Leaving aside for a moment the question (very ably posed by LibDems South Australia President James Hol) of when exactly the Liberal Democrats became known as a right-wing party, former Senator Bob Day’s diagnosis of the state of modern minor party politics to the right of the Greens is characteristically sharp. 

Henry Kissenger once said of Germany that it was ‘too big for Europe, and too small for the world’; so too do the political parties hovering between 2.5% and 4.5% of the federal Senate vote glance suspiciously at one another even as they cast a wistful eye towards Canberra.

I agree with Day’s assessment that the Australian minor party landscape of the centre and right have shared interests, in particular a shared enemy in the Liberal and ALP cabal whose determination to protect their political turf may soon make Whigs of my party (sorry Kenelm, it won’t happen).

Former Senator Day challenged readers to explain to him why the Coalition would raise barriers to entry for non-left minor parties, and I would gladly take him up on that gauntlet. The simple truth is that the Coalition is more afraid of having its ideological bankruptcy permanently exposed by former Senators like he and David Leyonhjelm than it is of temporarily losing seats to the left in the ebb and flow of electoral cycles.

It is crucial to realise, and to explain to our members and the voters we ask to support us, that we are the barbarians at the gates of Canberra!

All of this makes discussion of co-operation between parties like One Nation, United Australia Party, and the Liberal Democrats, more than mere idle musing, and I know as I read Bob’s words that he is serious. So in this reply, I outline why this has yet to happen, what barriers may need to be overcome, and how this process could begin.

Discussion of an alliance of minor parties and greater co-operation, in particular at a Federal level, is nothing new. Founder and former president of the Liberal Democrats John Humphreys has long said that some kind of pragmatic alliance would be a way around the ever more formidable Great Wall of Canberra.

An arrangement whereby key minor parties ran a joint ticket in each state for the Senate at the next Federal election, determining who would have number 1 spot by negotiation could allow a group of parties together to break through where each would fail or underperform alone.

So why hasn’t this already happened?

The first is that we are often our own worst enemies. Like the best game theory experiments, each party holds out hope that this election will be the election they become the next Greens in terms of electoral success and representation. The incentives not to co-operate, at least on the surface, are strong, and the consequences for betrayal high in the minds of those navigating fraught terrain.

The second is a fear that co-operation might lead to a loss of individual party autonomy or policy independence. The Liberal Democrats, for example, hold views on drug reform that might make Family First or One Nation baulk. The party is not, nor have we ever been, conservative. However, though I am proud to say that unlike a broad church I was formerly a part of, many conservative libertarians find a welcome home in our party.  

These challenges and the psychology that underlie them are rational. In a zero sum mindset, it is easy to perceive only risk and negative consequence, while losing sight of possible benefit. However the impact that even half the number of senators that Bob Day suggests is possible would be immeasurable, as not too distant political history has shown.

Greater co-operation and the ability to recognize and leverage opportunities for shared interests to be realized requires a cultivation of personal relationships. This is true at all levels of our parties; at the grassroots membership, the organising level, and the political leadership.

Without knowing each other better, accepting vulnerability, and taking risks, trust cannot be built. There is an element of boldness required to take a step into the unknown, and if we are to turn our combined arms against our bipartisan oppressors rather than brandish them at one another, someone must be first to place them back into the holster.

As Australia’s foremost libertarian party, the Liberal Democrats are ready to try.

Last week we presented a solution to the nation’s current economic, social and political malaise.

We noted that facts and figures no longer mattered. That arithmetic, engineering, economics and, of course, common sense were now out the window. We also lamented that forums, podcasts and other intelligent conversations with world-leading authorities also no longer have any political effect.

But just when you think things couldn’t get any worse, along comes the nation’s Treasurer with a Whitlamesque plan to remake society and the economy using 

Values-based capitalism involving public-private co-investment and collaboration and the renovation of key economic institutions and markets.

We will renovate the Reserve Bank and revitalise the Productivity Commission

It’s not just our economic institutions that need renewing and restructuring, but the way our markets allocate and arrange capital as well

Mr Chalmers proposes to do this through the efforts of ‘business, labour and government’.

If that doesn’t send a chill up your spine, I don’t know what would.

Economist Dimitri Burshtein predicts the Treasurer’s version of values-based capitalism will leave the nation broke.

To stop this madness, the major parties’ hands need to be forced through the brutal reality of balance-of-power politics.

As discussed, at the last Federal election, the total centre-right (CR) vote would have been enough to get a senator elected in every state. That equates to 12 senators elected over the two-election Senate cycle.

Substantial political power could be achieved if the CR parties formed a single party bloc, namely a:

LIB-DEM ONE-NATION UNITED-AUST SF&F FAMILY PARTY Coalition.

Note I have since included the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party who, it must be acknowledged, did well in at least two states at the last Federal election.

Such an alliance would see One Nation and UAP with 4 of the 12 seats in the parliament, Libertarians with 2, Christian Family Parties 1 and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party 1 Senate seat.

As discussed, having even one Senate seat gives a party a platform, a status, and a portal into the Federal Parliament for its members.

Working together, a twelve-seat Senate bloc would be a formidable political force.

For any project to succeed it must work effectively on three levels – strategy, tactics, and operations.

Strategy is the big picture. This is the primary aim. In our case it is to have twelve senators who can hold together for a minimum of twelve years.

Like anyone who has ever done a jigsaw puzzle, it is vitally important to have the picture on the box before you start. In other words, what the puzzle will look like when it’s finished.

In our case, we want twelve senators, representing five constituencies to hold together to save the nation from people like Jim Chalmers.

Tactics is about which Parties get to represent which States and at which election. Initially, agreement would be reached for both the 2025 and 2028 elections.

To have six senators elected in 2025 and six more in 2028, it will be vital that all six parties, in all six States agree to work together and for each other, keeping an eye on the prize.

Operations is the day-to-day admin, compliance and member servicing. A modest size Secretariat would be able to manage this.

In The Shrinking Forest, I outlined the problem, the cause of the problem and denounced the rent-seekers who cash-in on the problem. Then in ‘All Great Change Begins at the Dinner Table’, I emphasized the role of family, faith and free speech, and in How Christianity Informs Classical Liberalism, the connection between Christianity and liberty.

This fourth and concluding instalment is a solution.

The great author and philosopher Eric Hoffer once said, ‘Every great cause begins as a movement, then becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’

Feeding, clothing and educating children are some of the key necessities a family provides. But we don’t tax people in order to set up government supermarkets to feed our children or government clothing stores to clothe them. Walk into any supermarket and see the incredible range of food and other essential goods available. Same with clothing … and motor cars.

So why do we do it for other services like education?

It costs Australian taxpayers approximately $20,000 pa to educate a student in a government school and $12,000 pa to educate a student in a non-government school.

With around four million school students in Australia, that adds up to nearly $70 billion pa. A big investment.

Considering the cost differential, and the fact non-government schools consistently outperform government schools in overall student performance, why doesn’t the government do more to encourage parents to send their children to non-government schools? It would allow parents to choose what is best for their children and at the same time reinforce the primacy of parents in the education of their children.

The same would apply to housing, public transport and many other services. Quality and range would improve.

This goes to the heart of what centre-right (CR) parties generally agree on – the primacy of the individual and the family over the government. CR parties believe governments are there to serve the people, not the other way around. They take the side of the people; the Left believes in the power of the state.

And while the Left has a global playbook to draw on – themes, tactics, language – the right does not.

Apart from a unique confluence of events and conservative leaders in the 1980s – Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II – the conservative Right is, globally, quite fragmented.

In Australia, the Left – Labor, Greens and Teals – are a lot more organised than the Right.

We need to get our act together.

Now it’s one thing to identify a list of structural problems, fixing them is a different matter.

To counter this ever-increasing influence of the Left over public policy, a Centre-Right National Strategy is sorely needed.

If the CR minor parties which, by and large, do genuinely believe in ‘family, faith and freedom’, are to counter the major parties, the Greens, left-of-centre minor parties and pseudo-independents, then they need to work more closely together.

At the last Federal election, the total CR vote in each state (NSW 12.3%, Vic 11.5%, Qld 15.6%, WA 11.5%, SA 10.8%, Tas 9.8%) would have been enough to get a senator elected in every state, yet only two out of six were elected – Queensland (One Nation) and Victoria (UAP).

One can only imagine how frustrating it must be for Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts and Ralph Babet watching the Federal Parliament destroy society and the economy before their very eyes.

Standing at polling booths alongside other like-minded, CR parties made me think back to the 2013 Federal election.

The Coalition went to the 2013 election promising to abolish the carbon tax, abolish the mining tax and stop the boats. Upon election, seven (CR) Senate crossbenchers voted in support of these three key election pledges giving the Government the numbers it needed (33 + 7) to get its legislation passed. More about those numbers (33 + 7) shortly.

Following this successful endeavour, I met with then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and put to him what I called a 40–40–40 game plan – ‘40 votes (a Senate majority) to fix 40 years of unfinished business and set the nation up for the next 40 years.’ 40–40–40.

It had been 40 years since a Liberal Government under Malcolm Fraser had a majority in the Senate and squandered the opportunity.

Enlisting the support of Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm, I tried to convince the Prime Minister and Senate Leader Mathias Cormann, as well as anyone who would listen, that the best way to get the Coalition’s policies through the parliament was to have more senators like us.

Needless to say, my suggestion was not taken up.

In fact, the exact opposite happened. The Coalition teamed up with the Greens (who voted against abolishing the carbon tax, mining tax and stopping the boats) and changed the Senate voting laws to get rid of those senators who had just supported them! As a result, and as predicted by John Howard, the Greens increased their number of Senate seats from 10 to 12, Labor increased its number of seats from 25 to 26, centre-left parties increased from 1 to 3, the Coalition lost a seat and the CR parties dropped from 7 seats to 3. From 33 + 7 (a CR majority) to 32 + 3 (a CR minority). A loss of 5 Senate seats.

If anyone out there can explain why the Coalition would do that, I’d love to hear from them.

On the policy front, as it now stands, we are faced with the following reality:

• Facts and figures no longer matter. The clearer the facts, the more they are ignored. Arithmetic, engineering, economics and, of course, common sense are out the window.

• Forums, podcasts and other intelligent conversations with world-leading authorities also no longer have any political effect. Again, logic and reason no longer matter.

To stop further descent into economic and social chaos, substantial political power is required.

As discussed last week, I would argue it is not possible to ‘break through’ all this. We have to ‘break with’. Forget facts and figures, logic and reason, we have to force the major parties’ hands through the brutal reality of balance-of-power politics.

Substantial political power could be achieved if the CR parties formed a single party bloc, namely a:

LIB-DEM ONE-NATION UNITED-AUST FAMILY PARTY Coalition.

As discussed above, at the last Federal election, the total CR vote would have been enough to get a senator elected in every state. That equates to 12 senators elected over the two-election Senate cycle.

Based on current levels of the primary vote, One Nation and UAP would have 4 of the 12 seats in the parliament, Libertarians 2, 1 seat for a Christian Family Party and 1 for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.

Having even one Senate seat gives a party a platform, a status, and a portal into the Federal Parliament for its members.

Working together, a twelve-seat Senate bloc would be a formidable political force.

John Stuart Mill, in his 100 page essay On Liberty, offered this advice:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

John Stuart Mill

In other words, get inside the head of the major parties and the Greens. Understand their arguments, their frequent counter-arguments against our own points and subject yourself to their point of view in its most practised form.

Why?

Well, if you know our opponents inside out, you’ll be able to out debate and out reason them. You’ll strengthen your own ability to advocate our classical liberal cause.

“They don’t engage in reasoned debate”, you retort.

I understand. I hear you. If you watch a lot of YouTube, it can feel that way.

Yet, some of them do engage in reasoned debate and we should never give up on them. Many have converted. Think about those who’ve left the majors, even the Greens!

More to the point, the true audience for our reasoned debate is not our unmovable opponents. The audience for our reasoned debate is the thinking citizens who have never heard us in full flight before. They compare and contrast before making a decision.

By doing what John Stuart Mill recommends, we shine with the independent, middle and swing voter. And that’s how electoral success is achieved.

Know thy opponent.

It’s time to face facts, there is a dirty word in Australian politics: ‘freedom’.

The ‘freedom movement’ is not popular and thatis a hard pill to swallow for many liberty-loving Aussies.

Australia does not have an embattled history of freedom, like the United States. We did not fight for our freedom, we accepted British rule. While our Forces have gallantly fought for freedom on foreign soil, we have never had to fight this battle at home. ‘Liberty’ is more likely to be associated with a petrol station than the fundamental tenet of Western society.

All we need to do is look to election results to see where the freedom movement stands in Australia. And while I am not suggesting all hope is lost, we are a very long way from the majority. When I mention this to some, they have a hard time accepting it. From ‘rigged’ elections to lies, damn lies – the excuses are endless.

ELECTIONS ARE NOT ‘RIGGED’

The first stage of grief is denial and the final stage is acceptance. It’s time we move out of denial and work towards acceptance, lest we remain permanently traumatised.

It is obvious that Australia is a coddled nation.

When something goes wrong we turn to the government for solutions. When there is a tragic accident on a local road, we cry for lower speed limits. When a new start-up industry emerges, we demand bureaucracy and regulation. When we fall on hard times, we beg the government for money. ‘Personal responsibility’ is a term that dare not be uttered in our holy chambers of Parliament.

It is no surprise that many parts of Australia endured some of the longest and harshest COVID restrictions on the planet. And it should come as no surprise that ‘freedom parties’ only achieved approximately 10 per cent of the Senate vote in the May 2022 Federal Election.

ALL IS NOT LOST

Deep down in the Australian psyche there is a rugged pioneer spirit. A spirit that saw a land filled with hardscrabble deserts and dangerous animals turned into one of the most prosperous nations on Earth. We must tap into that.

It is also worth noting, 10 per cent is not nothing. Before the American Revolutionary War, less than 10 per cent of the people of the then-colonies supported independence. By the end of the War, it was almost universally supported and now it is often considered the true beginning of the United States. I am not suggesting we take up arms against our government, but highlighting that a critical mass is all that is needed and 10 per cent is more than enough to form a critical mass.

THE BATTLEGROUND OF CULTURE

Politics is always downstream from culture, so we must take this battle to academia, HR departments and, most importantly, suburban Australia.

The success of the Greens and the left-wing movement is no accident, it is the result of decades of grassroots campaigning. Fighting block-by-block, street-by-street and house-by-house. Slowly ensuring left-wing ideology remains an insoluble part of Australian culture. This has only recently translated into consistent electoral success.

Political parties are entities specifically designed for electing candidates to public offices, and perhaps it is convenient of me to say (being the President of a political party), but there is only so much political parties can do to shape the battleground of culture.

Become an empowered individual. Become a community organiser. Become a local leader of liberty. Whether it’s your local footy club, your place of work or even just amongst your family and friends, become the person who lives and breathes the fundamental values of liberty: free-speech, free-association, bodily autonomy and personal responsibility. Apply these values to your everyday life. Be the go-to person for these issues in your community. Before you know it, you will be someone who can regularly and reliably activate 10, 20, or even 50 people.

UNITY OVER DIVISION

Imagine thousands of people across Australia who can regularly and reliably call upon 50 people for grassroots campaigning and volunteering; politics will take care of itself. But this does not mean political parties can get away with doing nothing. Political parties must support these people where they can, without turning them into partisans.

Liberty-minded political parties also need to put aside their differences. The Greens average at least two Senate seat per state because they are one unified entity, rather than several disparate entities. This means they can ensure voter discipline and, ultimately, electoral success – and if they do fail, they can ensure their preferences are headed Labor’s way.

If the freedom movement voted as a bloc and practised preference discipline, we would see similar results for the United Australia Party, One Nation and the Liberal Democrats.

But despite tireless campaigns to ‘put the majors last’, it rarely materialises in electoral success.

In the recent Victorian Election, we saw ‘freedom-friendly minor parties’ choose tactics of division rather than unity. This was a squandered opportunity. Under a group-ticket system (which, contrary to popular belief, is a far superior system), several parties opted to direct their preferences to the Liberal Party before other like-minded minor parties. This very nearly resulted in the Liberal Party gaining a second seat in South-East Metro, to the exclusion of Liberal Democrats MP David Limbrick.

But it is easy to criticise others and not so easy to lead by example, so I will leave with this:

I am willing to work with any like-minded political party (or independent) to the fullest extent. Nothing is off the table, from party mergers to formal coalitions to ensuring greater preference discipline. If we are ever to succeed, we need unity now more than ever.

The Adelaide Advertiser has just broken a story which should shock you.

At least two candidates in the Adelaide City Council elections are pro communist. In fact, they’ve been colluding with the Chinese Communist Party and its consulate in Adelaide strategically located near defence facilities.

Here’s how the infiltration works:

Step 1 – “‘Incentivise the Labor and Liberal parties to allow international students resident in Adelaide to vote. Yes, you read correctly. Non citizens can vote!

Step 2 – Pay migration agents $8,000 for each Chinese student visa

Step 3 – Buy four apartment blocks and turn them into student accommodation

Step 4 – Run two CCP candidate plants in the Adelaide City Council election

Step 5 – Host lavish social events for Chinese students at the consulate

Step 6 – Encourage their co-operation for the two CCP candidates

Step 7 – Summons the slow or resistant students. Threaten retaliation against their families back home through the social credit surveillance system

Step 8 – Watch in amazement as Adelaide local council elections mail-in ballot voting is approved

Step 9 – Landlords of the four apartment blocks send mailbox keys to, and this is a euphemism, ‘officers’ from the consulate

Step 10 – (I’ll drop the euphemism) Spies from the consulate then use the keys to open all the mailboxes and harvest the ballot papers.

Having received a tip-off, enter the Adelaide Advertiser and their photographic evidence.

Three-hundred ballots is enough to swing a City of Adelaide Council seat in the ward in question.

Now the Department of Home Affairs, ASIO and the Australian Federal Police are involved.

And so they should.

Watch this story closely. Watch the money. Watch the apologists. Watch for consequences.

Lots of shenanigans going on with the CCP in Adelaide right now.

AUKUS nuclear submarines and US defence contractor presence, you see.