Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Most popular

    Government

    Home Government

    The Greatest Threat to Democracy

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    As 5 November fast approaches, anti-Trump rhetoric is reaching nauseating levels.

    Democrats and the media – but I repeat myself – have made the central focus of their 2024 campaign about how Donald Trump is “the greatest threat to democracy” in history. They claim the 45th President is a tyrannical dictator-in-waiting, but forget one thing: he was the 45th President.

    During Trump’s presidency, he had ample opportunity to become the totalitarian dictator the left so badly wants him to be, yet his record was exactly the opposite.

    TRUMP THE PEACEMAKER

    While Trump often claims he is the only President in the last 72 years not to be involved in war, this is not exactly true. However, he did not meaningfully engage in military conflict during his term.

    The last decade has been filled with lie after lie about Trump, to the point where even the most ardent Trump supporter probably believes at least one of them.

    Technically, the power for the US to declare war rests solely with Congress. A worrying modern departure from this constitutional requirement has been general resolutions from Congress authorising the continuing use of military force. This is how “conflicts” such as the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan wars occurred without proper, constitutionally required, authorisation – even though they were full-scale wars and are always referred to as wars.

    Other presidents have also been heavily involved in the escalation of foreign conflicts, the current Administration’s heavy financing of Ukraine being one such example. Trump, on the other hand, used the military sparingly but effectively and demanded other countries pay for US protection – creating a financial disincentive for war. Trump’s only real use of the military was quickly cleaning up the ISIS conflict he inherited.

    While Trump may have been involved in military engagements, he certainly tops the list as the most peaceful US President since World War II.

    TRUMP THE DEMOCRAT

    A common theme among dictators is the centralisation and concentration of power. Trump has been an advocate of states’ rights, pledging “to make states the laboratories of democracy once again” during his 2017 inauguration speech. During his Administration’s Covid response, he largely allowed the states to handle their own policies. During a time when most political leaders looked to seize power, he sought to relinquish it.

    But where Trump advanced states’ rights most was in his many judicial appointments: appointing judges and justices who recognised the policy-making power that resided in the hands of the states. One consequence of this was in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned the faulty premise that prevented states from regulating abortion.

    Contrary to popular belief, Roe v Wade had little to do with abortion and everything to do with states’ rights. No matter your view on abortion, if the Constitution says it is subject to state regulation, that’s what the Supreme Court should confirm.

    When it comes to executive orders, Trump averaged 55 per year, far more than the one or less per year of the first six presidents but a lot less than the 307 per year that Franklin D. Roosevelt – who is an often-highly regarded President – averaged. Even the much-beloved John F. Kennedy averaged 75 executive orders per year. Neither of those men are referred to as dictators.

    In fact, Trump’s use of executive orders sits almost exactly on the average of all presidents combined, which includes the early presidents who signed almost none. That’s nowhere near the level you would expect of someone with dictatorial tendencies.

    2020 HINDSIGHT

    But what about the 2020 Election? That is where Trump showed his true colours, according to his haters. And while Trump certainly is not the most gracious loser, he was completely within his rights to question and contest the legitimacy of the results: it is the right of all political participants. Hilary Clinton did it in 2016 and Al Gore did it in 2000 – both Democrats.

    The difference between Hilary Clinton’s denial of the 2016 results and Donald Trump’s denial of the 2020 results is that Trump was right: the 2020 election was rigged.

    The traditional media, social media and the FBI teamed up to ensure the Hunter Biden laptop story never saw the light of day before the election. Had that story been given its proper coverage, or even just not suppressed – people were literally prevented from posting about it on Twitter and other social media platforms – we would have likely seen a different result. If that isn’t rigging an election, someone tell me what is. Let’s not even get into the fact that several states used widespread mail-in ballot voting without the proper legislative approval to do so.

    FELONY OUTRAGE

    But Donald Trump is a convicted felon! How could anyone support that, the indoctrinated say, while simultaneously claiming that Trump is out to imprison his political opponents without a shred of irony.

    Trump was not convicted of paying “hush money” to a pornstar, there is no crime in a non-disclosure agreement. Trump was convicted of 34 counts of incorrectly filling out business documents, a misdemeanour offence in New York meriting a similar punishment to a speeding fine or other trivial traffic offence.

    The New York District Attorney (NYDA) managed to convince 12 New York progressives that it was a felony by nebulously claiming that Trump incorrectly completed the business forms in order to commit another crime; it was not necessary for the NYDA to actually indicate what that other crime was, nor for the jurors agree on that other crime. Not to mention, the NYDA relied solely on the evidence of Michael Cohen, a disgruntled former Trump employee with an axe to grind.

    A worrying modern departure from this constitutional requirement has been general resolutions from Congress authorising the continuing use of military force.

    Had it been any other person, the NYDA would have settled for a misdemeanour offence, if they had even bothered to prosecute it at all.

    FACISMO AMERICANO

    Finally, the pièce de resistance of the anti-Trump rhetoric: he is a Nazi. The kind of opposition that, if repeated often enough, might just lead someone to be justified in taking a shot at him. I mean, we’d all kill Hitler, right?

    I don’t have enough words to debunk every single instance where Democrats, or their media allies, have called Trump a Nazi, so I will focus on the most recent: Trump held a rally at Madison Square Garden. So what is the connection? Well, in 1939, a group of American Nazis also held a rally there and, well, that’s it. What’s more, Madison Square Garden actually moved location in 1968, so Trump’s rally was not even at the same location as the 1939 Nazi rally.

    Even before the rally had begun, mainstream media pundits were flapping their jowls with disgust, drawing comparisons between the 1939 rally. I wonder if these same propagandists are as concerned that Andrea Bocelli is scheduled to hold Nazi concerts there in just over a month. And these propagandists must be shocked to learn that the New York Knicks plan to host 38 Nazi games there over the upcoming NBA season; maybe they should rename them the Nazi Knicks.

    Join Mailing List

    VOTE TRUMP

    The last decade has been filled with lie after lie about Trump, to the point where even the most ardent Trump supporter probably believes at least one of them. Looking back on pre-politics Trump, who was often portrayed in a positive light, seems like another time completely. And there will be a time when propagandists will point to Trump as being “not so bad after all”, like they do with George W. Bush now – even though they said similar things about him during his presidency.
    Given the Libertarian Party has failed to nominate a libertarian candidate and Robert F. Kennedy Jr has dropped out of the race (although he will still appear on the ballot in many states, including the key states of Michigan and Wisconsin), I urge all American readers to vote Trump this Tuesday. Don’t stay home: vote.

    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

    Why We Should Oppose Government Efforts to Age Restrict Social Media

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    There are increasing efforts to mandate age restrictions for social media. These efforts have occurred at federal level with a proposed minimum age of 16, and in Victoria with a proposed minimum age of 14 with parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. My home state of South Australia is also considering something similar.

    This legislation is motivated by concerns about some of the negative effects of social media use on teenage mental health. I do not believe this type of legislation is the right solution to the problem and that it constitutes government overreach.  I am concerned about its effects on civil liberties and internet privacy along with how it may be implemented. 

    My first major concern is the effect on internet privacy. In the event that such legislation is strictly enforced, social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia. This will severely compromise internet anonymity, which is important as it allows people to more openly discuss uncomfortable but important issues and protects the identities of people who are at risk of political persecution. 

    Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility

    This is of particular concern given the increasing trend in Commonwealth countries of people being arrested for saying things online related to hot button political topics or that for some reason have been deemed offensive.

    There is also the issue of data privacy. Forcing people to hand over their ID involves the disclosure of sensitive personal data which could then be exposed in a data leak, stolen by hackers, or sold to third parties by the social media company itself.

    My second major concern is that such a law takes choice out of the hands of parents and increases government interference in the lives of families. All teenagers are different, and some are more mature than others. The decision to engage on social media should be made by parents, not the government.

    Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility.  When some parents are asked why they don’t restrict social media for their children despite complaining about it, the conversation seems to go like this:

    Parent: I’m concerned that social media is harming my child’s mental health.

    Me: Why don’t you stop them from using social media or restrict its use?

    Parent: No. I can’t do that. I want my child to fit in and be popular!!!

    Me in my head: WTF?

    My third major concern is that the policy may have unintended consequences. Like many things, social media has both good and bad aspects, with the bad aspects more pronounced when used excessively. However, social media also allows people to interact with others regardless of how far away they are and to connect with like-minded people.

    This can be particularly beneficial to teenagers who live in remote communities, have family that lives far away, seek a family group chat, want to let the world know what is happening in their communities, or for some reason have limited opportunities to socialise in person.  

    For example, I recently had a friend who was committed to a psych ward. Social media allowed us to talk to each other when I couldn’t visit and outside of visiting hours. A policy of restricting social media would create a government-imposed one-size-fits -all approach affecting all teenagers that will not work for all. Such a policy simply doesn’t distinguish between excessive and moderate social media use.

    Social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia.

    My fourth major concern is what the government defines as social media. Not all social media is the same. I personally have Facebook, Discord and Signal. All these apps function differently despite falling under the umbrella of social media.

    Facebook mandates that people use their real name to create a profile. On Facebook you can create both public and private events, comment on things publicly, message people privately, and a range of other things. On Discord, you create a username and then can message people and join private and semi-public groups. 

    Signal works like text messaging, but you can create group chats and relies on the internet rather than phone data. Signal does not have public pages like Facebook. As someone who intends to become a parent in the future, I would approach all these apps differently and allow them each at different ages.

    Join Mailing List

    I would also like to point out that many social media sites already have age restrictions.  Facebook, for example, requires a minimum age to join of 13. There are also apps that you can get on phones and computers that limit social media use or block certain sites. 

    Given this, I believe the best alternative solution to this legislation would be increased parental responsibility surrounding social media, and social and societal support for parents who choose to limit excessive teen social media use.

    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’ ???

    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.

    The Myth of Speed

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    8

    We are constantly told that Australia has a huge road toll. Every holiday break and long weekend there are reports of how many people were killed, amid inferences that this is a major and growing tragedy.  

    Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding. There is a never-ending campaign, complete with gory advertisements warning of lifelong injuries, telling us to slow down. The message never varies – below the speed limit is safe, above the limit is not. Indeed, we are told that even 1km/hr above the speed limit increases the likelihood of serious injury and death. Vacuous journalists blame speed for almost every accident they cover. 

    And should we fail to heed the message there are speed cameras, aerial monitoring, highway patrols and double demerit periods to remind us.  

    In reality, driving on Australian roads is safer than it has been for over fifty years. Road fatalities, both absolute and relative to the population, have been steadily falling.  Whereas in 1970 there were 3,798 road fatalities, equal to 30.4 fatalities per 100,000 people, in 2022 there were just 1,194 fatalities, a rate of 4.6 per 100,000. 

    Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads

    Most of the decline occurred prior to 2000 following the introduction of seat belts, improved road design, vehicle safety upgrades such as disc brakes and impact resistance, and limits on drink-driving. 

    But it has continued up to the present time: in the decade to 2012 the rate of deaths relative to population decreased by an annual average of 4.2%. In the ten years to 2022 it fell by an annual average of 1.9%. 

    The bottom line is, Australia’s road toll is a fraction of what it once was and continues to fall. Fewer people die in road accidents than from the flu or Covid. And yet, rather than celebrate this success, government perpetuates the fiction that things are bad and getting worse. Moreover, despite quite minor changes to speed limits over the period (slight increase on highways and slight reduction in the suburbs), it insists that excessive speed is the primary culprit.   

    All this while most of Europe, which has overall higher speed limits than Australia, has lower road death rates. That includes Germany, where there are no speed limits on major autobahns. 

    Responsibility for this myth lies with the National Road Safety Strategy, prepared every few years by transport and infrastructure bureaucrats from the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. For many years it has led a crusade with the broad aim of significantly reducing road trauma, resulting ultimately in zero deaths and serious injuries (which it defines as anyone admitted to hospital, irrespective of seriousness or the length of stay), by 2050. 

    It argues speed is a key element in all crashes, and that this necessitates lower speed limits and additional enforcement. State governments, which collect tens of millions in speeding fines, dutifully go along with it. 

    Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding.

    While very high speeds can obviously lead to more serious accidents, the data shows that deaths occur at any speed. Indeed, achieving zero deaths and injuries from road accidents is only feasible if everyone walks (even then, some would die of heart attacks). That would clearly be unacceptable to the community, which implicitly accepts a certain level of deaths and injuries as the price of convenient travel.

    The elevation of speed limits to icon status is both dishonest and absurd. Those responsible for setting limits, road safety experts and traffic engineers in the public service, are determining the trade-off between convenient travel times and the road toll for the entire community. If speed is truly the demon we are led to believe, they are essentially deciding how many people should die.  

    If this all sounds familiar, with memories of recent events during the Covid epidemic, that is not surprising. The gross overstating of a public health risk; a determination to mitigate that risk without regard for economic or social consequences; an assumption that the public are not competent to make their own decisions about bearing that risk. It’s all the same. 

    Join Mailing List

    As with Covid, it amounts to a classic case of gross bureaucratic overreach. It is the public, not bureaucrats, who ought to determine the trade-off between travel convenience and the road toll. (There is even an internationally recognised method of achieving this, known as the 85th percentile formula.) It is the public, not public health bureaucrats, who should decide whether the road toll warrants greater priority than other causes of death and disease. 

    Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads, but a risk-free society is not a rational public health objective. Road users are not sinful children and should not be viewed as a source of government revenue, and public health bureaucrats should not be allowed to play God.

    How much should we pay our pollies?

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    Among the many criticisms of politicians that I heard during my time as a Senator, the accusation that they are only in it for the pay and perks, looking after themselves rather than the country and voters, was one of the most common. 

    Sometimes this arose from dissatisfaction with certain politicians, but more often it reflected disdain for them all. Many Australians are convinced politicians are paid far more than they are worth. 

    I am inclined to agree. 

    This prompts the question – should politicians be paid at all? Should we treat parliamentary service as a career, as we do now, or as a form of public service necessitating an element of sacrifice? And if politicians are to be paid, what is an appropriate amount? 

    Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election

    In democracy’s ancient home, Athens, eligible citizens all had a civic duty to participate in the governing assembly. There was no salary, although in the 5th century BC an attendance fee was introduced as an incentive. 

    In the British parliament, on which our democracy is based, service in the House of Commons was unpaid until 1911. Members of the House of Lords, who are mostly appointed, are still unpaid unless they hold an official position. They can claim an attendance allowance plus limited travel expenses, although many do not bother. 

    Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service. In New Hampshire, for example, state legislators are paid just $200 for their two-year term plus mileage. In Maine, Kansas, Wyoming and New Mexico, state politicians are paid less than what Australian local government councillors receive. 

    It’s different for heads of government, most of whom are well paid. Top of the list is the prime minister of Singapore, at more than a million dollars and over five times the pay of ordinary MPs. By comparison Australia is rather egalitarian; our government leaders are only paid about double what ordinary politicians receive. 

    But it is the pay of ordinary politicians that agitates people, and on that Australia is generous. A backbench member of the Federal Parliament receives a package (i.e. salary, allowances and superannuation) of at least $280,000. State politicians’ salaries tend to be only slightly lower. 

    This is far more than what most of them earned before getting elected and, more importantly, is much more than what they could earn if they lost their seat. This has a powerful effect on their behaviour. 

    Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election. In the case of New Hampshire, around half the members of the legislature are retired, with an average age of 58. 

    Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service.

    Perhaps it is reasonable they be paid something. Being a senator can be extremely busy, as I found. There are not only long days in Canberra but also committee hearings and an endless stream of people seeking help. Most politicians treat it as a full-time job and their salary is their sole source of income. 

    But that need not be the case. While the workload for key ministers is typically substantial, ordinary MPs have considerable time-flexibility. Indeed, some undertake additional study or write a book, while a few maintain a professional interest (such as doctors) or remain involved in an outside business (as I did). 

    More to the point, a great deal of the activity of politicians is designed to help them get re-elected. Being paid a handsome salary with generous expenses while doing this gives them a significant advantage over their unelected competitors. 

    Join Mailing List

    The reason for entering politics ought to be service to the country rather than a lucrative professional career. It should attract people who have achieved more than navigated their way through a party, worked for existing politicians, and manipulated numbers to gain preselection. Politicians should also have a life outside politics that ensures they are not desperate to be re-elected. 

    It is difficult to see how political service is substantially any different from serving on the board of a charity or other non-profit organisation, for which there is reimbursement of expenses and possibly an attendance fee. It should ideally be no better paid than any other job an incumbent is likely to achieve. 

    And, of course, service in politics should be viewed as a temporary role that will end. And when it does, there should be something to go back to. 

    The Federal Government Should Deliver a Decade of Surpluses

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    1

    A government’s balance sheet indicates whether it is engaging in intergenerational redistribution. If the government has negative net assets it is leaving future generations with more obligations than benefits. A government with positive net assets is leaving future generations with more benefits than obligations.

    Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations, so should leave those decisions to individuals. This means that governments should have zero net assets; their balance sheets should be balanced.

    Governments in Australia do not have balanced balance sheets. The Commonwealth has a significantly negative net asset position and each of the states and territories has a significantly positive net asset position.

    When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

    This is shown in Chart 1. It depicts public sector net asset positions relative to the size of the related economies. Commonwealth net assets are shown relative to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while each state or territory’s net assets are shown relative to the relevant state or territory’s Gross State Product (GSP). Each jurisdiction’s public sector includes government-owned businesses such as government-owned banks.

    The Commonwealth’s negative net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with obligations in excess of benefits. In essence, the Commonwealth Government has locked in benefits for future generations, like security from the military assets it has accumulated to date, but has racked up far greater obligations, like obligations to pay back Commonwealth debts and fund the superannuation of retired Commonwealth public servants. 

    This decision of the Commonwealth Government to beggar the future is unlikely to represent the preference of Australians.

    The Commonwealth Government’s intergenerational redistribution should stop, so as to leave intergenerational decisions to individuals. In other words, the Commonwealth Government should convert its negative net asset position to a zero net asset position.  This should be done through a decade of surplus budgets (or surplus ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 2 per cent of GDP. 

    This could be readily achieved, for example by reducing Commonwealth Government transfers to the state and territory governments. These transfers are particularly odd given that each state and territory government is wealthier than the Commonwealth Government.

    Each state and territory government’s positive net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with benefits in excess of obligations. It is teeing up more benefits for future generations, like their enjoyment of public land holdings and use of infrastructure like roads, than it is racking up future obligations, like State Government debts and funding the superannuation of retired State public servants.

    While leaving future generations with benefits in excess of obligations sounds nice, this is something that individuals are perfectly capable of doing without government.  

    Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations

    And the current generation may well be of the view that the degree of generosity to future generations shown by each of the state and territory governments is excessive. If there is a difference of opinion between a government and the individuals it represents, then it is the government that is wrong. 

    State and territory government intergenerational redistribution should be put to a stop by each government reducing its positive net asset position to net zero. This should be done through a decade of deficit budgets (or deficit ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 4 per cent of GDP on average.

    Such deficits could be achieved by abolishing inefficient taxes like stamp duties, or by giving away assets. (Such give-aways count as losses that detract from the operating result.)

    The biggest deficits should come from the wealthiest state governments, in Queensland and Victoria.

    The wealth of the Victorian state government may come as a surprise. The Victorian state government has a stronger net asset position and a weaker net financial asset position than many of its counterparts (see Chart 2). It has done a lot of borrowing, which has weakened its net financial asset position, but it has done this to invest in non-financial assets.  Overall this generates a positive, or at least neutral, impact on net assets.

    Unfortunately for the Victorian state government, credit rating agencies tend to ignore a government’s net assets and instead focus on its net financial assets. Even more stupidly, lenders take these credit ratings into account when lending to governments. If a state or territory government wanted to defend its credit rating so as to ensure continued access to low-cost borrowing, it could still run significant deficits in line with my recommendation. It would just need to achieve these deficits by giving away non-financial assets, like land, so as to leave its net financial asset position unchanged.

    Join Mailing List

    When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

    123Page 1 of 3

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    Manufacturing Dissent: How Statistics Are Used To Lie, Manipulate And Divide

    Gillian Dempsey - 0
    Recently, the creator of Dilbert, Scott Adams, became the subject of a furore where he encouraged people to not associate with black people on...

    The Libertarian ACT Party’s Influence On The New Coalition Government

    Short Imagined Conversation with a Voice To Parliament Advocate

    The True Story About How Fashion Trends Are Born

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv