Federation University’s Verity Archer discovered a letter written in 1975 by Sir Donald Bradman, the greatest cricket batsman ever to play with an unparalleled average of 99.94, to newly elected Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.
The 1975 federal election was undoubtedly a fiercely contested battle. Emotions were high. As any citizen was and is entitled to do, Bradman took a side and wrote:
“A marvellous victory in which your personal conduct and dignity stood out against the background of arrogance and propaganda indulged in by your opponents.”
Bradman next makes a prediction, which you would have to say history shows to be prescient:
“Now you may have to travel a long and difficult road along which your enemies will seek to destroy you.”
Cricket was a sport for amateurs in The Don’s day. Big money had not yet influenced the sport. Players therefore had to develop a career independent their sporting masters. They were tough men on long, self-funded tours, most unlike some knee-bending virtue-signalers and sandpaper betting-agency grubs you are more familiar with from more recent periods. In Sir Donald’s case, he was an accomplished and successful stockbroker in his own right with an advanced understanding of the regulatory framework of his time. Writing about regulations on capital, Bradman consequently wrote:
“What the people need are clearly defined rules which they can read and understand so that they can get on with their affairs.”
Seems fair enough. Sounds like Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS) rules decades later. He then adds:
“The public must be re-educated to believe that private enterprise is entitled to rewards as long as it obeys fair and reasonable rules laid down by government. Maybe you can influence leaders of the press to a better understanding of this necessity of presentation.”
There are four points in that paragraph:
Belief in private enterprise. This is straightforward enough of an idea. It’s the basis of our Western, capitalist liberal democracy;
Gaining the rewards of its initiative. Yes. Private enterprise offers goods and services to the public in return for a profit. This is basic economics. Got it;
Some fair and reasonable rules. Well, let’s not have any rules if possible but, if we must, light-touch and easy-the-understand, sure;
Explain this to the media. Not a bad idea for a government to share with the press the direction it would like to take the country. All good.
What’s to disagree with here?
Yet, out come the socialists and 1975 ancient historians with an axe to grind:
Broadcaster Phillip Adams wrote, “Sad. Lost letter from Bradman to Fraser after Whitlam’s dismissal reveals ‘the Don’ to be a RWNJ.”
Unaccustomed to shorthand slurs from journalists, I had to find what RWNJ meant: right-wing nut-job, apparently.
To some boomer-era, battle-axe activists-come-journalists, supporting free-enterprise, light-touch regulation and transparency with the media is radical. Apparently these positions are extreme, wild enough to be branded a right-wing nut-job!
At what point in Australian progress did free enterprise become a dirty word?
Or can we say Mr. Adams is the radical one for slandering a long-deceased Australian sporting icon because he believed in free enterprise.
Or …
… maybe, just maybe, Mr. Adams has another axe to grind. Perhaps he just hates supporters of Malcolm Fraser over the Political Crisis of 1975.
All Liberty Itch says in response is:
Mr. Fraser won in a record landslide still not bettered today. Mr. Adams is surely not saying the vast majority of Australians including Sir Donald were RWNJs, is he?
Mr. Fraser’s successor, Bob Hawke, thought highly enough of Mr. Fraser to appoint him to the Eminent Persons Group to tackle racism in Apartheid-era South Africa. Mr. Adams is surely not saying Bob Hawke was a right-wing nut-job as well for supporting Mr. Fraser, is he?
Like you, dear reader, I was taught never to speak ill of the dead.
It seems Mr. Adams wasn’t.
Long after Mr. Adams meets the Lord, free enterprise and Western liberal democracy will prevail.
I do hope though that the practice of throwing mud at men long dead and unable to defend their reputations will cease, for Mr. Adams’ sake you understand, dear reader.
Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia. This has a lot to do with the fact that it is not really a freedom per se, so much as a collection of more fundamental individual freedoms with which people are much more familiar: freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly.
What makes religious freedom a distinct concept is the unique content of the conscience, thought and speech in question, and the unique purposes and function of association and assembly conducted in its name.
For example, religions represent the most ancient belief systems still in existence in our modern societies, and this ancient pedigree sometimes puts the religion, and its adherents, at odds with more recent cultural changes. Religions also tend to consist of more comprehensive and determinate worldviews than are typical of secular culture.
A society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is.
Secular world views, to the extent that they exist at all, tend to be more open, indeterminate and relativist than religious world views (militant secularists are the exception that proves the rule).
The comprehensiveness of the typical religious world view, and the ethical systems and modes of living that embody and express them, can make it difficult, if not impossible, for the religious believer to socially compartmentalise their faith, ensuring social friction in a secular, pluralistic society like Australia. Moreover, religious world views are held by a decreasing percentage of the Australia population, progressively widening the gap between the religious believer and the cultural mainstream.
Evidence of this widening cultural distance can be seen in the increasing demand for faith-based schools and homeschooling, as religious believers seek to ensure that their children can be educated according to their faith and world view, free from the corruption of the dominant non-religious state ideology and the secular values and mores that now permeate society.
It is a combination of the unique content of religious belief, on the one hand, and its socially relevant practices and public activities, on the other, that create the kinds of tensions and dilemmas at the heart of the debate about religious freedom. The pointy end of this debate relates to faith-based schools, which have to pastorally manage the presence of same-sex attracted and gender dysphoric students enrolled in them while remaining faithful to the religious teaching and ethos for which the school was established in the first place. This can be particularly vexed in circumstances of open enrolment, where children of parents belonging to the establishing faith of the school are enrolled alongside children of parents who do not belong to it, leading to competing expectations and demands on the school.
However, the key thing to bear in mind about religious freedom, and something often forgotten in public discussion, is that it is simply an expression and manifestation of the most fundamental individual freedoms that constitute a free society, and which most citizens take for granted as self-evident goods. As such, any restriction of religious freedom is by default a restriction of either freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or some combination thereof.
Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia.
That said, none of the fundamental freedoms that comprise religious freedom is absolute. All individual freedoms are subject to necessary limitations and compromises in the name of protecting individuals from violence, aggression and unjustified coercion. The terrorist cannot invoke religious freedom in order to justify the planning and execution of a mass casualty attack according to some perceived divine revelation or injunction.
The challenge for a society with a mixed population of (diverse) religious and non-religious citizens is to properly identify the necessary limitations on religious freedom, without unduly compromising and undermining the fundamental individual freedoms that are essential to the creation and sustenance of a free society, the only kind in which human flourishing is truly possible.
The boundaries of religious freedom, which is to say a society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is.
Anyone who professes to value freedom of conscience, thought, speech, association and assembly must care about religious freedom, and must want to see society recognise, preserve and defend ample social space for the practice and expression of religion—not because one necessarily accepts the metaphysical and moral claims of any particular religion, but because one can see the inextricable connection between religious freedom and the fundamental freedoms that constitute a free society, for theist, atheist and agnostic alike.
This month, six members of Australia’s federal parliament, composed of both Labor and Coalition members, visited Taiwan. This diplomatic excursion was organised by Liberal politician Scott Buchholz and involved former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, as well as Labor MPs Meryl Swanson and Libby Coker.
Under intense pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and no doubt advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese downplayed the significance of the trip, noting that it isn’t uncommon for politicians to go to Taiwan.
“There have been backbench visits to Taiwan for a long time. This is another one”, he said.
He further qualified that this “isn’t a government visit” and that the bipartisan position when it comes to China and Taiwan remains the same.
The Australian delegation in Taiwan is being careful not to make too much fuss about it, due to the sensitive nature of the issue. Nevertheless, it believes the visit is important for Australia to maintain a close relationship with both mainland China and Taiwan, and support the principles of democracy.
Beijing has long viewed these visits as an unacceptable endorsement of Taiwan’s separation from the mainland, claiming that such visits are a “serious breach of the One China principle.”
In response, the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda mouthpiece Global Times lashed out with predictable broken-English sabre-rattling:
The Prime Minister should keep doing his handshakes. Heavens knows diplomacy seems to be a constant requirement for a twitchy Chinese Communist Party.
However, if democratic Taiwan wishes to invite a bipartisan Australian parliamentary delegation for a visit, it will be up to that delegation to accept or decline.
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.”
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.
Two hours ago, Elon Musk’s long-anticipated acquisition of Twitter was completed.
Hopes now run high that at least one social media platform can operate for all and free speech restored.
Time will tell.
As an avid user of the platform, I believe the following needs addressing:
1. Bots. The system is fouled by fake accounts created by algorithm. The platform must be cleansed on this problem.
2. Bad-Faith Actors. I’m not talking about typical anonymous accounts, but rather accounts run by nation-state troll farms at call centre scale. I’m constantly inundated with this scourge. They used to be easy to spot: low follower numbers, homogeneity of digital assets in the profile feed, short sentences in broken English. They are now becoming harder and harder to spot. They sit like sleeper agents in good citizens’ follower list for what sinister purpose or misinformation we are yet to learn. Get rid of them.
3. Safety & Integrity. It almost goes without saying that the previous management, the CEO, CFO, Corporate Counsel and Policy Officer now unceremoniously terminated by Musk, actively pursued centre-right users with the Safety & Integrity Department. It used a pincer movement to suppress centre-right users. The first was the dreaded algorithm which flagged people and then spurted automatic double-speak messages to put people in a procedural cul-de-sac. Then it referred a select few of the targeted users to an inadequately small Safety & Integrity Department of actual humans who them mercilessly cancelled many honest users with unfavoured political views. Ending this double-pincer is huge priority to restore the platform.
4. Advertising. As a B2B businessman, I have no need to advertise on Twitter. It’s a B2C platform. Even if I were wishing to advertise to the retail or B2C markets, I wouldn’t use Twitter. How can targeting occur when most handles are anonymous. It’s a very low-value, hit and miss way to reach new customers.
5. Caves and Common. A ‘cave’ is a place in an online community where a person can retreat or pursue more focused relationships. A ‘common’ is where you’re in the flow of action, in the bright shiny lights of the site. Because Twitter is all common, is feels like a brutal fight club. There’s little respite, little joy, little reprieve. Twitter groups or rooms would be a fantastic innovation.
6. Anonymous Handles. Of course, most people tweet with the protection of anonymity. But for the advertising issue, I think that’s OK. However, the site would be far better if people declared their identity. It would temper the fight club feel of the platform and users would be more likely to self-moderate. As there are advantages to anonymity, like speaking truth to power and whistleblowing, I think a hybrid model would work well. So users could still have an anonymous handle, but with limited reach or features. Upgrading to full user identification would allow greater reach and features.
Whatever changes are made by Mr Musk, one thing is certain. The property is now in the hands of a man who knows how to make things happen.
It will be interesting to watch.
It will be even more interesting being a Twitter user.
You could be forgiven for feeling despair at the state of Australian politics right now.
Ditto for the West as a whole.
Unfortunately, despair doesn’t take us where we need to go.
There are four forces pulling us in the wrong direction at the moment. The quick summary is that the Liberty-Authority war is raging but Liberty is losing too many battles, our politicians don’t know how ‘mixed’ our mixed-economy should be and so are preferencing Authority in that war, there’s a kind of matrix hanging over us which makes things hard to change, and we aren’t giving our parliamentarians the right incentives to stop.
What we urgently need is clear-thinking on these four forces, an action plan to counter them and a lot of good people like you to follow the plan.
This article will give you the clear-thinking and the action plan.
Read what follows then decide whether you’ll join the fight.
LIBERTY-AUTHORITY WAR
First, the Liberty-Authority war is raging but Liberty is losing too many battles.
There are two extremes in government: 100% Liberty and 100% Authority.
Total Liberty is a utopia, which can only fleetingly exist before Authority is needed to stabilise it. At 95% Liberty and 5% Authority, stability is possible. Imagine 1880s London or 1980s Hong Kong. In this light-touch government, the enterprising individual flourishes to produce a dynamic, Liberty-loving productive society. Individual independence, live and let live lifestyle, free-trade, creativity, flair, ambition, initiative, vision, self-reliance, energy, innovation and self-actualisation abound. The society throbs with entrepreneurial instinct.
Total Authority is a dystopia, which inevitably collapses from the murder, starvation or flight of millions. It is frequently reformed out of necessity. At 95% Authority and 5% Liberty, the Liberty manifests as a barely-tolerated, hardscrabble barter just to ward-off widespread starvation. Imagine 2020s North Korea or 2020s Eritrea. The economy is small and centrally controlled. Basic needs are unmet. In this despotic, heavy-handed government, enterprise is crushed, initiative regarded with suspicion and people cower in fear and repression, forced into a life of misery. There is no spark in its people, no verve, no passion, no striving, no vivacity.
Australia sits nowhere near these two ends of the spectrum, of course. It would be feeble-thinking however to surmise that we are exempt from the Liberty-Authority war. All societies are subject to it, Australia included, and Liberty is losing.
Consider Authority’s recent wins:
Border closures
Vaccine mandates
Emergency power legislation enshrined and ready for reactivation
Job terminations over mandates
QR codes to track your movements and bar entry
Elected politicians denied entry into parliament
Peaceful citizens shot in the back with rubber bullets
Home detention of the population
Laws requiring employers to gather private medical data
Secrecy over vaccine purchase terms
Door-to-door visits for covid vaccine rollout
Opaque health information about vaccine injuries
Construction of covid detention camps.
Think that’s the end of it?
First, none of these powers has been removed as covid wanes.
Second, at the time of writing, there were 122 bills before Capital Hill, Canberra. This figure obviously changes but you can review the list at anytime yourself here.
I want you to think of the Commonwealth Parliament as a school of ravenous piranha. Every time a new law is passed, your personal and financial Liberty is being thrown in the legislative pond for thirty seconds. You scramble out with razor cuts all over your bloodied body. Then you’re pushed back in by errant leaders and the populist mob for another gasping swim. Again and again, the body politic is attacked, your Liberty weakened with every new law passed.
During my frantic attempts to call MPs during the covid overreach, part of my epiphany that the Liberal Party – far from being an agent for small government – is complicit in this process was a question I posed to an MP. I asked this person to find out from the Parliamentary Library how many Commonwealth statutes are active. The experts couldn’t come up with a number. We are suffocated with so many laws, we don’t know how many there are!
We’ve fought 121 years in Australia over whether we need more economic and personal Liberty on the one side, and whether we need more Authority and protection on the other.
Authority is winning.
One of the issues is that our fellow citizens are increasingly expecting government to be an end-to-end solution to every risk we face in life. What we demand of our governments is that they increasingly manage the risks of life which we have handled privately in the past. Fear is a powerful motivator.
We have to make our politicians understand that we don’t expect them to carry all the risks in our lives.
As Lord Jonathan Sumption said in a recent trip to Australia:
“If we hold governments responsible for everything that goes wrong, they will take away our autonomy so that nothing can go wrong.”
I think he’s being optimistic about ‘nothing can go wrong’ but you see his point.
MIXED ECONOMY
Second, our politicians don’t know how ‘mixed’ our mixed-economy should be and so are preferencing Authority in that war.
Throughout time immemorial, we have sought to balance these competing but innate needs. On one side, creative, independent, self-actualising Liberty and, on the other side, risk-avoiding, dependent, protective Authority.
Democracy, coupled with its ‘mixed-economy’, tries to navigate between the two. That is, there is constant tension within a mixed-economy democracy to balance Liberty and Authority.
How are each enabled?
The general rule of thumb is that the bigger a government’s budget, the greater the means by which our leaders can impose Authority.
Big government budget means more Authority and less Liberty.
Small government budget means more Liberty and less Authority.
So, what’s the trendline in Australia.
If we use government expenditure as a percentage of GDP as the litmus test since Federation in 1901, we see an obvious trend. I’m going to use cut-offs at the end of each Liberal government (or its predecessor equivalents) since centre-right Liberals are reputationally supposed to be the small government, pro Liberty advocates.
Here’s what we discover:
Deakin (third government): 5%
Menzies (second government): 17%
Fraser: 26%
Howard: 37%
Morrison: 45%.
The trend is clearly from Liberty to Authority.
We need to jettison this old Keynesian term ‘mixed economy’. It’s an umbrella phrase which masks intent. An economy set at 90% Liberty and 10% Authority is a mixed-economy of a sort. So is 10% Liberty and 90% Authority. Even comparing Alfred Deakin’s 5% government economy versus Scott Morrison’s 45% government economy, the two look nothing like each other.
Using the term ‘mixed-economy’ gives licence to the Authority-lovers to execute socialism-creep.
During our lives, government is becoming ever larger and the piranha are being fed. Government has the growing means to intervene, coerce and limit our Liberty by a thousand imperceptible cuts over time.
And the truth is that the Liberal Party has been completely unsuccessful over 121 years in reversing the trend.
Why?
TOCQUEVILLE’S MATRIX
Well, third, there’s a kind of matrix hanging over us which makes things hard to change. I call it the Tocqueville Matrix.
The answer is that we’re in a system bigger than ourselves. We can laugh at analogies with the film The Matrix all we like. However, the reality of our predicament today was well uncovered, not by the hacker Neo in that movie but, 187 years ago by the classical liberal philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in his celebrated essay “Democracy In America”, the result of a fact-finding mission for France.
Alexis de Tocqueville. 1805-1859. Classical liberal.
Though published in 1835 on the other side of the planet, it was highly relevant to Australia at the time. The free-settled Province of South Australia was just one year from proclamation. A mere fifty-four years later, Sir Henry Parkes delivered his famous Federation-rallying Tenterfield Oration in which he said “Surely what the Americans have done by war, Australians can bring about in peace.”
Here’s what Tocqueville witnessed of the new American republic, at this point only two generations old. As you read his words, pay attention to the creaking tension between Liberty and Authority, and the ongoing, overall impact of democracy on its people:
“The protecting power of the state extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of Man is not shattered but it is softened, bent and guided. Men are seldom forced to act but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy but it prevents existence. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates and extinguishes. It stupefies a people until each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals to which the government is the shepherd.”
Dare tell me this is not Australia in 2022.
I’ve shown you our legislative losses. I’ve revealed the legislative agenda in progress. I’ve shared that we don’t even know how many laws are on the books. This is Tocqueville’s ‘complicated rules, minute and uniform.’
Further, who are our ‘most original minds and the most energetic characters’? We may not be shattered as a people. But who will deny we are ‘softened, bent and guided’?
The word ‘enervates’ means ‘to make a person drained of energy or vitality.’ If this is how you feel right now about politics, it’s the Tocqueville Matrix of democracy working you over! Resist it. Let your innate self-reliance and self-actualisation radiate.
I could have sworn Tocqueville was in Australia from 2020-2022 when writing that last sentence.
If you feel that your fellow citizens exhibit foggy thinking, if you believe they make terrible electoral choices, then take heart. We know why …
Australia, like all Western liberal democracies, has placed an apparatus over its citizens. This apparatus of uncountable statutes and a million regulatory miscellany soften, bend and guide us. Initiative, vigour and swashbuckling verve are all discouraged as is self-reliance. Our innate creativity, independence and self-actualising Liberty has been dampened. We are less Errol Flynn, Sir Charles Kingsford Smith and Sir Douglas Mawson, and now more a half-thwarted version of our true selves.
Sir Douglas Mawson OBE FRS. 1882-1958. First to climb Mount Erebus and reach South Magnetic Pole.
Authority has taken over Liberty as the primary force in Australia. We accommodate too much. We fund too much. We have power-hungry, entrenched legislators. Our fellow Australians are too prone to expect government to manage all the risks of the world.
PARLIAMENTARY INCENTIVES
Fourth, we aren’t giving our parliamentarians the right incentives to stop.
Our politicians, specifically the ones housed in the seat-holding incumbency parties of Labour, Greens, Liberals and Nationals, often spend ten to twenty years working towards preselection. They aren’t going to rock-the-boat once in power after that investment of time.
We need term limits. We also need the hard work within party preselection processes to turnover long-time incumbents.
Another issue is that we, as a people, are simply unpractised to tell a politician ‘no’! We advocate for spending on our pet projects and our politicians say ‘yes’ to everyone. It’s unsustainable. And when we argue for cuts, we are vulnerable to the ‘what government program are you going to end?’ We need a coherent, well-practised push-back to this. Citizens can’t keep acting like toddlers asking for more and politicians need to be disciplined in saying ‘no’.
We are terrible at applying constant pressure on our representatives between elections. They rarely hear from us after a poll. We need to visit them, form relationships with them, lobby them, guide them and, yes if necessary, threaten them with electoral backlash.
In fifty-four years, I’ve not seen one protest outside an electorate office by citizens angry about the MPs big spending tendencies. Not one.
We aren’t giving them the right incentives to correct.
AN URGENT ACTION PLAN
So, here’s what you need to do.
For Liberal and National members:
Action 1: Gather fellow members and advocate for a three-term limit. Make clear to an MP in his or her third term that this is it. Say it’s not personal, it’s a systemic position about renewal. Encourage challenges if the MP won’t budge.
Action 2: Make clear at State Council that you demand budget reductions in government. Educate MPs on the importance of reducing budgets. Ask for their game plan to achieve this. Embarrass elected officials who lack the courage to reduce the size of government. Normalise talk of smaller government. As a group or faction, make clear you will be targeting MPs who don’t work towards this.
Action 3: Gather fellow members and internally advocate for policy not tactical preferencing. Discourage tricky tactics which ultimately splinter the centre-right. Shame and seek the removal of any state director or parliamentary leader who supports tactical preferencing to Labor or the Greens ahead of the more Liberty-friendly emerging parties.
For members of the Liberal Democrats, the United Australia Party, One Nation, the Nationals outside coalition, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers and the Democratic Labor Party:
Action 4: Write to the local MP. Meet and lobby the MP. Educate the MP. Make clear that you want the next budget to be less than the current one. Make clear you want government expenditure as a percentage of GDP to be 40%, then 35%, then 30% and so forth year by year
Action 5: Advocate for a formal coalition and joint tickets. Joint tickets are important. They plug the preference leaking so prevalent on the centre-right. Work towards agreement that each emerging party gets to lead one upper house race. This is a near-guaranteed strategy for a bloc of six senators.
Action 6: Organise in vulnerable Labor lower-house seats to perform what I call the Purple Flip. This is Teal but in reverse. Identify and draft well-known local leaders to run as independents, perhaps tradies or sports figures, who project their working-class background but, due to their success, lean centre-right for its aspirational, social mobility message. Publicly appeal to aspirational voters in these Labor electorates, say they’ve been forgotten by Labor, and privately convince the die-hard but never electorally successful Liberals and Nationals in the seat to vote tactically for the independent.
The simple truth is that, if you don’t take these actions in concert with like-minded centre-right people, that big government trendline will continue to 50%, 57%, 63% and so on.
In democracy, you have to fight for the right balance between Liberty and Authority. Liberty is losing the battle for dominance. We are fast heading to an Authoritarian Australia. Covid overreach surely taught us that. Looming issues of digital passports, facial recognition systems and digital currency are facing Liberty-lovers right now.
You must act. The alternative is that you live, as Tocqueville pointedly wrote, as a ‘timid and industrious animal’ or we just continue to scratch-around in the political wilderness.
We can do better. Let’s steel ourselves now for the battle ahead.
Since a new Labor government in Australia was elected in 2022, there has been a warming trend in Australia-China relations. Our ministers are back engaging with Beijing officials and trips to China by our elected leaders are resuming.
The CCP influence whistleblower, Sydney based former Chinese diplomat Mr Yonglin Chen, who defected to Australia in 2005, issued a warning many years ago that Beijing aimed to transform Australia into ‘a stable and obedient resource supplier’ and, if we are not vigilant, we could be economically colonised into becoming a Province of China.
Mr Yonglin Chen. Former Chinese diplomat. Defected to Australia in 2005.
Chen’s chilling reminder resurfaces, as Australia-China relations begin to thaw.
Having been part of the ‘CCP body’ in the past, Chen’s ‘flip’ is invaluable in helping us understand how the Chinese Communists operate within Australia.
Despite his efforts to lead a simple life, Chen and his family receive regular threats from Beijing operatives in Sydney. But threats and coercion only make him more determined to defend universal principles and values.
Chen has agreed to an interview with Liberty Itch and has drawn from his personal experience to reveal the key functions of Chinese consulates in Australia.
In this interview, Chen asserts that these consulates engage in harassment of the Chinese diaspora and conduct activities aimed at interfering in the host country.
Unlike consulates of other countries, Chinese consulates prioritise political interference over consular affairs, with various offices aggressively involved in surveillance and espionage activities.
Beijing currently operates 275 diplomatic posts worldwide, surpassing the United States’ count of 267 and Australia’s count of 125, according to the Lowy Institute’s Global Diplomacy Index. These figures highlight China’s ambition to exert influence globally.
Here is the interview with Yonglin Chen.
LI: Tell us about the inner workings of Chinese Consulates in Australia.
YC: China gathers local intelligence through multiple avenues. General Staff focuses on military intelligence and high-tech innovations, while the Ministry of State Security(MSS) focuses on high-tech intelligence, counterespionage, and political interference.
The Ministry of Public Security (Police) focuses on Operation Fox Hunt, targeting individuals from the Chinese community and Chinese companies in Australia. Chinese missions also collaborate with Australian governments through Sister Cities or Sister State Relationships and oversee United Front organisations and Chinese Students & Scholars Associations (CSSA) at Australian universities.
They seek to control the majority of local Chinese language media and utilise the Confucius Institute system to influence opinions.
Beijing also promotes propaganda in mainstream local media and attempts to bribe and lure Australian MPs for their personal gains.
Additionally, China employs the Thousand Talent Plan and similar programs to recruit scientists and experts in order to acquire top-secret intelligence, as Australia shares academic research with the US. China’s methods for gathering intelligence are extensive, aiming to collect comprehensive big data on individuals.
LI: Please tell us more about the scale and tactics of the Chinese Spy network in our country.
YC: China’s spy network in Australia operates on a significant scale, with over 1,000 professional operatives not only deployed in various Australian sectors, including government institutions, universities and laboratories, but also located in China’s state-owned enterprises, media outlets, commerce, and trade organisations in Australia.
China’s spy network in Australia operates on a significant scale, with over 1,000 professional operatives
The CCP targets individuals within the Chinese diaspora and Australian elites, such as local, state, and federal politicians, their staffers, scientists, and academics, aiming to obtain valuable information. Confucius classrooms specifically target younger generations in Australia.
LI: We have seen an increasing number of seemingly ‘pro-CCP candidates’ running for our local councils and state parliaments. How are they ‘endorsed’ and ‘selected’? How do they interfere with Australian elections?
YC: The CCP’s United Front Work Department initiated the Chinese for Political Participation Program globally in 2005. Before that, politicians and officials of Chinese descent usually received preferential treatment, including luxurious trips to China and free accommodation and education for their children in Chinese universities.
After 2005, even more favorable treatment was provided, funded through the Ambassadorial Fund and other Special Budgets. Chinese missions may also arrange secret funds from Chinese state-owned enterprises and pro-CCP individuals in the Chinese community in Australia.
China’s media promotes election candidates through CCP mouthpieces such as China Central Television (CCTV), People’s Daily, and authorised WeChat red groups, boosting their popularity.
This increases their chances of winning elections in areas with a dense Chinese population. Chinese immigrants, who use WeChat, and Chinese language media in Australia, including Media Today Group, massively influenced by China, are utilised to disseminate CCP propaganda and influence voters.
Chinese volunteers, particularly young international students, are recruited to support ‘selected candidates’. Secret funds are also utilised in these efforts.
To protect Australia’s national interests, Chen emphasises six urgent actions:
Uphold principles when dealing with the Communist Regime and avoid appeasement, recognising that China relies on Australia’s resources and market, not the other way around.
Enforce the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 and the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021 effectively.
Reduce by half the number of PRC diplomats in Australia and expel CCP spies, removing specific operatives located within consulate’ premises.
Exercise strict oversight on funds directed towards election candidates.
Provide education on universal values and democratic principles to the mainland Chinese immigrant community and international Chinese students.
Expose spies’ activities in Australia and ensure the protection of Australian nationals.
As Beijing continues to entice our elected representatives, let’s hope that the Australian Parliament and the State MPs will consider Chen’s well-meaning advice.
Trade Minister, Don Farrell, was given a tour of the Forbidden City in Beijing in May 2023
Omar Bekali visited Adelaide recently to deliver a series of keynote speeches.
At first glance, a man on a speaking tour seems ordinary enough. However, Omar’s story is anything but ordinary.
A survivor of the Chinese Communist Party’s Xinjiang Camp, Omar Bekali, 46, presents as a courageous but scarred man with first-hand experience of the Chinese Government’s network of concentration camps. He not only saw people being subjected to unspeakable brutality and torture. He was one of them!
The following interview is compelling and especially wincing, coming with a reader warning. Yet his message is of global importance. The dark truth of China’s concentration camps and human rights violations is uncovered in all their gore.
The scene is Chinese occupied East Turkistan, Xinjiang.
The interview begins …
Liberty Itch: How did you end up in a concentration camp in XinJiang?
OB: My family and I lived in Kazakhstan. I went to Urumqi for a Trade Expo on 22 March 2017 for my work. Then on 25 March 2017, I went to Turpan, a City in Xinjiang, to visit my parents, where I was arrested and detained.
That morning, I was at my parents’ house with my brothers and sisters. Suddenly two police cars pulled up outside our house. Five armed police officers got out from their cars, came into our home, and arrested me. They never presented me with a warrant; they told me that they had one on their computer. I was brought to Dighar Village Police Station where I was made to wait for two hours. Every chance I got, I’d ask to call my parents, a lawyer, the Kazakh Embassy, or my wife, because no one knew where I was and I couldn’t call for help.
LI: On what grounds were you arrested by the Chinese Police?
OB: It is because I am a Turkic Kazakh. Beijing wants to erase all Turkic people in East Turkistan, a country invaded by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949. The land is now commonly known as ‘XinJiang, China’. I was suddenly accused of ‘terrorism’ and ‘smuggling people out of China’. I was targeted and discriminated against for being a Turkic Kazakh.
LI: When and how long did you stay in the camp?
OB: I stayed in the camp from 26 March 2017 to 24 November 2017.
LI: Where was your family at that time?
OB: My family was in Kazakhstan. I have a beautiful family with my wife and 3 children.
LI: How was your family impacted?
OB: The CCP destroyed my beautiful family. My family members including my children are all mentally impacted. My youngest son, who was one year and three month old when I was captured, could not call me dad for nearly a year after I returned. He complains even now that I abandoned him.
The purpose of these concentration camps is to indoctrinate Uyghurs into obeying the Chinese government. They use sophisticated mechanisms to brainwash us. I was told by the guards I had been poisoned by extreme ideologies during my life outside of China and needed to have a proper ‘Chinese Education’.
LI: What activities did they require of you in the camp?
OB: We are forced to study the Chinese language, Marxism, ‘Xi Jinping Thoughts’, renounce our religion and younger inmates worked in factories.
We were denied food for not agreeing to sing anthems that praised the Chinese government, otherwise known as Red Songs. We were told to denounce our Uyghur identity and Muslim faith. I was made to read a list of 60 types of common crimes associated with my ethnic and religious identity, praying to Allah, having a beard, attending a Muslim marriage, and communicating with people outside China.
My personal belief is that they never actually planned on indoctrinating us. The plan was always to exterminate the Uyghur population and harvest our organs.
LI: Did you comply with all the tasks? What would happen if you didn’t do them?
OB: I tried to resist. I denied the Chinese government’s accusations and asked them to show me the evidence. But that led to severe torture as punishment. The police realised they needed to escalate the pressure to get me to say what they wanted me to say.
From the police station I was brought somewhere I didn’t recognise. The police made me take off my clothes and examined my body, making notes about my condition. That’s when the torture started. They transferred me to the police station, in Kelamayi, Xinjiang.
My hands were strapped onto the arms on the chair and my feet were constrained at the bottom while needles were gradually slid into my fingers. That would last four to eight hours every day.
From April 3 to April 7, 2017, they would put me in the ‘Tiger Chair’ to try and extract information from me and compel me to admit to crimes I wasn’t guilty of.
They said I organised terrorist activities, propagated terrorism, or covered-up for terrorists. The police showed me photos of Uyghur and Kazakh people in Kazakhstan and asked me for their information.
I was given a letter accounting for all of my ‘crimes’ and told to sign it as a confession.
My job was used against me. The police claimed I was using my tourism career as a way to smuggle people out of China and into neighbouring countries.
Needles and nails were inserted into my body every time I told them “no” or “I’m innocent”.
An iron wire was shoved into my penis.
Rope was tied to the ceiling and around my wrists so tight that my feet couldn’t touch the ground. The rope ripped through the skin on my wrists while my body weight pulled me down.
Other days I was put in a “flying plane” position, where both my wrists and feet were tied to the ceiling, pulling my arms and legs out of their sockets while I was left dangling.
The guards would laugh as my body pulled itself apart.
There were five other types of punishment for those who didn’t follow the guards’ orders.
First, they’d make me face a wall for 24 hours without food or drink while they beat me with rubber rods.
Second, we were put in the Tiger Chair where needles were shoved into our fingers and feet.
Third, we’d be left in solitary confinement with no light for 24 hours.
Fourth, they’d put us into scorching hot rooms in the summer or freezing cold rooms in the winter.
Finally, a punishment I thankfully never experienced was called water prison. I heard of many detainees who were put in the water prison, but I don’t know what it is.
OB: To my great surprise on November 24, 2017, I was informed of my release and expulsion to Kazakhstan. I had been detained for eight months. I later learned that my wife sent a number of letters to the UN Human Rights Commission and the Kazakhstan Foreign Minister attesting to my innocence.
The considerable press coverage of my illegal detainment was a major factor in my release.
LI: Where do you live now?
OB: I migrated to the Netherlands with a valid visa. I moved there to provide eyewitness evidence about what is happening in the concentration camps in XinJiang.
LI: How many Uyghur people are in concentration camps in XiaJiang?
OB: It’s always hard to tell, of course. However, while I was in the camp in 2017, my best estimate is that more than a million Uyghurs were in the camps.
Omar’s is a cautionary tale about brutality inflicted by our largest trading partner. He endured trauma and unspeakable pain that no-one should be required to bear.
However, I prefer to see Omar through the lens of unfaltering courage, resilience and the strength to survive. There’s a bravery in telling his painful story again and again on a global stage, a story shared by millions of Uyghurs and other minority groups who are still in the XinJiang camps.
Today, he is bringing his testimony before international human rights bodies.
What can everyday Australians do to help the Uyghur people?
This year the United States used it’s Magnitsky legislation to ban the import of certain Xinjiang products, including cotton, over concerns about forced-labor in the XinJiang region.
Australia has similar Magnitsky legislation but has not used it to sanction companies exploiting Uyghur slave-labour.
Whilst we at Liberty Itch wholeheartedly support free-trade and are against wholesale nationwide sanctions, products manufactured with slave-labour is anathema to free-trade principles and cannot be supported.
While you wait for your Commonwealth Government to take a stand on this, you can take action as an individual and purchase alternatives to brands made with Uyghur slave-labour.
Small acts of defiance in support of human rights go a long way.
Set aside Mr. Adams’ incorrect claim that Sir Donald Bradman deemed Nelson Mandela unworthy. The opposite is true. They were fond of each other. Mandela regarded Bradman as a hero for his 1972 decision to withdraw Australia from playing South Africa. Bradman sent gifts to Mandela. They corresponded.
Instead, after Kamahl’s post regarding his positive first-hand experience of Sir Donald, focus on Mr. Adams’ incendiary reply.
Here’s my question for you, dear reader:
POLL
Was Phillip Adams’ “Honorary White” comment to Kamahl racist?
Yes
100%
No
0%
13 VOTES · POLL CLOSED
If you voted ‘yes’, this raises the issue of whether we as a society should be funding such racism. ABC, and therefore Mr. Adams’ salary, is funded by your taxes, after all.
So, here’s a second question:
POLL
Is it ‘systemic’ or ‘institutional’ racism for ABC to continue to employ Mr. Adams?
Yes
100%
No
0%
11 VOTES · POLL CLOSED
If you answered ‘yes’ here and you call yourself a ‘liberal’, a ‘classical liberal’ or a ‘libertarian’, write to the ABC’s Managing Director and your local MP now. Call for Mr. Adams’ termination.
There is no place for institutional racism in Australia.
In a quiet moment today or even right now if that’s possible, read the lyrics below whilst watching this clip … and tell me this doesn’t make you more determined politically.
“We’re not gonna sit in silence, We’re not gonna live with fear” could well apply to the last two and a half years. So, are you going to “Make a noise and make it clear”?
We have the chance to turn the pages over We can write what we want to write We gotta make ends meet, before we get much older We’re all someone’s daughter We’re all someone’s son How long can we look at each other Down the barrel of a gun?
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
This time, we know we all can stand together With the power to be powerful Believing we can make it better Ooh, we’re all someone’s daughter We’re all someone’s son How long can we look at each other Down the barrel of a gun?
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
Ooh, we’re all someone’s daughter We’re all someone’s son How long can we look at each other Down the barrel of a gun?
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make the noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
