Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Most popular

    Australia

    Home Australia

    Enemy of the state

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    0

    The clothes we wear may change, but the virtues and vices of mankind do not.

    As a historian of ancient Rome, I am in awe of the vast and rich sourcebook of knowledge it offers to guide us on what to heed and what to avoid.  Yet it appears that those we elect, rule over us with no regard for what we think, as they wield the proverbial sword of what they call justice.

    The warnings from the Australian government to the people around the proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill are reminiscent of the treatment meted out to those who dared to criticise rulers in ancient Rome; the caveat being that brutality of the highest order is not in play here. 

    However, this Bill comes on the back of four years of politicians instilling fear into the population, so it is not a standalone government edict. I argue that it is the trigger for the final battle in protecting our liberties and freedoms.

    Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation

    We were warned in no uncertain terms by state premiers that the virus would “hunt down the unvaccinated”, and if we continued to ignore the dictates from on high, Senator Jacqui Lambie was there to warn that the government would come after us “lock, stock and barrel” unless we complied. 

    Senator Jacqui Lambie

    Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live. Now, they are being primed to accept the most illiberal piece of legislation imaginable. And they will achieve this not just with help from the scaremongering media, but through hopes of raising an army of civilian snitches.

    When Lucius Cornelius Sulla was made consul in the early 80s BC and, later, dictator with the goal to restore the Roman Republican constitution, he told the people that if they obeyed him, he would introduce changes that would benefit them all. Should they decide not to, then punishment would be swift and savage.

    Those he considered enemies, or friends of enemies, were put on public proscription lists. In addition, he added a statement “detailing a prize for killers, rewards for informers, and penalties for concealment.”

    Guilt by association also copped a severe punishment: 

    “Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation, and there were actually cases of condemnation for showing sympathy or merely travelling in company with a suspect.”

     The result of his unadulterated power?

    Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live.

    “He took sole charge of shaping all the political institutions of the state in the way he wanted. For there was no longer any talk of laws, or elections, or sortition, since everybody was quaking with fear and lying low or keeping silent.”

    Forty years later, a group of three – the infamous triumvirate of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus – conspired to punish their enemies in their quest for vengeance following the assassination of Julius Caesar. 

    They prepared a list in private, and even traded names of friends and foes of one another, surrendering their own relatives if necessary. 

    “These included brothers and uncles of the men who proscribed them and of their subordinates, if they had done anything to offend the leaders or these subordinates.”

    Join Mailing List

    In principle, what is the difference of intent between 80 BC and 2024 AD? 

    The Roman consuls proscribed those who offended them through brutal means, as was the order of the day. Our leadership designs legislation to incriminate us if we dare to offend them.

    The intent remains the same – to silence anyone with a different view. 
    The lesson here is more for the ordinary person than the egotistical politician, for they already know the rulebook inside out – how to manipulate the population. We, as people who merely want to live our lives in relative peace, must harness a sense of courage to stand against the machinery of an overbearing government, even if it means earning the moniker of being an enemy of the state.

    Raw Deal

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    2

    A local rag (The Geelong Advertiser) reported* last month that some sort of strange secretive trade was taking place in the quiet backstreets of affluent Highton. The article heavily implied that this was an illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria.

    I found two things rather confronting about this story. 

    First, it seemed the main concern of the other residents of this quiet cul-de-sac was that once a fortnight their street attracted some extra traffic. “It was really invasive”, claimed a local resident. 

    The article explained that ‘customers’ were turning up to this particular house brandishing empty white buckets, then returning to their cars with a full one. 

    Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock.

    Second, this saga represents yet another example of Australians loving a rule and hating a rule breaker – a sad inversion of how we are traditionally portrayed. We saw the same attitude during Covid when people dobbed in neighbours who held gatherings at their houses during lockdowns. 

    It exposes a distinctly ugly side to the modern suburban Australian – spying on their neighbours and obsessed with everyone’s business but their own. It was apparently too much to ask of a suburban neighbourhood to ignore a few extra cars on their street every second Tuesday evening. 

    I don’t believe it has anything to do with health and safety. It’s a twisted manifestation of tall poppy syndrome where Australians seem to believe we should all suffer together under the tyranny of useless laws and regulations. 

    The basis for why raw milk is banned in Victoria (until 2015 it could be sold as ‘bath milk’) is a tall tale, based largely on hearsay and a coroner’s report drawing a (weak) link between a child’s death and possible raw milk consumption. Put it this way: the same health department that shut down the Dandenong I Cook Foods business made the decision.    

    Illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria

    Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock. Our stance on vape products is infamous internationally for how not to regulate them, alternative treatments for Covid 19 were needlessly banned in favour of novel vaccines (such as the recently discontinued AstraZeneca vaccine). Worse, the relentless pursuit by APHRA of renegade doctors who break rank and provide medical advice to the contrary of the national standard drives their valuable advice and expertise underground.  

    And so it is with raw milk, where in New Zealand, England, and across much of the USA and Europe, consumers can access it under the protections of a strong regulatory environment. In Australia, consumers discreetly drive to suburban distribution points at night and try not to disturb the nosy neighbours while lugging buckets back to their cars.   

    Join Mailing List

    “In general, safety takes priority over freedom of choice” was the catch cry of a Dairy Food safety regulator in response to the Geelong incident, summing up everything wrong with the attitude of the public health system. 

    Australians love rules, and health departments love making them. Thus, those wishing to exercise their freedom to choose end up needlessly on the wrong side of both the law and public opinion. At least everyone else can sleep easy at night, lest they be disturbed by some extra cars on their street!
    *https://www.melissa-payne.ca/trending/8ad51675cd36/

    Resisting centralist power – Part 3

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    In a speech entitled, Rebuilding the Federation, Richard Court, then Premier of Western Australia, described the tide of centralism as follows:

    “All the things that the States do best are under attack from the empire builders in Canberra. The bureaucracy running the Federal education system, as you know, is large but it doesn’t teach any students. There is an equally large health bureaucracy which doesn’t treat any patients.”

    Court went on to make the point that the Constitution recognised that State governments were better placed to respond to local priorities. 

    Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations.

    The States are left with constitutional responsibility for education, health, housing, law and order, commerce and industry, transport, and natural resources including land and essential services. But Court noted that, with the help of the High Court, the Commonwealth now has almost complete control in some of these areas.

    Benefits of Federalism

    Those who live in the major population centres on Australia’s eastern seaboard may not understand the importance of local decision making in the same way that those who live in the regions and smaller States do. In a country as large and diverse as Australia it is very difficult for a political administration and bureaucracy based in a distant national capital to take full account of, and understand, the interests and needs of local communities.

    As a principle not only of government, but also of life, the best decisions are taken when all the parties to the decision know and understand the issues intimately. A federalist approach that seeks to allow States to exercise power in making decisions on local matters is infinitely better than centralised decisions at a distance. Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

    Economic Benefits

    The Productivity Commission has outlined the competitive benefits of federalism in improving performance in the Australian economy, saying:

    “The competitive dimension of federalism, which provides in-built incentives for governments to perform better across a variety of areas, is operating well.” 

    There is an inherent competitiveness between the States that should be encouraged. State governments have a vital role to play in creating the right environment to attract and retain capital. We live in a global market environment in which competition between States will only serve to make each of them more efficient.

    Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

    By competitiveness, however, I mean real low cost, light regulation efficiency competitiveness, not taxpayer funded inducements to lure business from one State to another.

    Perhaps the most valuable attribute of successful federations is the way in which they lead to a disbursement of power that fosters democracy and restrains corruption and abuse. While the division of powers among the stakeholders may cause frustration for those who desire an unfettered capacity to determine the course of events, it does introduce important checks and balances to the political process.

    There is a creative tension that comes from the consensus building required to make a federation work, in the longer term serving both the individual and common interest.

    Join Mailing List

    Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations. The reason I am such a committed federalist is because it is by far the best way to govern a large and diverse country like Australia; far better than its alternative, centralism – power and law making centralised in one place. 

    Whilst it may seem counter-intuitive that six (or even eight), separate State service providers could be more efficient and cost effective than one big, centralized service provider, it is true nonetheless.

    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

    Bacon Sandwiches, Sausage Sizzles and Red Tape

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    On Saturday the 5th of October 2024, a friend and I were visiting Melbourne when we decided to attend an anti ACMA bill protest being held on that day. Upon arrival, I noticed a sausage sizzle but was disappointed to find there were no bacon sandwiches, just sausages in bread.

    Later I went up to the stall to suggest they add bacon sandwiches to their next sausage sizzle. I was informed that bacon sandwiches required separate permits to sell at community events, with the bacon sandwich permit being more difficult to obtain.

    I walked away feeling slightly annoyed that I could not buy a bacon sandwich because of some stupid government rule. It may not be the worst of government transgressions, but it is certainly a great example of regulations and red tape having an inconvenient effect on everyday life. 

    Although some council bureaucrats responded to my question in a manner that easily answered my question

    Upon returning to my home city of Adelaide, I decided to contact a range of councils in South Australia and the rest of Australia to see how common it is to require separate permits to sell sausages and bacon sandwiches. I contacted all the councils below on the 8th of October 2024.

    Below is the following enquiry I sent them: 

    “Hello,

    I was just wondering, if I were to organise a community event or help organise a community event such as a community footy game or even a protest, would I require separate permits to sell both sausages in bread and bacon sandwiches at a stand or would I be able to sell both sausages in bread and bacon sandwiches on the same permit? 

    Thank you  

    Jessica Colby.”

    Although some council bureaucrats responded to my question in a manner that easily answered my question, some did not, and some were even unsure whether bacon or sausage sandwiches could be sold under the same permit as if this was an extremely difficult question.

    Many responded mentioning event permits. I would reply to these emails asking whether I would be able to sell bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread under the same permit or would I require separate permits. Some did eventually answer my question although that wasn’t always the case. 

    Some gave answers that were confusing and even contradictory. A few would direct me to other people or tell me to contact some government health organisation and say they were unsure. A few insisted on speaking on the phone rather than email and one even told me to contact some other authority about getting other permits before they would further discuss my question.

    I believe that this example illustrates how red tape unnecessarily restricts our everyday lives and makes things that should be simple more complicated than they need to be. Explaining how government overreach affects our lives at the daily level is a great way to mobilise the community against government overreach. 

    Below I have created a chart of council areas in South Australia and around Australia showing my attempts to interpret the responses I received from council bureaucrats as of the 18th of October 2024. 

    Yes: Separate permits required to sell bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread.

    Bacon sandwiches required separate permits to sell at community events

    No: Bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread can be sold under the same permit.

    Inc: This covers a range of responses including an unclear answer, or I found confusing, no clear response or I was directed to someone else. This also includes responses where I asked them to clarify their response, and was still waiting on a further response as of the 18th of October 2024.

    NR: No response as of the 18th of October 2024 other than automated replies and updates that my enquiry was being transferred to some other council representative to answer it.

    N/A: Turns out Sydney does not permit food to be sold at community events or protests. 

    Council AreaStateSeparate permit required to serve bacon sandwiches and sausages in breadNotes
    City of Adelaide SAInc
    City of BurnsideSANoMust be under same marque or kitchen to use same permit to be covered under same notification
    City of CampbeltownSAIncTold to contact Eastern Health Authority
    City of Charles SturtSAIncLikely yes
    Town of GawlerSANo
    Town of WalkervilleSANR
    Adelaide Hills CouncilSAIncGiven a list of people to contact
    City of MarionSANo
    City of MitchamSAIncLikely yes but not 100% sure
    City of Norwood, Payneham & St PetersSANR
    City of OnkaparingaSANo
    City of PlayfordSAInc
    City of ProspectSAInc
    City of SalisburySANo
    City of Tea Tree GullySANo
    City of UnleySANo
    City of West TorrensSANo
    Mid Murrey CouncilSANo
    City of Port AugustaSANo
    City of Port LincolnSANo
    Flinders Ranges CouncilSANo
    District Council of Mount BarkerSANoAs long as all the food sold at the stall is listed on the one application form, only one permit will be required for all.
    Berri Barmera CouncilSANR
    District Council of Loxton WaikerieSANR
    District Council of GrantSANR
    Roxby CouncilSANoNeed FBN number
    City of HobartTASNo
    Tasman CouncilTASNo
    North Canberra Community CouncilACTIncTold to contact Access Canberra
    City of DarwinNTIncTold to contact Northern Territory Health Department
    Alice Springs Town CouncilNTIncWas told to contact NTG Health as the council officer was unsure on the specifics of whether both can be cooked under the same permit.
    City of PerthWANR
    City of BunburyWANo
    City of Greater GeraldtonWANo
    City of RockinghamWANoSausage sizzles need one permit that includes both bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread
    Shire of BroomeWANo
    Brisbane City CouncilQLDNo
    Sunshine Coast CouncilQLDNR
    Cairnes Regional CouncilQLDNR
    City of TownsvilleQLDNoNeed a separate permit for every separate food stand
    City of MelbourneVICYes
    Yarra City CouncilVICNo
    Maribyrnong City CouncilVICYes
    Whitehorse City CouncilVICNR
    City of Greater GeelongVICNR
    City of Greater BendigoVICNo
    West Wimmera Shire CouncilVICYes

    Join Mailing List

    Mildura Rural City CouncilVICNR
    City of SydneyNSWN/AFood cannot be sold be sold at community events or protests in Sydney
    Georges River CouncilNSWInc
    Waverly CouncilNSWInc
    City of Wagga WaggaNSWNo
    Broken Hill City CouncilNSWNo
    City of WollongongNSWNo
    Dubbo Regional CouncilNSWIncWas told in the final email that ‘there is no such thing as a permit’ ???

    Whose Ethics make it Ethical

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    When I started my business 35 years ago, very few investment funds were describing themselves as ethical investors. 

    Some years later I joined an organisation of CEOs, business owners and senior executives that meets to share and discuss their challenges. I enjoyed our meetings right up until my group was required to listen to a speaker on ethics. When I asked for a definition of ethics and who decides what is ethical, I was told I was out of order.  Not long after that I was asked to leave the group. 

    Some funds then began describing themselves as sustainable investors. I wrote a column about it, asking who defines sustainable, and has anyone ever knowingly invested in a company that was unsustainable? There were letters to the editor criticising me. 

    It then became ESG, or Environmental, Social, and Governance. Still seeking definitions, I found it supposedly incorporates sustainable investing, responsible investing, impact investing and socially responsible investing. 

    Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better.

    I also found a claim that ESG criteria can “help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.” That sounded like the focus was on financial performance, which is good, but in fact it was not the case. The more I looked, the more I found it was all just virtue signalling. 

    Then came DEI, or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, which is all about how many women, black or disabled people are on the payroll. Not just virtue signalling, but bragging about it.  

    Funds that differentiate themselves like this are motivated by the desire to attract more investors and generate more fees for their managers. Furthermore, very few of those choosing to invest in these funds are using their own money; both the fund managers and their investors are deciding what is ethical or sustainable using other people’s money. 

    The problem is, most ESG funds deliver lower returns to investors. And, as I discovered, they don’t agree with each other about what it all means, and also don’t much like being questioned. 

    As it happens, I am an investor of my own money and regard myself as both ethical and sustainable. Moreover, I have no difficulty offering coherent definitions. 

    My favourite definition comes from former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who said, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.  In my view that’s also ethical. 

    As to what it means in practice, here are a few thoughts. 

    I will never reject an investment in coal unless there are better nuclear or hydro options, delivering cheaper and more reliable power. It is not sustainable to subject the community to the vagaries of expensive and intermittent wind and solar power, and it is grossly unethical to compel families in India to continue burning cow manure for fuel or force children to do their homework in the dark. 

    I will absolutely invest in forestry. Not only is it renewable, in Australia it is also totally sustainable. When the alternatives are importing timber from other countries or building in steel and concrete, it’s no contest. 

    Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better. Genetically modified crops, modern herbicides, precision farming and minimum or zero tillage are not only sustainable but also boost yields, leaving more land for conservation. There is absolutely nothing ethical about staying rooted in the past, using out-dated technology to produce food that some people cannot afford to buy. 

    Help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.

    Some ethical funds say they refuse to invest in companies that harm animals, by which they mean those that use animals to determine whether pharmaceuticals or cosmetics adversely affect humans. By what ethical standard is it preferable to expose our loved ones to the risk of life-threatening or disfiguring harm? 

    As for things like tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, these are matters of personal choice. Whatever we might think of them, the ethical approach is to not interfere in the choices of others. I’d happily invest in them if the returns were adequate. And if it means protecting liberal democracy from authoritarianism, I’d certainly consider it ethical to invest in armament companies. 

    That leaves a fairly small unethical and unsustainable list.  Anything that funds or apologises for terrorism, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamism or corruption is on it.  I’m also wary of companies that foster a woke culture; not only are they hypocrites but ‘go woke, go broke’ is more than a slogan. 

    Join Mailing List

    But that’s just me – I don’t expect others to necessarily share my views, although it’s clear that an increasing number of people seem to be doing just that. For those with control over their own money, my suggestion is to simply invest in businesses that offer the best returns, and ignore those that virtue signal. You can then use the dividends or capital gains to help make a difference based on your own values.

    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

    This is What We Get for a Billion a Year

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    Australians more and more have reason to question why over a billion dollars of their taxes are poured annually into what has become nothing but a far-left propaganda outfit. A particularly nasty one at that, with a decided proclivity for feting anti-Semitic terrorists.

    The ABC has made multiple changes to a story about Israel’s attack on Lebanon after receiving complaints claiming the article was “too sympathetic to Hezbollah and that it omitted relevant context and perspectives”.

    Oh, just a mistake, the ABC apologists will no doubt airily hand-wave it away. Yet, it’s notable that, like its sister the BBC, the mistakes only ever go one way: against the Jewish state. In fact, the BBC was recently found to have endemic bias against Israel. The ABC is clinging to the Beeb’s brown shirttails.

    The ABC will appoint one of its own staff members to ask its other staff members if they’re biased liars

    ABC ombudsman Fiona Cameron received 16 complaints about the article titled “Lebanese Australian community heartbroken over Israeli attack on Lebanon”, which prompted her to examine whether the story met the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality and accuracy.

    In her report, she assessed grievances by complainants that argued “the article did not stipulate that Hezbollah was a listed terrorist organisation and that the context for the escalation of the conflict in south Lebanon was unclear”.

    The article was written by reporter Nabil Al Nashar.

    Nabil Al Nashar… there’s something about that name. Can’t quite put a finger on it, though. Just like Antoinette Lattouf, who was actually sacked by the ABC for her pro-Hamas social media posts.

    Looks like that well-publicised push by the ABC to hire more ‘diverse’ staff is really paying off.

    That’s just the nastiest aspect of what is a concatenation of failures at the ‘national broadcaster’.

    The ABC is facing accusations of airing misleading and “activist-led” journalism on two separate issues over the past fortnight, with both its flagship current affairs programs, Four Corners and 7.30, at the centre of the storm.

    “Misleading”? “Activist-led”? Doesn’t sound like the ABC at all. You know, the ABC whose former leading presenter Fran Kelly openly bragged that she was an activist.

    Lobby group Nuclear for Australia, which boasts 75,000 members, sent a formal complaint to the ABC on Friday in response to last week’s Four Corners episode titled ‘The Future of Nuclear Power in Australia’, arguing the program was deliberately misleading, failed to disclose conflicts of interests of interviewees, and omitted pertinent facts about the nuclear industry […]

    In a formal complaint to the ABC, Nuclear for Australia said Four Corners’ “central assertion of the episode that [the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia] … was the sole reason power bills increased in Georgia is false”.

    The ABC has made multiple changes to a story about Israel’s attack on Lebanon

    “Instead, there were many factors that Four Corners didn’t mention including gas price increases due to the Ukrainian war, the cost of upgrading hundreds of transformers around the state due to storm damage, and the cost of grid infrastructure to support solar arrays in the middle of Southern Georgia,” the lobby group’s complaint to the ABC ombudsman reads.

    Nuclear for Australia has called for the Four Corners episode to be removed from the ABC’s various platforms. An ABC spokesman said: “Any complaint will be dealt with according to the ABC’s usual processes.”

    Meaning, the ABC will appoint one of its own staff members to ask its other staff members if they’re biased liars, and when they have all agreed with each other that they’re not, they’ll bury the whole thing and carry on as normal.

    Such as, trying to stop better reporters from telling a less-biased story.

    A senior ABC reporter has been accused of intentionally blocking a source from speaking to members of the press who were trying to scrutinise the quality of his journalism, a court has heard.

    The Federal Court on Tuesday heard Mark Willacy instructed ‘Josh’, a confidential source at the centre of an allegedly defamatory article, not to speak with other media outlets, after a journalist from the Daily Telegraph started making inquiries about the substance of Mr Willacy’s story.

    Join Mailing List

    The story in question concerned ex-commando Heston Russell, who is suing the ABC, Willacy and journalist Josh Robertson over a story he alleges implied he was complicit in the execution of a prisoner in Afghanistan. The same story has already been exposed as using doctored audio, a fact which was previously brought to the ABC’s attention.

    This is what we get for our billion dollars. I think we deserve our money back.

    The Unholy Union

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    Conceptually, worker unions are quite compatible with libertarian ideology. Workers voluntarily leveraging their collective bargaining power is a perfectly acceptable free-market response to what can oftentimes be an unbalanced relationship between employers and employees. All libertarians would prefer to see these kinds of voluntary associations dealing with some of the natural consequences that markets create, rather than the coercive and violent state trying, unsuccessfully, to regulate them away.

    LABOR MAFIA

    However, the true purpose of the vast majority of mainstream unions in Australia is obvious to anyone who is politically active: to funnel money and membership towards the Labor Party. It is no secret that the only way to advance in the Labor Party is to become a union leader; it’s not even an open secret, it’s basically written on the door. Union thugs also provide a handy tool during election season; ripping down opposition corflutes and intimidating volunteers at polling stations.

    The vast majority of contributions to the Labor Party come from the unions

    This is not to say that there aren’t any good unions out there; plenty of unions do great work, but they are usually smaller and are eventually intimidated out of the space. Similarly, it is possible that in the time union leaders spend factionalising, politicking and satiating their political ambitions, they occasionally help a few workers along the way. But politics always comes first.

    The recent news tying the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) to criminal organisations and intimidation tactics came as very little surprise to anyone who has spent even five minutes in politics. The only thing I was surprised about is that people didn’t know this already. The day we get to see the unions fully exposed, and their relationship with the Labor Party properly examined, is probably still a long way off though.

    UNHOLY TRINITY

    There is one other player in this tripartite corruption ring: industry super funds. In 2019, industry super funds paid over $10 million to Labor-aligned unions – up from just over $4 million ten years earlier. By 2030 it is projected the funds will be pumping over $30 million per year into unions.

    Industry super funds are far and away the biggest political donors in Australia. However, these aren’t donations, it’s just plain corruption. Industry super funds pay their members’ retirement money to unions for vastly inflated and vaguely worded services: sponsorship fees, marketing costs and events. The industry super funds are adamant these are not political donations but legitimate expenses, which the Australian Electoral Commission happily goes along with.

    Additionally, industry super funds invest heavily in union-backed infrastructure projects. The unholy trinity of the industry super funds financing the unions through the retirement savings of millions of Australians, which then go on to funnel that money to the Labor Party, is not only blatantly stealing from hardworking Aussies, but also propping up an inflated sector of the economy with politically influenced investment. These funds are also some of the most prolific when it comes to shareholder activism, driving much of the ESG-investing movement and wokification of corporate Australia.

    Union thugs also provide a handy tool during election season

    PAST PERFORMANCES

    Prime Minister Albanese was heavily criticised for reneging on his election promise to stay out of our super, but the truth is that the Labor Party has been getting a big chunk of our super for years. The recent changes only further entrench industry super funds as the default choice for most Australians and push people further from having some degree of autonomy via self-managed super funds (SMSFs). 

    While much noise was made about the tax changes towards super, and rightly so, the payday superannuation guarantee starting from 1 July 2026 went past largely unnoticed. A change from which smaller funds and SMSFs will see largely no benefit.

    The real beneficiary of these changes is ultimately the Labor Party. The vast majority of contributions to the Labor Party come from the unions – that almost goes without saying. Only 15 per cent of Australia’s workforce is unionised, yet the CFMEU alone donated over $3 million to the Labor Party in the last election year. 

    Join Mailing List

    Industry super funds, with $1.2 trillion assets under management (AUM), control over a third of the AUM of all Australian super funds. There is no doubt that some of the exorbitant fees they charge their members are ending up in the hands of unions, and the money that they are actually investing is heavily skewed towards union-backed projects. Imagine when they can start relying on regular weekly or fortnightly inflows.

    Breaking the Adoption Taboo

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    Over 40,000 Australian children are currently in government-sponsored care. Approximately 30,000 have been there for more than 2 years. Less than 200 were adopted.

    The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’

    Compared with similar countries Australia has very low rates of adoption.

    It seems the chief barrier to increasing the rate of adoptions in Australia are state and territory government child protection authorities. In South Australia, for example, the inquest into the death of toddler Chloe Valentine revealed the abject squalor of the environment the child was forced to endure – an environment authorities were well aware of. 

    The best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems

    An anti-adoption culture appears to be ingrained in state and territory child protection authorities.

    Jeremy Sammut, from the Centre for Independent Studies, has written extensively on this issue*. He summarises the situation as follows: 

    “Australia’s child-protection system keeps applying the same, flawed strategies which basically means children are harmed by the very system that’s meant to protect them. It puts an over-emphasis on family preservation prolonging the time children are kept with highly dysfunctional families. When, as a last resort, they are finally removed they are churned through unstable foster care and returned to their families where the reunification is likely to break down. For many children, they spend almost all of their childhood and adolescence in care and never get a permanent and safe family for life. Many of these children could have, should have, been adopted.”  

    19th Century English philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart Mill was one of the first to declare that “Children have independent rights as future citizens. If parents fail in their obligations to fulfil those rights, then the State should step in.”

    Regrettably, the rights of abusive parents seem to outweigh the rights of abused children.

    It has been 50 years since the introduction of the single mother’s pension by the Whitlam Government. This policy helped end the practice of forced adoption as the provision of taxpayer-funded income support gave women who became pregnant out of wedlock the option of keeping their children. 

    The unintended consequence, however, is that welfare for single mothers has led to the very social problems forced adoptions were designed to prevent – the inability of many single mothers to properly care for their children. 

    The right to welfare became a pathway to welfare dependency which has contributed significantly to the scale of the child protection crisis confronting Australia today.

    In South Australia last month, a bill was introduced into the parliament requiring that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy after 28 weeks not euthanize the child and induce it stillborn, but deliver it alive. 

    After 28 weeks, with proper care, babies are viable outside the womb.

    The bill did not prevent women from terminating their pregnancies, it only insisted that if a woman decided to terminate her pregnancy after 28 weeks, the baby must be born alive, not euthanized and be born dead.

    The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’

    Presumably, as the woman was planning to abort the child, giving the child to a loving couple to adopt would not be opposed. This would have given rise to a significant number of new adoptions.

    The bill was defeated 10 votes to 9 in South Australia’s Upper House.

    As a woman’s ‘right to choose’ a termination was not being compromised, why anyone would oppose saving the life of the child when it was going to be aborted anyway is beyond me. 

    In 2019, the Federal Government’s House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Report, ‘Breaking barriers: a national adoption framework for Australian children’, stated that the best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems.

    Five years later, little has changed.

    Join Mailing List

    For children who are unable to live with their biological parents, adoption has been internationally proven as the best way to provide a safe, stable and loving family life.

    While it has been argued that adoption robs children of their identity, modern ‘open adoption’ models which are specifically designed to maintain children’s connections to their cultural heritage and birth families disprove such claims.

    It has also been claimed that adoption will steal children all over again. Again, NSW adoption reforms disprove such claims.

    The perception that adoption is a socially unacceptable and illegitimate practice based on past practices such as forced adoptions and indigenous experiences must end. There can be no meaningful change or end to the cycle of intergenerational dysfunction until that taboo is broken.

    *Dr Jeremy Sammut is the author of several research papers and the book, ‘The Madness of Australian Child Protection: Why Adoption will Rescue Australia’s Underclass Children’. His research influenced reforms which were passed in 2018 by the NSW Parliament.

    I’ve got a little list

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    In Gilbert and Sullivan’s opera The Mikado, the character Ko-Ko is appointed to the position of Lord High Executioner. He prepares a list of people to be executed, singing: “I’ve got a little list. They’d really not be missed.”

    I’ve often thought this should be the way we deal with those responsible for Australia’s tragic response to the Covid hysteria. I have a list, and I really don’t believe those on it would be missed. The question is, is it more than a fantasy? 

    A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account. Royal Commissions certainly have broad investigative powers, but they cannot decide guilt or innocence. They can only make recommendations. 

    A Royal Commission is only as good as its terms of reference, which are written by the government. There is an unwritten rule on that – only establish an inquiry when the outcome is either already known or won’t do great harm to the government.  

    There is also a problem with jurisdiction. A Commission established by the Commonwealth is limited to investigating federal issues. That would include international border closures, repatriating Australians, vaccine ordering, the vaccine rollout, use of troops, and the advice of the Commonwealth Health Officer and health agencies. It could also look at what the federal government failed to do, such as follow its own pandemic plan or challenge the states’ border closures. 

    Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity?

    It would require a state-initiated Royal Commission to investigate the policies and actions of state governments. That includes the medical advice to justify state border closures, compulsory masks, curfews, lockdowns, other movement restrictions, the Covid zero fantasy, the separation of families, business closures, mandatory vaccination, and of course vaccine certificates. 

    Only a state Royal Commission could consider whether the loss of basic rights such as free speech, freedom of religion and the right to peaceful protest, or the suspension of parliament, were reasonable and proportionate. And unless the terms of reference were specific, the behaviour of state police would not be considered. 

    There is also a question of competence. Commissioners are generally retired judges; that is, elderly lawyers. A career as a barrister and judge is not necessarily a sound qualification for investigating complex non-legal issues. From my observation such people mostly don’t understand business or economics, and expecting them to come to grips with epidemiology and immunology might be optimistic. Add the possibility that they will overestimate the risk given their personal vulnerability to Covid, and an objective review is far from certain.  

    But let’s assume, for the sake of the fantasy, that a Royal Commission with broad terms of reference was established that is brave, competent, and thorough. Let’s even assume it is a joint federal-state commission. What might it achieve? 

    In my fantasy, it would name those responsible for doing so much damage to our liberal democracy, and spell out the crimes they committed. The patronising, sanctimonious, unscientific Chief Health Officers. The cynical, manipulative political leaders. The lying propagandists and political boosters. The cowardly, craven media. The senior police who sanctioned brutal repression of protests.  

    It would also offer a strong reminder of the fundamentals of a free society: that freedom and safety are not interchangeable; that personal responsibility should always trump government control; that avoiding deaths at any cost is not the role of the government; that executive government must be accountable to parliament.  And perhaps most importantly, that those who violate these principles must pay a price. 

    A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account.

    Notwithstanding some indications to the contrary, particularly in Victoria, Australia is still subject to the rule of law.  An adverse mention by a Royal Commission might end a political or bureaucratic career, but it is not a conviction. And the reality is that virtually everything inflicted on Australians in the name of controlling Covid occurred within the law. Other than a few Victorian police perhaps, none of those named would be at risk of going to jail.

    Some say this calls for a special tribunal, like that used to try senior Nazis at Nuremburg. This applied the principle that some things can never be legal or right, whether or not they were within the law at the time. That same concept underpins the International Criminal Court. 

    Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity? No doubt they inflicted needless suffering and misery on millions of their fellow Australians, imposing irrational and arbitrary rules with heartless brutality. And while they claim to have saved deaths from Covid, they contributed to others from suicide and untreated conditions, and caused profound harm to countless careers, businesses, marriages, and childhoods. 

    The crimes that the International Criminal Court may consider are genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. The world’s longest lockdown certainly felt like a crime against humanity to Victorians, and it would be satisfying to hear the former Premier and Chief Health Officer argue, in their defence, why family visits were prohibited but not visiting brothels; why council gardeners could work but not private gardeners; and why the Black Lives Matter protest was not a superspreader event unlike anti-lockdown protests and watching a sunset from the beach. 

    Join Mailing List

    But that’s where the fantasy ends. A Nuremburg-style trial, even if it is warranted, would require special legislation. And a Royal Commission, even if established, is not likely to do no more than offer half-baked recommendations about preparing for the next pandemic. 

    Perhaps even worse, the pandemic showed that the commitment of Australians to democracy and freedom is wafer thin. They readily relinquished their rights and freedoms based on fear of a disease with a survival rate of 98 per cent, in the belief that the government would keep them safe.  

    This is a problem that will not be solved by a Royal Commission or Nuremburg type tribunal. Indeed, it would not be solved by making me Lord High Executioner and allowing me to deal with those on my list. It is a reflection of who we are as a nation.

    Resisting centralist power – Part 2

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    Following the Second World War, the most dramatic shift in the balance of tax power between the States and Commonwealth occurred.

    In 1942, under the leadership of John Curtin as Prime Minister and Ben Chifley as Federal Treasurer, all income taxing authority was handed over to the Commonwealth by the States for the duration of the war under the defence power of the Constitution. This was intended to be temporary and to last for a year after the end of the war. However, while the war ended in 1945, the role of the Commonwealth as the sole income taxing authority did not.

    For those concerned at the erosion of State rights through judicial activism, even worse was to come when, following the end of the Second World War, the High Court ruled that income tax collections could exist as an exclusive Commonwealth right under the normal powers of the Constitution.

    Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federation in the world.

    During the 1950s the State of Victoria mounted two legal challenges to the uniform tax legislation without success, and in 1959 at a Special Premiers’ Conference discussion of a return of income tax power to the States was on the agenda but could not be agreed. While there remains no legal barrier to the States exercising their right to levy income tax, there are practical (and political) reasons not to do so.

    In the post war era, the centralisation of power continued to be affirmed through decisions of the High Court including the Franklin Dam case in 1988, the Queensland Rainforest case in 1989, Mabo in 1992, and the Wik Peoples case in 1996.

    In speaking of the influence of the High Court and the threat to federalism arising from its decisions, Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia said:

    “It is a basic rule in the interpretation of any written document and indeed a matter of common sense that the whole document must be looked at in order to ascertain the meaning of any particular part. It might therefore have been supposed that in deciding on the meaning of the paragraphs of the Constitution which confer power on the Commonwealth Parliament, the Courts would have resolved any ambiguity by interpreting the provisions in a way that would maintain the federal distribution of power which the Constitution so obviously appears to guarantee ….. However, since 1920 the High Court has consistently rejected an approach of that kind.”

    The struggle for power continued in the High Court in 2006 with the States challenging the Commonwealth over the validity of the federal WorkChoices legislation, which was enacted under the Corporations power. The High Court overwhelmingly came down in favour of the Commonwealth. While workplace relations laws, prior to the WorkChoices legislation, were a relic of a bygone era and desperately in need of reform, the rights of States in the area of industrial relations were now all but gone. For example, the 1999 decision of the High Court to allow SA State government public servants to be covered by a Federal Award undermined that State’s competitiveness.

    The ability of a small, low cost-of-living State to use its industrial relations system to create a competitive edge over the larger States is important. South Australia, for example, under Premier Sir Thomas Playford, used this strategy (in conjunction with tariffs) to build a manufacturing base in Adelaide in the 1950s and 60s. Likewise Tasmania may wish to trade-off high salaries for quality of life and a green and clean environment.

    The most dramatic shift in the balance of tax power between the States and Commonwealth occurred.

    Undermining the rights of States is also evident in the actions of a burgeoning and, at times, arrogant Federal bureaucracy where the controlling hand of the Commonwealth is exercised through the terms and conditions embedded in funding arrangements with State government agencies.

    Since federation the tax revenue balance has moved dramatically from the States to the Commonwealth. The imbalance that now exists, known as Vertical Fiscal Imbalance, has put the Commonwealth in an all-powerful position, able to dictate to the States how and where funds are spent.

    Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federation in the world. The Federal government raises over 70% of all general government revenues, much more than is required to fund its own operations. The States raise just over half what they require to fund theirs. The balance of the States’ financial requirements is met through Commonwealth grants. This gives the Commonwealth enormous economic power and influence, and is inefficient and inequitable. It has the effect of keeping States like South Australia and Tasmania in a position of mendicancy.

    Join Mailing List

    Ideally, the States and the Commonwealth should only collect taxes for their own purposes with taxpayers and consumers fully informed as to what is a State tax and what is a Commonwealth tax. Those who spend the money should have the responsibility of raising it. It is about accountability, and governments of all persuasions should be specifically accountable for the money they raise and spend.

    The use of Section 96 of the Australian Constitution, which empowers the Commonwealth to make grants to any State “on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit”, has been used by Federal governments to wield power over the States.

    The Commonwealth’s control over State borrowings has further served to erode the power of States and their capacity to control their own destiny.

    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

    123...6Page 1 of 6

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv