. In essence, both frivolous civil lawsuits and selective criminal prosecution deviate from the rule of law by introducing bias, subjectivity, and personal motivations into legal processes.

    Utilitarianism and the Omnipotence of Government

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    1

    Welcome to the Inspection House, known as the Panopticon.

    Jeremy Bentham, eighteenth century political thinker, was one of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number, which he considered to be a fundamental principle of morality.

    Managing societies is no easy task, hence, as first principles go, it seems reasonable. But what of the outsiders, those who prefer to live life as they see best for themselves? Well, Bentham’s take was more simplistic. He argued that human beings are ruled by two things only – pleasure and pain.

    “All men are under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure. It is for them to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”

    The bolded words are my emphasis for the purpose of showing that three centuries do not bring about change in how people think and act – I refer to the past few years of bending to the will of government edicts. I would like to think that most people knew what they “ought” to do in relation to government coercion around Covid vaccines and staying under house arrest, but fear determined what they “shall” do, and they did so in large numbers. 

    Today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about. 

    Some would consider Bentham’s view crude and base. After all, surely, we are more than the sum of two conflicting emotions. However, he considered this the most effective means of making laws to ensure that people’s actions amounted to the greatest happiness for all. 

    To ensure stability of the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, Bentham saw the need for a solution that would act to deter those seeking to disrupt the status quo, so he developed the concept of an institutional system where prisoners would be observed without their knowing. 

    Jeremy Bentham

    Very 1984!

    Today, surveillance is now part and parcel of our lives. We moderns tend to think that what we are encountering with the plethora of misinformation laws and censorship to within an inch of our lives, is new, be that good or bad, depending on what side of the fence one sits on with the issue.

    But today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about. 

    The early 1780s saw the Inspection House proposal hatched, known as the Panopticon. Its primary purpose was to house prisoners based on the idea of the best design to produce the best outcomes – the Utility principle at work. 

    However, a closer look at Bentham’s personal letters reveals more than just a desire to incarcerate criminals. 

    In a series of letters written in 1787 concerning a Plan of Management for a House of Corrections, he wrote:

    No matter how different, or even opposite the purpose: whether it be that of punishing the incorrigible, guarding the insane, reforming the vicious, confining the suspected, employing the idle, maintaining the helpless, curing the sick, instructing the willing in any branch of industry, or training the rising race in the path of education: in a word, whether it be applied to the purposes of perpetual prisons in the room of death, or prisons for confinement before trial, or penitentiary-houses, or houses of correction, or work-houses, or manufactories, or mad-houses, or hospitals, or schools. 

    One of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number

    Of all the bolded phrases (mine for emphasis), the “training the rising race in the path of education” is the most alarming. We are already witnessing the outcomes of progressive education. Imagine what humanity will look like if we cannot pull it back from the brink.

    There is not, and never has been, a shortage of individuals hellbent on shaping the world by their own means. Three centuries have passed since Jeremy Bentham concocted an idea to easily coerce people to the whims of intellectual prowess, and I don’t mean that in a complimentary way.

    The Utility principle is akin to the concept of the “greater good.” It has always been at the core of public planning for the mere reason that most people prefer others to make the hard decisions, even when it comes to their own personal lives. But Utility is not for everyone. Some of us prefer to live our lives by the “do no harm” principle,” otherwise known as living by one’s own code and doing no harm to anyone else in the process.

    Join Mailing List

    Should we be alarmed at the rise of these new old concepts?

    Are we on the precipice of the collapse of humanity as we have known it? 

    Is the old Panopticon the new 15 Minute City, designed to enslave us? 

    Probably, is my answer. And that doesn’t mean we stop resisting its implementation through peaceful non-compliance. If history shows us one thing only, it is that pride comes before a fall, and the globalist agenda is big, bold, and ugly. We owe it to our families, friends and all who believe in freedom to continue to defend humanity at all costs.

    The Nation State

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    As another Australia Day passes, it gives us the opportunity to reflect on our national identity and what it truly means to be Australian with the number purporting to opt out of celebrating our national day increasing.

    CHANGE THE DATE

    26 January 1788 marks the landing of the First Fleet and raising of the Union Jack in Sydney Harbour. While it is true it has only been granted public-holiday status since 1994, the term “Australia Day” has been used to celebrate 26 January in all states and territories since 1935. In New South Wales, 26 January celebrations date back to 1808.

    While changing the date may sound like a way of keeping more people happy, in fact complaints about the date are nothing more than a facade for the true anti-Australian and anti-Western motivations behind the movement.

    History is replete with actions that we would find abhorrent in modern society – and some of the actions of Australia’s first settlers are no exception. Regardless of what new date we may find, the grievance industry would have absolutely no hesitation finding some historical injustice on that new date to complain about. Which is precisely the point.

    Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny.

    The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety. In fact, these grievance professionals do not believe Australia, or its culture, is worth celebrating. They are the Australian subsidiary of the global grievance industry’s efforts to prevent the celebration of any aspect of Western culture, despite it being responsible for the most free and equitable societies in human history.

    A BROKEN CLOCK

    But what if they’re right? What if these grievance professionals have stumbled onto something, inadvertently of course? The irony is that Australia is the wet dream of the very authoritarians who attempt to suppress the celebration of any of its achievements.

    Contrary to the popular narrative of the laid-back Aussie, we are an incredibly orderly and compliant bunch. If Shakespeare was right and all the world is indeed a stage, Australia is the usher, dutifully ensuring the audience is seated correctly and quickly shushing those who dare exceed the permitted level of fun.

    And what do we have to be proud of? Let’s look to modern times. Having the world’s longest and harshest lockdowns? Excessive levels of taxation? Forced participation in the political system? A disarmed populace?

    “But we were once a great nation” all the boomers will cry! Perhaps we were; I was not alive to see, but I suspect that is nothing more than a nice comfort to cling to.

    THE LUCKY COUNTRY

    Our history suggests we were always orderly and compliant, inheriting our love for order from Mother Britian and never seeking independence from her. Like an overly dependent child and a helicopter mother: the mother fearful of the harms that freedom may entail, and the child comforted by a familiar dependence.

    The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety.

    Australian liberty is no better summarised than by our closest encounter with homegrown rebellion: the Eureaka Stockade. It lasted a grand total of 15 minutes before the rebels were overrun by security forces.

    While the founding documents of the rebel miners proclaims that “taxation without representation is tyranny”, echoing the language of the United States Declaration of Independence, the Eureka flag now hangs in the offices of tyrants across the country.

    The symbol of our failed rebellion is captured by the tax collectors and tyrants it once opposed. All to the rapturous applause and adulation of the captive populace.

    GOLDEN SOIL

    Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny. American gun-grabbers point to “the Australian model” to disarm their populace. Global health bureaucrats gushed over “the Australian approach” to Covid tyranny. Regulators worldwide were inspired by Australia’s plain-package cigarettes and sky-high tobacco excise.

    Join Mailing List

    While the Australian economy was once described as “a farm on top of a mine”, it should now be updated to “an unrelenting bureaucracy on top of a mine”. By revenue, state government administration is now the biggest industry in Australia. And tyranny is our biggest export.
    And even though I celebrated Australia Day the most Aussie way I know how, in front of a barbeque, with a beer in hand and the cricket on TV, as the state-mandated bedtime approached, I couldn’t help but wonder: am I truly proud to be Australian?

    What should the Australian Defence Force do?

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    0

    Hint: the answer is in the name

    The Australian Defence Force (ADF) does lots of things it shouldn’t.

    Restrict the trading of others

    The Australian Defence Force (ADF) helps to enforce sanctions.  

    It contributes in varying degrees to efforts to enforce sanctions endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, like sanctions against North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and various countries in Africa, as well as other sanctions like those against Russia, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe.

    Sanctions impede and redirect, rather than stop, trade involving the targeted countries.  They rarely bring about regime or policy change in the targeted country, and any impact in this regard is more often negative than positive.  Sanctions amount to a diplomat’s response to a call to ‘do something’ without the commitment of ground troops.

    Deterring and countering restrictions on our own trade

    Some say the ADF can and should defend Australian trade by ensuring the ADF can project power including through a long-range navy.

    This is wrong.

    The likelihood of any attempts to stop Australia’s trade is low, the likelihood of success of any such attempts is low, the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australia’s trade would be far from catastrophic, and the ADF can do little to deter or counter any of this anyway.

    Firstly, consider the likelihood of attempts to stop Australian trade.  Here are some scenarios, from less to more likely.

    • The United Nations Security Council agreeing to impose sanctions on Australia in an attempt to stop Australian trade.
    • An assortment of powerful countries defying the Security Council and attempting to stop Australian trade themselves.
    • One country, such as China, unilaterally attempting to stop Australian trade, including through war.
    • Pirates attempting to stop Australian trade.

    Each scenario is unlikely, except perhaps the risk of piracy, for which traders can arrange their own security.

    The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy

    Secondly, consider the likelihood of success of any attempts to stop Australian trade. As we see with current sanction efforts, and even at the height of the last world war, even the most sophisticated campaigns against a country’s trade tend to impede and redirect trade, rather than stop it.

    Thirdly, consider the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australian trade. Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade.  We are more self-sufficient than you think.  So a successful blockade of Australia would cause some hardship, but any claims beyond this are hyperbolic.

    Finally, even in the unlikely event of a successful trade blockade against Australia, what would be the optimal ADF response?

    Nothing.  

    The point is, the cost of having a military powerful enough to counter such a blockade would be greater than the cost of living self-sufficiently.

    The ADF as foreign aid

    The ADF is building infrastructure in PNG, Vanuatu, Fiji and the Solomons, doing maritime surveillance to defend the fisheries of various Pacific Islands, and training military and police forces in various Pacific countries. 

    Such action may fail to deliver political stability and prosperity to the Pacific, and may fail to deter the establishment of Chinese military bases in the Pacific.  Moreover, Australians suffer little from instability and poverty in the Pacific, and Chinese military bases in the Pacific would do little to increase the risk of, or damage from, Chinese aggression to Australia.  

    The ADF’s actions in the Pacific are essentially foreign aid, the funding of which should not be forced on all taxpayers.

    Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade.

    Other overseas operations

    The operations of the ADF beyond the Pacific are unwarranted too.

    The ADF is training Ukrainians to fight Russia and remains in a fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with a current focus on training Iraqi forces. The ADF dons blue berets to police the borders of Israel and the Koreas and to provide security in South Sudan, having recently provided security in Mali.

    These are not our fights. Interested Australians should be free to engage in these conflicts if they so choose, without roping the Australian taxpayer in. The ADF’s engagement in these fights does not represent cost-effective training for defending Australian soil, which is best done through defensive exercises in Australian conditions.  And while ADF personnel are overseas, they are not defending Australia.  

    Enforcing obedience to state law

    During the Covid lockdowns, the ADF was used in support of state police to prevent travel beyond legally permitted limits and to keep state borders closed. 

    The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy, and the military should not have been tasked with law enforcement.  In liberal democracies, we train and regulate our military primarily for the exertion of force on enemies, and our police primarily for the service and protection of citizens.

    Join Mailing List

    Disaster relief

    The ADF is increasingly being used for humanitarian assistance following floods and bushfires. This is not its role; indeed, such activities are a serious distraction from its primary role of the defence of Australia. 

    State governments should bolster the ranks of volunteer organisations to provide humanitarian assistance.

    Don’t Welcome Me to My Country

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    2

    During the debate leading to the Voice referendum, prominent Voice supporter Marcia Langton was quoted in the media saying that if the referendum was defeated: 

    “How are they going to ever ask an Indigenous person, a Traditional Owner, for a welcome to country? How are they ever going to be able to ask me to come and speak at their conference? If they have the temerity to do it, of course the answer is going to be no.”

    In other words, a no vote would result in Aborigines refusing to provide ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies. 

    As is well known, the no vote was overwhelming. However, so far there has been no reduction in the welcomes.  

    The definition of racism is treating people differently on the basis of race. The result of the Voice referendum demonstrated that Australians are profoundly anti-racist; Australians do not want to be treated differently according to race. They just want to be treated the same as everyone else, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion or cultural origins. As George Orwell would have put it, no Australians should be more equal than others.  

    Nobody doubts that Aborigines immigrated to Australia 10,000 years ago

    The problem with welcome to country ceremonies is that they are at odds with this. They are only performed by Aboriginal Australians, and imply that those performing them have a special claim to the country that other Australians do not have.  

    If they were welcoming visitors to land over which they had a proprietorial right, such as an indigenous reserve, this might be understandable. But that is not the case. Moreover, most of those performing the ceremonies are not even elders who could at least claim to be representing their clan. 

    Similarly, if they were welcoming foreign visitors to Australia, on behalf of all Australians, it might be understandable. But that is also not the case; indeed, most foreign visitors never witness such a ceremony. 

    In reality they are simply Australians, paid performers, purporting to welcome fellow Australians to their own country. 

    As a successful multicultural society, Australians respect diverse cultures. From the Aboriginal Garma festival to the Indian Dev Diwali celebrations, plus numerous other ethnic ceremonies and celebrations, they happen freely and without hindrance. 

    However, all Australians, including the Aborigines, are ultimately descended from immigrants. The only difference is the time period. As a consequence, going beyond respect to declaring one particular culture as superior is a step too far. 

    Nobody doubts that Aborigines immigrated to Australia 10,000 years ago (or longer if some are to be believed), but why does that make their culture more deserving than the culture of the Chinese who arrived during the gold rush, or the Greeks and Italians who arrived after the Second World War, or even first-generation immigrants from India?  

    Australians do not want to be treated differently according to race

    If longevity in Australia is a basis for cultural priority, why shouldn’t the descendants of First Fleeters assert priority over all those who followed them? 

    There is another reason why welcome to country ceremonies should be abandoned: they are actually not part of Aboriginal culture at all, but were invented by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley to welcome a group of Māoris in 1976. Australia’s first governor, Captain Arthur Phillip, could never have witnessed a welcome to country ceremony in 1788 because they did not exist at that time.

    Those who support welcome to country ceremonies are largely the same people who advocated for a yes vote for the Voice or repeat slogans such as “always was, always will be”. They are simply out of step with mainstream opinion; today’s Australians are not responsible for what occurred long before they were born and will not be held liable for it.  

    Join Mailing List

    And while there are genuine concerns at the differences in health and education between Aborigines in remote areas and other Australians, it is perfectly obvious to them that welcome to country ceremonies will not close the gap. Moreover, there are other Australians also missing out who are not Aboriginal. 

    Australians are kind-hearted and generous, and have always supported assistance on the basis of need. But having Aborigines welcome us to our own country is simply un-Australian.

    Decommissioning Solar & Wind Projects: A Costly Endeavour

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    2

    Over the last decade, decommissioning and waste management of solar and wind energy projects has grown into a thriving industry. In the decades to come, with the continued deployment of projects all over the world, it will massively expand.

    Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes. Decommissioning large plants can run up costs of millions, or even billions.

    Solar

    As solar capacity expands, demand for decommissioning services will increase. International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that global solar project waste will reach 212 million tonnes a year by 2050. 

    Despite photovoltaic projects supposedly lasting 20 years, owners often decommission early. Reasons include broken panels, manufacturers out of business, outdated technical attributes and unprofitable projects. 

    The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

    Solar systems require highly specialised waste management. To reduce landfill waste and promote sustainability, responsible disposal and recycling practices are crucial.

    Environmental concerns regarding solar waste components include gallium arsenide, tellurium, crystalline silicon, lead, chromium, cadmium, sulfuric acid, mercury, radioactive materials and heavy earth minerals. Inadequate disposal leads to chemicals leaching into groundwater, stressing nature and agriculture and poisoning drinking water. 

    Solar panels also contain valuable raw materials such as copper, steel, aluminium, zinc, and silver. These are wasted in landfill.

    Wind 

    Waste management of wind turbine blades is also complicated, expensive and raises environmental concerns.

    Each blade is 50 to 90 metres long. It must be cut up using specialised equipment. Blades consist of resin and fibreglass, which cannot be recycled or crushed. Existing landfills do not have space for them and setting up new landfills is expensive.

    To understand the scope of the issues, let’s take a look at the two largest economies, the US and China. 

    US 

    Solar 

    Commenting on a report by the Energy Information Administration, Solarcycle CEO Suvi Sharma said, “Solar is becoming the dominant form of power generation, but with that comes a new set of challenges and opportunities. We have not done anything yet on making [solar] circular and dealing with end-of-life [panels].”

    There are approximately 500 million solar panels installed across the US, increasing 20% each year. Ninety percent of decommissioned panels currently go to landfill due to recycling costs. From 2030 to 2060, the US will accumulate 9.8 million tonnes of solar panel waste, according to a 2019 study published in Renewable Energy.

    Sharma stated that, “We see that gap closing over the next five to 10 years significantly, through a combination of recycling becoming more cost-effective and landfill costs only increasing.” 

    Time will tell whether or not this prediction is accurate. 

    Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes.

    Wind

    The lifespan of a wind turbine is purportedly 20 years. However, as Julie Angulo, senior vice president of Veolia stated “We are seeing a wave of blades that are 10 to 12 years old, we know that number is going to go up.”

    Decommissioned wind turbine blades have joined solar panels in landfills, and are known as ‘forever waste’.

    According to a 2021 study released by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the US will decommission 3,000 to 9,000 blades every year until 2026, 10,000 to 20,000 blades a year until 2040, and 235,000 blades a year by 2050. 

    China 

    China leads the world in wind and solar energy equipment manufacture. China’s initial aim was 1,200 gigawatts of wind and solar by 2030. The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

    Waste volumes will rise as projects are decommissioned and replaced, emphasising the need for recycling measures. China currently doesn’t have specific regulations or processes for solar panel and wind turbine waste management. The State has announced it is working on industrial standards and rules to address this.

    The state planning agency advised that China aims to have a “basically mature” full-process recycling system for wind turbines and solar panels by the end of the decade. 

    Solar 

    China is the world’s leading solar market. It has surpassed everyone in terms of expenditure, manufactured panels and energy production.

    The International Renewable Energy Agency reported that in 2023, China dominated global solar panel additions with a record-breaking year, adding an estimated 180 to 230 gigawatts. 

    Join Mailing List

    However, in June last year China’s official Science and Technology Daily newspaper advised that in spite of the lifespan of 20 years, many of China’s solar projects show significant wear. The paper cited experts saying that China will have 1.5 million metric tonnes of decommissioned panels by 2030. This rises to 20 million tonnes by 2050 and is also in line with The International Renewable Energy Agency’s estimations. China will have the greatest amount of solar panel waste in the world.

    Conclusion

    The burgeoning solar and wind energy sectors demand attention to the economic implications of decommissioning and waste management. We need to face the fact that “sustainable” energy might not be so sustainable, and fossil fuels alongside nuclear are still necessary to keep costs and environmental damage to a minimum.

    Good Reasons for Suspicion

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    3

    Worldwide outrage engendered by the SWIFT Affair seems rather quaint today. Operating since 1973, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication is the messaging system that accounts for almost all international financial transactions. Evidence emerged in 2006 that the United States government had been covertly monitoring SWIFT transactions since the late 1990s and in collaboration with SWIFT since 2001. 

    SWIFT’s collaboration to supply transaction data breached the laws of Belgium (where it is based) and Europe. That European citizens could be subject to such monitoring by a foreign power caused great consternation among both the populace and European governments. 

    Justifying the enormous collection of the private information of citizens of allied and friendly countries, the US government claimed it was a necessary aspect of terrorism prevention. To avoid the appearance of disunity between NATO allies in the ‘War on Terror’, and to placate an indignant population, the European Union negotiated an agreement to enable US access whilst making provision for minimal privacy for European Union citizens. An agreement which was altogether academic: as Edward Snowden’s 2010 disclosure of classified NSA material demonstrated, the United States resumed clandestine surveillance of SWIFT before the ink on the agreement was dry.

    The Social Credit System is popular in China, where efficiencies and fraud prevention are broadly appreciated.

    This incident became fertile ground for conspiracy theories among a growing segment of the populace in Western countries, particularly those already suspicious of government overreach in ‘The War on Terror.’ 

    (The populations of non-Western countries, accustomed to the American modus operandi in world affairs, required no such convincing.)

    From survivalists in the Appalachian Mountains to billionaires purchasing luxury fallout bunkers in New Zealand, people began to think about ‘what if’, extrapolating contemporary social, political, geo-political and environmental trends to rational yet disconcertingly dystopian conclusions, pessimism exacerbated by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and resentment at the enormous taxpayer-funded bailouts of the institutions that caused it. 

    Currency suddenly held people’s attention. Was it evolving from a means of exchange to a mechanism for surveillance? Could it be used to impose social controls on entire societies? What if it was absent altogether? What are the privacy ramifications of obsoleting paper currency? 

    SWIFT’s collaboration to supply transaction data breached the laws of Belgium (where it is based) and Europe.

    No-one needed to look too far for answers to most of these questions. In 2014 the Social Credit System was introduced by the People’s Republic of China to several regions. The excesses of the state and the capabilities inherent in the system became readily apparent to horrified Western observers shortly thereafter. Currently comprised of disparate systems, the objective is for the Social Credit System to coalesce into a consolidated system encompassing the entire country. Underpinning the system is financial transactions (currently the Yuan, in future the Digital Renminbi.)

    The Social Credit System is popular in China, where efficiencies and fraud prevention are broadly appreciated. Many of the criticisms of the system as a form of Orwellian control are overstated but not invalid. Suspicious foreign observers rightly point out that while it might not be utilised for that now, it could be in the future. Conversely, observers taking a nation-state perspective began to consider the possibilities for their own societies.

    Join Mailing List

    So ended the decade: a growing appreciation by governments for the control inherent in surveillance of financial systems, and a burgeoning section of the populace suspicious of state overreach into private transactions. 

    Technology is the enabler for all of it, good and ill. As the technology landscape evolves the battle remains the same, between the rising libertarian instincts of the populace and the authoritarian tendencies of the state. Yesterday’s battle was the SWIFT affair. Tomorrow’s battlefield is cryptocurrencies and Central Bank Digital Currencies.

    Subjects I’ll address in part II.

    China 2024 and Beyond: A Troubled Future

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    2

    My recent discussions on Liberty Itch have painted a picture of China’s landscape as a prison-like surveillance-intensive system, and as a no-privacy technology-driven cashless society. In this article, I want to further explore the future of China as we look towards 2024 and beyond. I will examine the implications of China’s expanding surveillance state, the tightening grip of authoritarian power, the simmering economic challenges, and the looming demographic crisis.

    A Safe Prison

    In China, particularly within its major cities where surveillance cameras are omnipresent, the situation resembles a vast yet secure prison. Proponents may argue that it ensures unparalleled safety, but high security is also a characteristic of prisons, largely due to extensive surveillance, with only a few exceptions like Jeffrey Epstein.

    Beyond what I discussed in my previous article, emerging technologies are being used by the government to further erode any remaining privacy. A recent example I heard from a friend is a discreet device, easily overlooked, capable of extracting comprehensive information from your phone within a short range. Although not widely deployed yet, the potential of such technology is horrifying. While the most secure phone option in China is an overseas iPhone, these have been banned by all government bodies and affiliated organisations – a decision aimed at facilitating surveillance under the guise of patriotism.

     The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023

    A Loyal Empire

    Xi Jinping’s regime is imposing a concentration of power unprecedented since Mao’s era. This communist empire demands not just loyalty, but absolute allegiance from its members. Figures like the recently deceased former Premier Li Keqiang, known for their more liberal stances on society and the economy, have been conspicuously absent from the new cabinet for a year.

    With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier. In various government bodies and affiliated institutions, such as banks and universities, advanced AI-embedded cameras are being employed to analyse people’s facial reactions. These sophisticated systems scrutinise subtle changes in lips, noses, chins, eyes, and eyebrows to infer individuals’ emotions – admiration, confusion, indifference, or even dissent. The leap from mere “facial recognition” to “mind reading” is deeply troubling.

    A Growth Mirage

    China’s economy is facing severe challenges. Despite optimistic forecasts for a robust recovery following China’s post-COVID reopening at the end of 2022, the reality in 2023 has been starkly different.

    Stock Market: In contrast to the significant gains in global share markets in 2023, with the US up by 24.2%, the Eurozone by 15.7%, and Australia by 7.8%, China’s stock market has seen a decline, down by 11.4%.

    Property Market: The real estate sector, once a cornerstone of China’s economic growth, has seen a decline of 20-30% across most major cities. In cities like Shanghai, luxury properties have seen even steeper declines of 30-40%. This downturn is more pronounced in smaller cities experiencing a net population outflow. Additionally, a report in August 2023 indicated that the vacancy rate in 28 major cities was at 12%. (For comparison, Australia’s vacancy rate was recorded at 1.02% in October 2023.)

    Local Government Debts: Local governments need to repay a record US$651 billion in bonds in 2024. The deep property slump is reducing their ability to generate income from land sales, which is a crucial revenue source. The slowdown in the broader economy has also affected their tax revenue. Growing concerns about potential defaults could trigger a widespread economic crisis.

    Spending: Although people are still showing off with travelling photos on popular Chinese social media platforms, overall spending has reduced significantly, leading to the phenomenon termed “selfie travel.” A friend, whose business has suffered a significant downturn, satirically remarked, “I used to shop at Hermes, but now I shop at Uniqlo.”

    With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier.

    Youth Unemployment: The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023, leading to the government’s decision to cease publishing the data. The last official youth unemployment rate was over 20%. This trend is attributed to a slowing economy and a mismatch between graduates’ skills and job market demands, as well as their expectations and “lying flat” attitudes, which pose serious implications for social and political unrest.

    Baby Boom Bust

    China’s future is increasingly influenced by a significant demographic issue: its declining birth rate. In early 2023, China experienced its first decline in birth rates in 60 years, a trend that only intensified as the year progressed. Despite policy shifts from the One-Child to the Two-Child and later the Three-Child policies, young families remain reluctant to have more children. This trend, along with minimal population growth, threatens to strain social security systems, potentially leading to a critical tipping point.

    Join Mailing List

    Conclusion

    While numerous factors, such as potential war with Taiwan and evolving political and economic relations with Western countries, play a role in shaping China’s future, the areas discussed here are particularly significant. The increasing reliance on surveillance, a heightened emphasis on ideological conformity, and a declining population, point towards significant difficulties ahead. Though Xi Jinping, persistently criticised for lacking the capability to advance China’s progress, remains the unchallenged supreme leader, China is in urgent need of a new Deng Xiaoping—a true reformist—to take the country back onto the right track.

    1...678...16Page 7 of 16
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv