Policy Spotlight

Home Policy Spotlight

Cut Taxes To 20%

It goes without saying that rules and sanctions should be clearly specified in advance so people know how they are supposed to behave and what will happen to them if they don’t.  Also, importantly, rules must apply equally to everybody.

But the rules governing tax liabilities have become so tangled and complex that nobody can be sure any longer what they are or how they will apply in any given case. And behind the vast volume of laws – the actual legislation – looms an equally massive array of ATO public determinations, public rulings, bulletins, interpretative decisions, policy papers, circulars, administrative guidelines and practice statements. Some of these are supposed to be binding on ATO officers, and in general ATO staff rely on them rather than on the legislation. In practice that gives them something close to the force of law.

But the ATO no longer simply implements a known set of rules; it develops and amends the rules case by case. In effect, the ATO makes its own rules. As a consequence, we have tax laws which have lost their intelligibility, certainty and predictability. It is not real law as we’ve come to understand that term.

The resulting attitude of many taxpayers is to treat the law and the courts as irrelevant. “Forget legal advice, just give me an ATO ruling that will protect me from penalties or prosecution,” they say. Many taxpayers, of course, just surrender and pay up.

Systems which are complex in their application, debilitating in the sense that the more you earn the less of each dollar you keep, and unfair and unreasonable in the sense that people feel penalized for working, are destined to fail in the long term.

Take Australia’s cash economy, estimated at 15 percent of GDP, one of the largest in the developed world. An underground economy of that magnitude requires the involvement not only of a lot of businesses, but also of millions of consumers. As we know, laws only work when people believe in them; clearly a lot of Australians have no respect for our tax laws.

Despite what many advocating increases in tax would have us believe, the total tax take in Australia is quite high. Some say that compared with other developed economies, Australia is a ‘low tax’ country, and that workers and companies could comfortably pay more. This is ridiculous. When it comes to taxing incomes, Australia is right up there with the Europeans and way ahead of most of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region.

High tax rates undermine enterprise and destroy the will to work.

You don’t have to be a Laffer Curve true believer to accept that behavioural response is a reality. When you add to this the corrosive effect on the moral relationship between the state and its citizens, the case for fundamental tax reform becomes even more compelling.

There comes a point when the prospect of giving up half or more of any additional earnings leads people to decide that it is simply not worth it.

Taxation then starts to produce gross inefficiencies as people stop working as much or as hard as they used to, and governments find their taxes are not producing the revenue they expected. Politicians and bureaucrats who lack real world experience and an understanding of how an economy and markets work are drawn into a vicious spiral, jacking up tax rates to try to compensate for the falling revenues that their high tax demands have created.

Similarly, many on welfare reject opportunities to work because of the punitive effect that small earnings and high tax rates have on the security of their benefits and the value of extra work.

And people on very low incomes fare worst of all, for as they increase their earnings, higher rates of income tax combine with the loss of means-tested benefits deprive them of up to 80 cents of every extra dollar they earn.

If we are to extricate ourselves from this dysfunctional system, the goodwill of the public needs to be restored by getting tax levels back to something which most people would see as reasonable. To achieve this, we need to remove one of the most significant tax avoidance avenues and align personal tax rates with company tax rates.

There is certainly a pressing need to reduce the current company tax rate (25% for companies with turnover below $50m, 30% above that). I accept it can’t be done overnight, but the Government would do well to start cutting the rate by one percentage point in this Budget, and then announce its intention to make a similar reduction every year while in office. That would hold out the prospect of a 20 per cent company tax rate and, if it is really serious about an internationally competitive tax system, a 20% personal tax rate.

Nobody enjoys paying taxes but in the 1950s and 1960s, relatively low taxation and a comparatively simple set of tax rules meant that most people paid what was due without too much complaint. Today, however, the Government and the ATO find themselves locked into a destructive relationship of repression and resistance with ordinary taxpayers. Where people can avoid tax by exploiting loopholes, they will do so; where they can’t eg PAYG taxpayers, they become resentful at the unfairness of it all.

Melbourne Man Charged With Foreign Interference Offence

The phrase ‘foreign interference‘ often brings to mind the covert meddling into Australian affairs by the Chinese and Russian governments, both the foes of democracy. 

It’s fascinating to observe Australian politicians and the public’s attitude towards Russia and China. We are quick to reprimand Russia for its involvement in the Ukrainian conflict, yet our knees wobble when it comes to criticizing the Chinese Communist Party’s mass killing. And the wincing first-hand accounts of Uyghur concentration camp torture is altogether unsettling.  

The human rights abuses continue even now on an industrial scale.

Chinese money is powerful. I hear you. What about human rights? Aren’t they important too?

Liberty Itch has now revealed a pattern of influence-peddling and unrestrained foreign interference by the Chinese Communist Party across Australia, from a violent CCP sycophant assaulting a pro-democracy former legislator in Sydney, to Labor and Coalition politicians sidling-up to Chinese Communist influence in an obsequious display in WA Liberal Leader scurries out the back exit.

Now, the spotlight is on Melbourne and a pivotal foreign interference test case.

Di Sanh “Sunny” Duong, a leader of the Chinese community, is the first individual charged under Australia’s foreign interference laws.

Former Liberal Minister Alan Tudge together with Mr Duong.

The prosecution and the Australian Federal Police claim that Mr. Duong, aged 67, contributed $37,000 in 2020 for the Royal Melbourne Hospital in an attempt to secure influence with former federal minister, Alan Tudge, which might later be used in support of Chinese interests.

Mr. Duong has, on record, written to a politician in the Liberal Party in the past and suggested that Australia should support China’s expansionist Belt and Road Initiative, a project that was subsequently terminated by the Federal Government in 2020 due to national security concerns.

Sarah Kendall, a legal researcher of foreign interference legislation at the University of Queensland, commented that this case illustrates the breadth of the laws. She pointed out how an activity which may seem harmless could be regarded as a criminal offence if the authorities can prove that the conduct had the intent of preparing for foreign interference.

The law is unusual for a liberal democracy in that it requires from the prosecution only that a defendant intends to use current influence in the future for the purposes of foreign interference.

This is a balancing act for a classical liberal.

Liberals want to protect our hard-won freedoms and an expansionary foreign power like the Chinese regime is a threat to those freedoms especially when operating inside Australia. On the other hand, liberals believe in individual freedom of movement, habeas corpus and the rule of law.

Mr. Duong was charged in November 2020 by the Australian Federal Police. He pleaded not guilty in 2022. He denied engagement in any foreign interference activity, despite that he was a leader of Chinese community associations overseen by the CCP’s United Front Work Department, about which Political Itch has written in China’s Covert Australian Ops.

Magistrate Susan Wakeling determined that there was enough evidence to proceed to trial.

This is the first time a citizen has been charged with facilitating an act of foreign interference, an offence that carries a maximum 10 year imprisonment.

Whatever the result, it will be a critical precedent.

Whether there is a conviction or not, Mr. Duong’s case will be just the first of many. Similar acts of foreign interference have happened and are still happening every day in each Australian state.

How effective are we in defending our democracy? Political Itch will be there when the judgment is handed-down.

Watch this space.

No Books, No Wisdom, No Future

0

The ancient story is told of Tarquinius, the last of the seven legendary Kings of Rome.

When the pagan goddess Sibyl offered to sell Tarquinius the nine books containing all the world’s wisdom for a high price, Tarquinius refused.

Sibyl then promptly burnt three of the books in front of Tarquinius and offered to sell the remaining six books for the same price.

Refusing to bow to Sibyl’s demands, Tarquinius again said ‘no’, so Sibyl promptly burnt another three of the books.

Rather than be left with no wisdom to guide him, Tarquinius relented and paid the full price for the remaining three books.

As we know, there are those who continually reject what is on offer and end up with nothing, like the Palestinians.

Public policy is becoming like a gym barbell with weights on each end

There’s an old business principle that says you can’t grow a business out of trouble. I know, I’ve tried it, it doesn’t work. If a business is in trouble, you have to shrink to viability and re-grow. You salvage what you can and build from there. But you do need something to work with. No books, no wisdom, no future.

UK writer Hugh Rifkind once referred to politics as the only kind of fame which, once it’s over, is a relief. It’s the only form of fame that isn’t accompanied by adulation.

For many in professions other than politics, when their brilliant career is over and being constantly told how awesome they are is no more, it is hard to adjust. Suicide rates can be high.

However, if you’re told every day you are rubbish, a moron and a back-stabbing, self-enriching, egotistical fraud, then the eventual silence comes as a blessed relief. Suicide rates in politics are much lower than in other fame professions.

As the English poet WB Yeats wrote:

“Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold …
… anarchy is loosed upon the world …
… and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.” 

In the hundred years since Yeats wrote those words, little has changed.

Written just after the end of the First World War during the tumultuous Russian Revolution, Yeats’ poem has been referenced in books, films, and world events from the apartheid struggle in South Africa to the Iraq war to the mass shooting in Texas.

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”.

If that line doesn’t sum up what’s wrong with the world at the moment, I don’t know what does.

The world is polarising like never before. It was once the case that each side would acknowledge that the other side wanted the same outcome, it was only the means of getting there that was debatable.

A good example of this was an initiative called ‘Common Ground’, a housing-the-homeless program.

I was invited to the 2006 Adelaide launch of Common Ground which was initiated by then ‘Thinker in Residence’ Rosanne Haggerty and chaired by Social Inclusion Board Member Monsignor David Cappo.

There’s an old business principle that says you can’t grow a business out of trouble

I argued that the solution to the emerging housing crisis – it is a lot worse now than it was then – was releasing more cheap land on the urban fringe and building low-cost, low-density housing. Yes, there were some downsides – public transport infrastructure etc, but at least it’s a start. Low-income people – even those on unemployment benefits – would be able to own their own homes and thus meet Common Ground’s central aim – ‘housing first’.

Others at the meeting said that government-sponsored, higher density social housing in and near the CBD was the solution.

They didn’t take up my suggestion, but no-one doubted the others’ motives. I didn’t question their genuine attempts to solve the problem and they didn’t question mine. 

Today, however, if you disagree with the other side’s solution, it means you either don’t care about the problem, or worse, you are complicit. You are part of the problem.

The centre is disappearing. Public policy is becoming like a gym barbell with weights on each end and a long bar between them.

There’s an old Yiddish proverb, “If God lived on earth, we would break his windows”. 

It means people would be offended by their Creator’s presence among them. His actual presence would not, as you might imagine, cause them to repent and obey. Human beings might be capable of great charity, but they’re also capable of great malevolence.

There’s another saying, “Where’s there’s light, there’s bugs”.

It seems you can’t have one without the other.

INTERVIEW: Former Chinese Diplomat Embraces Liberty

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

Let The People Set The Limits

Speeding fines are a significant source of revenue for state governments. In 2017, they amounted to more than $1.1 billion Australia wide and are probably higher now.

Speed cameras are a major contributor, particularly the mobile ones. In NSW, between July 2019 and February 2020, less than 18,900 fines worth $3.9 million were issued as a result of mobile speed cameras. Between July 2020 and February 2021, they were nearly 4.5 times that amount. Speeding ticket revenue for offences less than 10km/h over the limit increased from $2.3 million in 2019-2020 to $23.3 million in 2020-2021, coinciding with the government’s decision to remove speed camera warning signs.

This camera took $3 million from Queensland taxpayers on first deployment

Whereas speed limits were once advisory, with drivers expected to drive to the conditions, they now have the status of one of the ten commandments, with fines the price for sinning.

We are repeatedly told by ignorant police and bimbo journalists that road accidents are invariably due to excess speed. There are gory advertisements warning of lifelong injuries, with enforcement via fixed and hidden cameras, double demerits, average speed cameras, aerial monitoring, and highway patrols.

The underlying assumption never varies – below the speed limit is safe, above the limit is not.

Although the degree of correlation is disputed, there is a link between speed and the risk of accidents and injuries. Most people, libertarians included, accept that the roads are shared, and that individual freedom does not extend to harming others. The question is whether that means obeying speed limits.

The public does not necessarily think so. In the absence of visible enforcement or perceived hazards, voluntary compliance with speed limits is low. A 2009 survey found less than 20% of drivers claim to always drive at or under the speed limit. In NSW, of the 1.3 million speeding fines issued by cameras in 2021, 76 per cent were for exceeding the limit by under 10km/h. Outside narrow suburban streets, modestly exceeding the speed limit is rarely seen as a problem.  

Australia has a National Road Safety Strategy, intended to provide a framework for prioritising the road safety activities of federal, state, territory and local governments. It is written by a small group of bureaucrats from each jurisdiction. Relevant ministers sign off on it but have minimal personal input.

For decades, the strategy has had a strong emphasis on speed accompanied by a coercive approach to enforcement. The 2010-2021 strategy, for example, argued for lower speed limits, increased penalties and enforcement that included in-car speed monitoring.

That changed somewhat in the 2021-2030 version. Although it has an objective of zero road deaths by 2050, there is less worshipping at the altar of speed limits. It also concedes that its past objectives have not been achieved. I suspect one of the key bureaucrats has retired.

If the aim is zero road deaths, and speed is the main causation, the obvious solution is to adopt very low speed limits. The problem is, that would be unacceptable to the community. There is an implicit assumption in current speed limits that a certain level of deaths and serious injuries is the price paid for convenient travel. The vision of zero road deaths is not only unobtainable, but irrational.

That raises an interesting question.

When the law says one thing and most people have a different view, which should prevail? And perhaps more to the point, should we have speed limits and,
if yes, who should set them?

Speed limits are currently set by anonymous, unaccountable bureaucrats. Perhaps the most powerful people in Australia, they have substantial influence over how many people should die on our roads. Governments and ministers come and go, but they and their speed limits are always there.

This is massive bureaucratic overreach. It is the public, not bureaucrats, who should 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. Briefly, it involves the temporary removal of speed limits while speeds are monitored. At the conclusion of the period a limit is reimposed at or slightly above the speed at which 85 per cent of drivers travel.

The method is based on the assumption that the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, do not want to crash, and wish to reach their destination in the shortest possible time.

Evidence shows that those who drive above or substantially below speed limits based on the 85th percentile are far more likely to cause accidents. Enforcement directed at those drivers has a positive impact on road safety and enjoys a high level of driver support.

If the public was to become concerned about any increase in road deaths or injuries, this can be expressed through periodic retesting of the 85th percentile.

If the government serves the people rather than vice versa, speed limits should have the approval of most drivers. And instead of being treated like sinful children and a source of revenue, motorists ought to decide what the limits are.

Australia No Longer Has Informed Consent For Medical Procedures

As the Publisher of Liberty Itch, I receive six industry briefings, exposes or whistleblower tips weekly. Some are anonymous, others with a name.

Most don’t advance the debate on public issues.

Recently though, I spoke with a doctor, frustrated at the way government has ruined a once proud and independent profession.

His firm conclusion: informed consent, the underlying component for any doctor-patient relationship, is no longer possible in Australia.

He has been practicing medicine in Australia for 15 years, so his career is well-advanced. He presents as a professional who loves his job, with all the challenges and rewards it brings. 

Until the governments around Australia coordinated on Covid-19, he said he never cared much for politics. It wasn’t part of his life. But witnessing politicians trample over human rights, intrude and violate the sacred relationship between doctor and patient, was enough to activate him.

He’s not in the mood for forgiving the perpetrators.

Australians were openly bullied into taking vaccines on the coercive promise –that once inviolate freedoms would be restored.

When a patient presents with any health problem or condition, a doctor must convey all of the available relevant information to the patient in order to gain his or her voluntary consent for any medical procedure. When a government hides or lies, and a patient is coerced into a procedure, informed consent is dead!

Relevant information regarding a vaccination might include the side effects, relevant and absolute risk of prevention, trial information, and any other safety data. Yet the Australian Government signed secret contracts with pharmaceutical companies to supply novel medications for a new virus without disclosing any of this. 

The British Medical Association’s BMJ has written that Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration is dependent on funding by pharmaceutical companies at a worrying 96%, the highest among peer international organisations. This leads to obvious questions about independence and whether there are conflicts of interest. 
In July 2023 the TGA stated: “As reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination are very stable, we will not include this section in future COVID-19 vaccine safety reports”.

Yet as our doctor-friend pointed out to me, “The rates were in fact stable, at the highest levels recorded in history. What are they now? We don’t know, because the TGA won’t give us this information.”

Australians were openly bullied into taking vaccines on the coercive promise –that once inviolate freedoms would be restored.  Vaccine mandates were slapped on a trusting populace on the basis of the greater good – of protecting others. Even now there are many places where these mandates remain despite overwhelming evidence that vaccination against Covid-19 does not prevent either infection or transmission of the disease. And despite numerous reports of adverse side effects, still no reliable data is provided. 

Australian Government signed secret contracts with pharmaceutical companies to supply novel medications for a new virus without disclosing any of this.

I listened to this doctor’s contempt for authorities as he described himself watching the CDC change its definition of the words ‘vaccine’ and ‘vaccination’ in real time to accommodate the shortfalls of the available Covid vaccines. 

One could perfectly understand his visceral reaction to the deplatforming of professionally-acclaimed, peer-reviewed medical experts simply because they shared research data that did not fit the narrative of ‘safe and effective’.

But then witness Dr Jeanette Young, the Queensland Chief Health Officer at the time, who cautioned against one vaccine whilst promoting another while, as the Courier Mail reported, her husband, Professor Graeme Nimmo, was financially incentivised by Pfizer. 

Dr Jeannette Young

Dr Young should have been punished for failing to declare a major conflict of interest, but instead was promoted to Governor of Queensland, a handsome reward from her friend Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has now resigned without facing the consequences of her own Covid-19 decisions.  

“So what happens if your doctor wants to caution you about any of this information?”, I naively asked our whistleblower doctor.

The sobering answer should send chills down the spine of all Australians.

“They will likely be suspended. The governing body of Australian doctors, AHPRA, has done just that that to several who were brave enough to speak out. As a registered doctor with AHPRA, I am not allowed to publicly state my opinions on health policy (including on social media), as it may undermine the confidence in those in political positions making up the rules. Any Australian doctor who denies this statement does not fully understand their conditions of registration with AHPRA.”

To protect his livelihood and family, he only talks to me.

The greatest discoveries in medicine and science have come from testing a hypothesis that contradicts traditional schools of thought. When the health system is hijacked by conflicted bureaucrats, problems inevitably arise. The past few years have left our doctor with an absolute disgust for our Chief Health Officers and Health Ministers, and for the first time a sense of embarrassment at what should be an honourable profession without government interference. 

Most disconcertingly of all, he feels most concern for patients who are now subject to near-complete control by the collectivist bureaucrats and their centralised treatment plans for diseases which are yet to come.

China’s Covert Australian Ops

The Chinese Communist Party’s public diplomacy programs in Australia look innocent enough.

From the delightful Wang Wang and Funi Event at the Adelaide Zoo, to the partially CCP-subsidised OzAsia Festival, from the more recent Chinese Music Performance at the Adelaide Town Hall to the ‘Chinese Singing Competition’ held at a South Australian university campus. Chinese culture is on display.

This is Adelaide alone. Such activities are rolled-out across the country and world.

These are simply ‘Chinese culture’, correct? These public diplomacy projects participated in by Chinese Government officials are permissible in a democracy such as ours, right?

Well, yes. But to a point.

It’s understandable for a foreign government to attempt to build relationships with individuals in other countries in order to cultivate a good reputation and win international backing for its ambitions.

However, multiple red lights flash when a foreign government is authoritarian, interferes with the domestic political discourse of a host country, and runs coordinated, covert operations for propagandist purposes.

The alarm bells ring.

This is especially true if the foreign government is currently engaging in aggressive expansionism, has a ‘Wolf Warrior diplomacy’ and has a notoriously shocking track-record when it comes to human rights.

Liberty Itch is gathering evidence of questionable tactics currently being used by Beijing in Australia to manipulate our political system and institutions in various sectors. Once our research is complete, we’ll share it with subscribers.

What Liberty Itch can say for certain is that much of this manipulation is managed and coordinated by an organisation called the United Front Work Department, a political body that aims to work on individuals and groups overseas to advance the CCP’s interests.

Again, instances will be revealed in future exposés on Liberty Itch. For now, we reveal themes and tactics which have emerged in their modus operandi.

In Australia, they are:

  1. Providing financial incentives to lure Australian politicians into backing their views;
  2. Appointing former politicians to well-paid consulting roles;
  3. Lavishing funds on Australian university institutes that show unwavering support for the CCP’s policies;
  4. Enticing Australian citizens and business owners with, first, useful connections and, subsequently, financial benefits;
  5. Drawing-in influential people from Chinese diaspora groups to assist with local infiltration;
  6. Targeting promising, younger Australian politicians whom they regard as having longer-term potential to ascend the heights of Australian political and corporate life over time;
  7. Sending CCP-endorsed candidates to run for local councils and state parliaments;
  8. Interfering in Australian elections by coordinating Chinese-owned Australian property investment companies and Chinese students to engage in ballot-harvesting;
  9. Disseminating propagandist communication with the implicit threat they can muster Chinese-Australian voters to punish incumbent politicians electorally if they don’t publicly support CCP policies;
  10. Infiltrating local Chinese community organisations or, where not possible, launching new competing groups, thereby giving the illusion of Chinese-Australian community backing; and
  11. Intimidating Australians and their elected officials for expressing negative views on China.

Next time you attend a local Chinese community event or cultural performance (with the exception of the worthy Shen Yun), be sure to be observant, particularly if representatives from the Chinese Government are present. Your interactions, acquaintances, and relationships at the event will be studied. The United Front Work Department is interested in knowing who is connected to whom in the local community and work on relationships that can be developed and leveraged to advance the CCP infiltration agenda.

For more on how the CCP ‘study’ their own citizens, read Man Who Chanted “CCP, Step Down”, Arrested and Disappeared!

To discover how the CCP applies pressure on Hongkonger freedom-fighters living in Australia, go to the interview Life as a Political Asylum Seeker in Australia.

Resisting centralist power – Part 3

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.

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

Whose Ethics make it Ethical

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. 

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

An Open Letter To Mr. Alexander Downer

This open letter assumes the reader has also read the Australian Financial Review column by Alexander Downer dated 4 Dec 2022 found here . Start there and follow with this Open Letter.


27 January 2023

Dear Mr. Downer,

I read your Australian Financial Review column dated 4 December 2022 with great interest.

As a former State and Federal Executive member of the Liberal Party, as a former Young Liberal of the Year and participant in 72 pre-selections, I agree with much of what you wrote.

The fact that the Liberal Party has lost its philosophical mooring and is now drifting wherever the political currents take it was the very reason I left and joined the Liberal Democrats in South Australia.

They stand for fiscal restraint, individual freedom, rule of law, freedom of speech, entrepreneurialism, freedom of worship, free trade, equality before the law, innovation and science, the very things the Liberal Party have abandoned and seem unable to clearly articulate.

As an example of just how unable even Liberal Party senators have become to hold true and firm to these beliefs, see here Senator Andrew Bragg from NSW on ABC’s Q&A:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/q0g_GGq5cc4?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

It’s not only the Liberal Democrats who provide fresh competition. There are good people in other parties who share these values but do not see the Liberal Party as their natural home any longer.

Nowhere was the Liberal Party’s drift more evident than during covid overreach. And it’s with that in mind that I turn to your column.

You wrote, “In South Australia, the public was on the whole supportive of the state government’s termination of traditional civil liberties.”

As you know, public opinion can be manufactured. When you say leadership was required rather than managerialism, nowhere was that needed more than during covid.

You wrote further, “The values of selfless individualism and individual freedom and responsibility are timeless. The Liberal Party shouldn’t allow them to be cast as anachronistic.”

You can see my emphasis in both these quotes.

I’d therefore like to ask you a simple question in an effort to reconcile those two quotes from your column:

Do you agree it was a mistake for the recent SA Liberal Government to have terminated traditional civil liberties at the expense of our timeless value of individual freedom?

This open letter is published on Liberty Itch, which boasts current and past MPs as well as current party leaders and activists as subscribers.

I and my readers await your reply.

Yours respectfully,

Kenelm Tonkin
Editor
Liberty Itch

Popular Posts

My Favorites

Phillip Adams Must Go

0
I believe people should be allowed to say what they want. Free speech is a human right. Should you have to pay for it, though? Take yesterday’s...

The Everyday Libertarian