Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Random

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight

    China’s Dystopia II: The Digital Panopticon

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    2

    During my recent one-month stay in China’s bustling metropolises, the omnipresence of technology, particularly WeChat (a “Super App” Elon Musk wants X to be for the West), was starkly evident. QR codes adorned nearly every surface, from restaurant menus to market stalls, making WeChat an indispensable part of daily life. The ‘everything app’ seamlessly integrates functions akin to WhatsApp, Facebook, eBay, Uber and many others into one platform. 

    The convenience it offers is undeniable: messaging, social networking, making payments, ordering food and hailing rides are all accomplished with a few taps on a smartphone. However, beneath this veneer of ultra-convenience lies a more ominous reality.

    The Illusion of Convenience Over Privacy

    In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, a superficially perfect society masks deep underlying issues. This theme resonates profoundly with my experience in China. On the surface, life is streamlined and digitised. In cities like Shanghai, cash is almost obsolete (I used no cash at all for the one-month trip), and every need or whim is catered to with astonishing efficiency, with technology not just an enabler but a dominant force shaping society. Yet, this convenience comes at a steep cost – privacy is virtually non-existent.

     The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens.

    Surveillance: Beyond the Physical Realm

    The extensive surveillance network I described in “China’s Dystopia I: Security to Slavery” is not limited to physical spaces. Every transaction, interaction or movement facilitated by WeChat and other digital platforms is tracked, recorded, and scrutinised whenever the government deems necessary. The app, while a marvel of modern technology, doubles as a tool for surveillance, with the Chinese government having unfettered access to the data collected.

    Digital Dystopia: A Double-Edged Sword

    This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience. On the other, it represents a dystopian reality where personal details, preferences, and even thoughts are no longer private. Every digital footprint is monitored, contributing to a profile that the government can access and analyse at will. The notion of ”Big Brother” in George Orwell’s “1984” finds a parallel here, though it is perhaps more aptly described by Huxley’s vision where citizens are placated with pleasures and conveniences, unaware of or indifferent to the loss of their freedoms.

    The Perils of a Cashless Society and Social Credit

    The move towards a cashless society in China brings its own set of risks. The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens. Coupled with the social credit system, this creates a scenario where individuals can be rewarded or punished not just for their actions, but also for their associations.

    This system has become a tool for cracking down on dissent. Individuals or groups who interact with or support entities disfavoured by the government can find themselves facing financial restrictions or worse. Being locked out of WeChat, for example, effectively prevents participation in daily life. 

    This level of control over personal and financial interactions adds another layer to the surveillance state, where not just actions, but also associations, are monitored and controlled.

    This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience.

    Rethinking Freedom in a Digitally Connected World

    As we progress further into the digital era, the Chinese model serves as a crucial case study for the rest of the world. It poses a fundamental question: what is the true cost of convenience? In a society where every digital interaction is monitored, can freedom truly exist? The allure of a frictionless, digital life is powerful, but it should not blind us to the importance of safeguarding our privacy and freedom.

    Join Mailing List

    As Australia observes the unfolding digital dystopia in China, it becomes imperative to reflect upon our own relationship with technology and surveillance. While enjoying a more open and democratic society, Australia is not immune to the risks posed by the unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies. The use of such technologies for contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic signalled clear privacy erosion and government overreach. 

    As Australia strides forward in its technological journey, it must tread cautiously to avoid the pitfalls seen in China. As Huxley’s “Brave New World” warns, a society enamoured with comfort and entertainment may be blind to the erosion of its essential liberties. The challenge for us is to ensure that technological advancements serve humanity, not government.

    5 Policy Responses To The Covid-19 Vaccination Disaster

    By
    Caroline White
    -
    1

    Recently I attended the Australian Medical Professional Society’s Curing the Corruption of Medicine event in Melbourne. The keynote speaker was British cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra.  

    Double vaccinated with Pfizer, Dr Malhotra initially supported the vaccine rollout and encouraged the vulnerable to take the injection on national TV in January of 2021.  

    His stance soon changed when, amongst other concerning research and reports, his father, also double vaccinated, died suddenly of a heart attack. With a strong understanding of his medical history and current health condition, Dr Malhotra couldn’t comprehend how his father’s coronary arteries were shown in the autopsy to have narrowed so quickly. 

    After some of the world’s top scientists published an independent reanalysis of the original Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data, which found that patients are more likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccine including hospitalisation, disability or a life changing event than what they are to be hospitalised from Covid, he now believes ”these (mRNA) vaccinations should never have been approved for use in a single human”, and is calling for their suspension. 

    Governments across Australia have spent hundreds of millions of dollars frightening the pants off our population, promoting and enforcing Covid 19 vaccinations with no end in sight. Despite AstraZeneca having been quietly pulled from the shelves earlier this year and ATAGI no longer recommending Covid 19 vaccines for healthy under 65-year-olds, the government is still relentlessly promoting vaccination to young, fit, healthy adults. There are taxpayer funded, daily reminders to get your jab on TV commercials, Youtube ads, and road signs on main arterials – nearly two and a half years on.

    There is just no reprieve from the Covid mania.

    Covid 19 mandates ravaged the foundations of the medical industry. I had a local GP tell me they were making a mockery of his profession. Informed consent ceased to exist with a paternalistic approach as patients were coerced into a medical procedure without being informed of potential risks or able to make a decision based on their individual circumstances. Bodily autonomy and medical privacy were disregarded and doctors who dared to raise concerns were threatened with deregistration.

    Robust discussion was censored as the government intruded into the doctor patient relationship. We were even denied basic health benefits such as vitamin D due to government restrictions that had us locked in our houses for 23 hours a day. Any ounce of trust I had left for Big Pharma and the government has been completely eroded as a consequence. 

    During Dr Malholtra’s nearly one-and-a-half-hour-long talk, he outlined policy making as a main factor in improving the current state of play. You know we have a serious problem when even the wokest journalist from The Age (who felt virtuous getting his 5th booster) is questioning why government policy sees Covid 19 vaccines given away to young people at the expense of the taxpayer. 

    The idea of the government staying out of people’s medical decisions is rooted in the concept of individual liberty. Here are my policy ideas for reform –  

    Whistle blower protection for the healthcare industry. Doctors should be able to speak up without fear of losing their job. 

    Stop Covid 19 vaccine and mRNA manufacturing subsidies. All over the world highly vaccinated countries are recording uncommonly high excess deaths. Dr Malhotra is of the opinion, and the data suggests, that Covid 19 vaccines have a role to play. Pending further investigation, the mRNA vaccines should be suspended. The government should also stop subsidising mRNA manufacturing. 

    Ban taxpayer funded spend on advertising pharmaceutical products. If Big Pharma wants to make a profit by selling products that are not properly tested, surely they can afford to pay for their own promotions. 

    Remove remaining mandates & get our unvaccinated workers back in the work force immediately. With the current staff shortages, particularly in healthcare, it’s unconscionable that unvaccinated workers, police officers and firefighters are unable to work, with compliance still taking precedence over the safety of our community. 

    Big Pharma companies fund compensation schemes, not the Australian taxpayer. It’s absolutely ludicrous that Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for damage and deaths caused by pharmaceutical companies. 

    Resisting centralist power – Part 3

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

    Benefits of Federalism

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

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

    Economic Benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    10 Funky Ideas To Move the Overton Window

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    It feels like we liberals are always on the back-foot.

    Here’s just a sample of what we face:

    Liberty Itch is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

    • 45% of GDP being government expenditure. Is 51% socialism?
    • Voice To Parliament. How will a parliamentary ethno-chamber build cohesion?
    • Payroll taxes. Who thought a tax on jobs was a good idea?
    • Indigenous Treaty. Aren’t treaties between countries?
    • Elimination of cash. Now every bank statement is a government audit-trail.
    • Republic. Who votes Marcia Langton for Elder General?
    • Director ID. As if an ABN, ACN, TFN, ASIC Register of Directors weren’t enough!
    • National Curriculum. When did it become appropriate to have 14 year old boys lectured by sexologists?

    I could go on and on.

    You and I are always RESPONDING to nonsense.

    It’s about time we got on the front-foot and wedged the foes of freedom.

    Here are some ideas:

    1. REPEAL-TO-PROPOSE
      Slowly reduce the legislative footprint. If an MP wants to propose legislation, he must first successfully repeal two statutes. Force the parties to negotiate on what can be rescinded. If both sides can’t agree what’s ripe for repeal, it gridlocks parliament. No new legislation. Perfect!
    2. CORPORATE TAX DISCOUNT
      Incentivise business to focus on what’s important and remove the shareholder activists. 5% corporate tax discount for any listed Australian company which eliminates reporting extraneous to shareholder value. Reporting on ESG, diversity and inclusion, affirmative action, environmental concerns disqualifies a company for the discount.
    3. PUBLIC SERVICE BOND
      Make it slightly harder to recruit public servants to cause the size of government to shrink. All applicants for departmental public service jobs (not operational agencies) shall pay a bond on accepting a role. The security deposit will be set at a % of the salary being offered sufficient to decrease applications overall by 10%. Make the bond scale according to the salary. Bond returned on resignation. Bond forfeited if terminated, if they run as a candidate for parliament or if they stay in the public service longer than 3 years.
    4. GOVERNMENT-TO-ENTERPRISE INCENTIVEMake it attractive for public servants to leave the public pursue and start a business. Any public servant who resigns and launches a small business employing at least 5 staff and that business is unrelated to their public service job, the individual will gain a 50% discount on his PAYG Withholding Tax for 2 years from commencement.
    5. SUPERANNUATIONReverse financial services domination and return more control to individuals. Superannuation can be accessed for buying a property to occupy, formal educational and vocational qualifications, the superannuant’s healthcare and for launching a business with at least 5 staff. Self-managed superannuation fund compliance requirements to be simplified.
    6. LAISSEZ FAIRE CITY-STATESet-aside Australian desert land the size of a city like Hong-Kong or Singapore. Create it as a Special Local Government Area. Draft and pass a constitution which includes:
      • a bill of rights
      • democratic franchise
        • Australian citizens
        • Who’ve been continuously resident for 3 years
        • Who’ve paid their 5% tax for those 3 years
        • 3 years reduced to 1 year if they employ 5 or more people in the SLGA
      • within Australia, free movement in and out of the SLGA
      • a democratic parliament
        • One MP per 10,000 residents. If there are only 10,000 residents, there’s only one MP. If 1 million residents, 100 MPs
      • no constitutional amendments allowed until 21 MPs reached, thereafter 90% majority required
      • majority form government
      • personal income tax enshrined at 5%, no deductions or offsets
      • domiciled company tax rate of 5%
      • capital gains tax set at 5%
      • gst set at 5%
      • no other taxes or government levies. Government agency fees for services not permitted or other revenue raising methods
      • government must report how much personal income tax, company tax, CGT and GST they collected in the previous year (Total Taxes Collected)
      • the government must not spend more than Total Taxes Collected, or they are dissolved by a Constitutional Court. So government can only ever be tiny part of the economy
      • SLGA has a sunset clause of 99 years
      Then, announce to the world that the SLGA is open for business on this basis.
    7. CLOSE FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA
      Liberalise the labor markets. Yes I know. Shades of WorkChoices.
    8. INCENTIVISE MIGRATION FROM NDIS
      This is far too big. Encourage people off it.
    9. REDUCE NON-PRODUCTIVE UNIVERSITY FUNDING
      Universities may be free to offer course material on critical race theory, gender studies, colonial oppression studies, sexual studies and the like. However, these subjects shall be regarded as counter-productive to helping students make their way in the world and will result in reduced funding for the university.
    10. QUALIFIED TAX FREE THRESHOLD INCREASE
      Increase the tax free threshold from $18,200 to $36,200 for married couples with 4 or more children.

    What ideas do you have to push the Overton Window in our favour?

    Leave them in the comment below.

    Decommissioning Solar & Wind Projects: A Costly Endeavour

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    2

    Over the last decade, decommissioning and waste management of solar and wind energy projects has grown into a thriving industry. In the decades to come, with the continued deployment of projects all over the world, it will massively expand.

    Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes. Decommissioning large plants can run up costs of millions, or even billions.

    Solar

    As solar capacity expands, demand for decommissioning services will increase. International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that global solar project waste will reach 212 million tonnes a year by 2050. 

    Despite photovoltaic projects supposedly lasting 20 years, owners often decommission early. Reasons include broken panels, manufacturers out of business, outdated technical attributes and unprofitable projects. 

    The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

    Solar systems require highly specialised waste management. To reduce landfill waste and promote sustainability, responsible disposal and recycling practices are crucial.

    Environmental concerns regarding solar waste components include gallium arsenide, tellurium, crystalline silicon, lead, chromium, cadmium, sulfuric acid, mercury, radioactive materials and heavy earth minerals. Inadequate disposal leads to chemicals leaching into groundwater, stressing nature and agriculture and poisoning drinking water. 

    Solar panels also contain valuable raw materials such as copper, steel, aluminium, zinc, and silver. These are wasted in landfill.

    Wind 

    Waste management of wind turbine blades is also complicated, expensive and raises environmental concerns.

    Each blade is 50 to 90 metres long. It must be cut up using specialised equipment. Blades consist of resin and fibreglass, which cannot be recycled or crushed. Existing landfills do not have space for them and setting up new landfills is expensive.

    To understand the scope of the issues, let’s take a look at the two largest economies, the US and China. 

    US 

    Solar 

    Commenting on a report by the Energy Information Administration, Solarcycle CEO Suvi Sharma said, “Solar is becoming the dominant form of power generation, but with that comes a new set of challenges and opportunities. We have not done anything yet on making [solar] circular and dealing with end-of-life [panels].”

    There are approximately 500 million solar panels installed across the US, increasing 20% each year. Ninety percent of decommissioned panels currently go to landfill due to recycling costs. From 2030 to 2060, the US will accumulate 9.8 million tonnes of solar panel waste, according to a 2019 study published in Renewable Energy.

    Sharma stated that, “We see that gap closing over the next five to 10 years significantly, through a combination of recycling becoming more cost-effective and landfill costs only increasing.” 

    Time will tell whether or not this prediction is accurate. 

    Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes.

    Wind

    The lifespan of a wind turbine is purportedly 20 years. However, as Julie Angulo, senior vice president of Veolia stated “We are seeing a wave of blades that are 10 to 12 years old, we know that number is going to go up.”

    Decommissioned wind turbine blades have joined solar panels in landfills, and are known as ‘forever waste’.

    According to a 2021 study released by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the US will decommission 3,000 to 9,000 blades every year until 2026, 10,000 to 20,000 blades a year until 2040, and 235,000 blades a year by 2050. 

    China 

    China leads the world in wind and solar energy equipment manufacture. China’s initial aim was 1,200 gigawatts of wind and solar by 2030. The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

    Waste volumes will rise as projects are decommissioned and replaced, emphasising the need for recycling measures. China currently doesn’t have specific regulations or processes for solar panel and wind turbine waste management. The State has announced it is working on industrial standards and rules to address this.

    The state planning agency advised that China aims to have a “basically mature” full-process recycling system for wind turbines and solar panels by the end of the decade. 

    Solar 

    China is the world’s leading solar market. It has surpassed everyone in terms of expenditure, manufactured panels and energy production.

    The International Renewable Energy Agency reported that in 2023, China dominated global solar panel additions with a record-breaking year, adding an estimated 180 to 230 gigawatts. 

    Join Mailing List

    However, in June last year China’s official Science and Technology Daily newspaper advised that in spite of the lifespan of 20 years, many of China’s solar projects show significant wear. The paper cited experts saying that China will have 1.5 million metric tonnes of decommissioned panels by 2030. This rises to 20 million tonnes by 2050 and is also in line with The International Renewable Energy Agency’s estimations. China will have the greatest amount of solar panel waste in the world.

    Conclusion

    The burgeoning solar and wind energy sectors demand attention to the economic implications of decommissioning and waste management. We need to face the fact that “sustainable” energy might not be so sustainable, and fossil fuels alongside nuclear are still necessary to keep costs and environmental damage to a minimum.

    Cut Taxes To 20%

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    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.

    How much should we pay our pollies?

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

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

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

    I am inclined to agree. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

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

    Faulty Towers

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    0

    NIMBYism, building costs, consumer tastes, regulation and taxation will keep Victoria’s housing supply low, despite efforts from the Allan Government to power ahead with new developments. 

    Despite the best efforts of the Victorian Liberal Party, the political winds are indeed changing in Victoria, and Jacinta Allan has laid out her plan to rise from the ashes of a heavily indebted and incompetent government. The plan is currently three-fold:

    • Release new land for greenfield development 
    • Adopt an Auckland-style relaxation of restrictions on subdivisions or development on existing blocks to encourage a proliferation of townhouses and granny flats
    • Most controversial – to develop various ‘activity centres’ within suburban Melbourne, including affordable high-density housing. 

    Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers.

    We aren’t talking about large-scale social housing construction by government. The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria. However, those key groups are not really interested in building or buying affordable, high-density housing, no matter how good the location. 

    The Covid 19 pandemic, along with the work from home arrangements prompted by it, created a wave of demand for housing in regional/rural areas with larger blocks and dwellings, given the reduced value of city amenity while locked at home. As both the public and private sector attempt to re-establish on-site work, Allan hopes to revitalise Melbourne by concentrating new housing around transportation and employment hubs. 

    But the fact is, Australians don’t really like living in apartments or units. Indeed, if recent demonstrations in Brighton are anything to go by, we don’t like living anywhere near them! For years now, unit prices in cities such as Melbourne have virtually flatlined as supply has increased but demand has tapered off. The price of free-standing houses, on the other hand, has skyrocketed. 

    The cultural attitude towards apartments in general is one of suspicion. While houses and residential land are revered as sound investments, apartments are known to attract less capital growth, are expensive to own (strata fees, etc), and prone to defects. No matter how many trains go past a day, Australians will happily pay a premium for a detached house.

    The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria.

    But what really brings Labor’s proposal to its knees is the economics of building high density housing. Developers are facing increased material and labour costs due to inflation and competition from major government infrastructure projects, while also navigating a myriad of regulations and taxes. As a result, apartment blocks are typically developed for the boutique and high-end market. Affordable high-density housing simply isn’t worth it in the current economic environment. 

    As for greenfield sites, they have issues of their own – not least that Allan’s proposal will see many future sites not delivered for another decade. Basic road, water and sewerage infrastructure costs are higher, and increasingly Melbourne is eating into its nearby food bowl and placing new residents at the mercy of increased fire and flood risk at the urban fringe. 

    Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers. This approach will allow for controlled infill – not flooding existing suburbs with hordes of new residents but still making better use of existing infrastructure and space. 

    Join Mailing List

    Allan’s government and other Labor divisions have sensed the need to differentiate themselves as the party which will genuinely increase housing supply, whilst labelling any opposition from the Greens and Liberals as ‘blocking’. If the recent Queensland election results are anything to go by, the strategy might be a cunning one in metropolitan seats.  

    However, if Allan is serious about adding new supply to Melbourne’s housing stock, she ought to ask herself why she has made Victoria the most unattractive state for housing and business investment in the country. Only by removing onerous property, land, and windfall gains taxes, easing the regulatory burden on new builds and slowing their bungled infrastructure program, could she hope to actually stimulate new home building.

    Victoria: The Nanny State

    By
    Caroline White
    -
    0

    *** Publisher’s Note: this article was written before the resignation of Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews ***

    Victoria is a Nanny State on steroids. Dan Andrews’ Labor government’s shenanigans are impossible to avoid, beginning every morning when you get in the car to drive to work. It’s like living in a video game that you have no chance of winning, that purely serves their purpose of keeping us supposedly “safe” within the uncompromising confines of their matrix.

    The biggest gripe I have at the moment is hidden speed cameras, particularly when they are on vehicles parked illegally (and dangerously – oh the irony). Apparently, I’m not the only one: last year three traffic camera cars were attacked within a 10-day time frame. Having recently received a fine for the victimless crime of travelling a whole 3km/hr over the speed limit, it’s only human nature to imagine the satisfaction felt from smashing those windows in.

    The Victorian Police assistant commissioner claimed the actions were “cowardly” and “really, really harmful to the broader road safety program”. In reality, the statistics suggest quite the opposite and that the attacks could possibly be justified as saving lives.

    Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.

    Over the border, when the New South Wales government removed the pre-warning signs for their camera cars during the pandemic, it doubled the revenue for the State. However, the death toll also increased tragically by 21. It is abundantly clear that hidden speed cameras have absolutely nothing to do with our safety and everything to do with government control through revenue raising that disproportionately punishes low-income earners.

    So, while no-one could argue that the attacks on these cars align with the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP), US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.

    Barry Goldwater, philosophical libertarian

    The New South Wales community took a different approach, responding peacefully by pushing back against the government. The public backlash forced pre-warning signs to be reintroduced.

    The contrast with Victorians became particularly apparent during Covid, when a certain percentage of our population seem to blindly trust what they are told by authority without question, making life extremely difficult for the rest of us.

    There’s an unhealthy dependency on the State here, as if a section of the population feels they’re incapable of making informed, adult decisions for their own health and safety and the health and safety of others around them because the government knows best and of course always has our best intentions at heart.

    They’ve been made to fear their neighbour; they no longer believe that the majority of people are good and can be trusted to do the right thing, and do not realise that those who disagree cannot be deterred by a traffic camera and the threat of jail or a fine. They’ve also been made to fear death, the only certainty besides paying taxes. I’m unsure at what point Victorians felt the need to wrap themselves in cotton wool.

    Hidden speed cameras are only one problem in an assortment of issues Victorian motorists have to contend with on a daily basis though. The number of speed humps and 40k zones in Melbourne makes me wonder whether there is any point having tarmac on the roads, because we might as well go back to travelling by horse and cart. Perhaps this reflects the real agenda, and why the government is making motor vehicle travel a warzone for commuters. My local council is currently pushing for bike riding to replace cars, an idealistic viewpoint to the single, soy latte sipping Labor and Greens affiliated councillors, but completely unrealistic and unattainable to a mother and small business owner like me and the majority of our community.

    Then there’s the issue of the surveillance state where new and highly invasive cameras are now catching people on their phones, or not wearing a seatbelt at a stop light. Ladies, don’t forget to wear undies under your skirt, because these intrusive cameras can even detect what you ate for breakfast.

    US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.

    There are licence plate recognition cameras on nearly every corner, ready at any second for our local “governments” to spring the 20-minute SMART cities nightmare on us. A similar concept to the 5k travel radius during Covid, except instead of being sold to the masses as a saving-granny exercise, we’ll be told we’re saving the planet from its impending doom.

    Trialled in the UK, locals insisted that they actually made congestion in the city worse. People responded by removing bollards at the 15-minute borders or concreting them in, destroying the cameras and refusing to pay the fines. Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.

    The Covid Precursor Everybody Ignored

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    1

    You May Be Shocked To Learn This

    Imagine the Australian government weaponising an engineered health crisis to rob citizens of their freedoms and destroy businesses. Then imagine the public fully supporting the government’s grotesque overreach, parroting the government’s pseudoscientific propaganda and even pimping the dubious chemical cocktail disingenuously offered to solve the crisis by the same people who sponsored it.

    You may be shocked to learn this did actually happen, several years before the Covid scamdemic. The health scare in question was the skin cancer epidemic supposedly caused by commercial sunbed operators.

    You probably barely remember the crisis because, well, who really cares about sunbeds? The attitude of most Australians was that people who used sunbeds were narcissists. But the solarium ban seemed to open pandora’s box. Australia’s famous sense of humour soured. Australians started calling for more and more activities to be restricted and regulated. The government eagerly obliged, increasing its rate of law making by almost 30%.

    Just as it was omitted that more than 90% of people who caught Covid had mild to no symptoms.

    The propaganda formula for selling the solarium ban was an early prototype of the formula we saw employed for Covid. It also showcased the components used in the great climate scam and many of the other liberty-leeching cons being perpetrated by governments around the world.

    Like Covid and climate change, the propaganda began with nonsensical, reality-bending lies. Suddenly, what people had known for millennia was said to be wrong. “Tanned skin is damaged skin”. “A tan does not protect from the sun”. Until this, a tan was known to be a natural adaptive process that protected skin from burning in the sun. Sun damaged skin was not golden brown; it was red and blistered.

    Next came the hysterical fear-porn based on largely irrelevant, cherry-picked statistics. “Two of every three Australians are expected to develop skin cancer”. “More than 1,200 Australians will die of melanoma this year”. Conveniently omitted from the discussion was that only 0.5% of Australians used solariums. Obviously, 130,000 people using sunbeds cannot significantly contribute to 15,000,000 people developing cancer. So the relevant statistic was redacted, just as it was omitted that more than 90% of people who caught Covid had mild to no symptoms.

    Then came the extraordinarily abnormal, non-representative case studies. With the solarium ban, one 26 year old girl died of melanoma. With no evidence, she claimed her cancer was caused by just 20 solarium visits. Over 1,200 other Australians died of melanoma that year, but none mentioned using a solarium. 130,000 other Australians used solariums without dying of melanoma. Yet this one girl was plastered all over the TV, internet, radio and newspapers as the obvious proof of the danger of solariums.

    You probably barely remember the crisis because, well, who really cares about sunbeds?

    Next was the absence of any genuine science. No study actually showed that solariums cause skin cancer or that skin cancer rates were higher in solarium users. No study showed that prohibiting commercial solarium businesses would reduce skin cancer. The Queensland legislation even acknowledged that the sun was the primary risk factor, and the sun was not being banned.

    There is strong evidence that suggests a strong link between skin cancer and a dietary imbalance of essential fatty acids (EFA’s). The average Australian diet reflects this imbalance. It is also directly responsible for epidemic levels of heart disease and diabetes, costing billions of dollars in healthcare and lost productivity. Any serious discussion about public health, including skin cancer, could not ignore Australia’s nutrition. But, like Covid, there was no place for any discussion that contradicted the dominant narrative and predetermined course of action.

    Finally, just like Covid, the solarium ban featured a product so awful it needed a government sponsored con to sell. Fake tan was the solarium ban’s equivalent of the Covid vaccine, and the climate con’s carbon credits. In virtually every story covering the solarium ban was the sales pitch for the ‘safe and effective’ fake tanning products that would ‘save lives’ from the dangers of sunshine and solariums. It was as blatant as it was shameless.

    Join Mailing List

    Now that almost a decade has passed, we can fairly assess the government’s success in reducing skin cancer by banning solariums. More Australians are now diagnosed with skin cancer than before, the rate of skin cancer has increased, and more die of melanoma. In other words, the government failed as dismally as basic logic and math predicted. The forcible closing of over 400 small businesses, the dozens of prosecutions, the thousands of hours and tens of millions of dollars spent on propaganda and legislation all achieved absolutely nothing. Nothing except the pointless erosion of freedoms of citizens.

    123...16Page 1 of 16

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    The Long, Long, Long Long List of Taxes!

    Kenelm Tonkin - 1
    Have you ever wondered how many taxes there are in Australia? The answer might shock you! Here’s the list. (If I’ve missed some, please let me...

    Don’t Welcome Me to My Country

    Better The Devil You Live Next To

    12 Visionary Reasons To Just Embrace The Postmodernists, Damn It!

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv