Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 13

    Retaining The Bargaining Chip of Indemnities For Vaccine Companies

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    4

    Should we legislate to stop a government offering indemnities to vaccine manufacturers?

    This was a matter which came before the Senate last week in a private members bill.

    Some of the reasons given for the Bill were:

    • “Companies work for shareholders first and it is profits that motivate their decision and actions. People should always be put before profits”;
    • “Indemnification has created an incentive for risk-taking in the pharmaceutical industry which is not aligned with the fundamental principles of medicine. Where indemnity exists, it is human nature to take larger risks, whether it be a conscious decision or subconscious, the outcomes are poor”; and
    • “The pharmaceutical industry has a taste for your money.”

    Vivid language for the impressionable mind!

    The most amicable and well-meaning of senators championed the cause with a rousing speech. A personal friend of mine adroitly negotiated it behind the scenes. It was a case study in politicking, and even attracted the support of one Libertarian state division.

    Then with the support of all but Labor, it went to committee for investigation and so will become news again soon. Yes, the centre-right crossbench attracted the Greens and even Senator Thorpe for a moment.

    What is not to love?

    Against such a juggernaut of consensus, this simple libertarian fig farmer has his misgivings. Have sympathy for me. It’s in my DNA to search for a principle.

    We libertarians are fond of paraphrasing John Stuart Mill’s 1859 Harm Principle with phrases like “live and let live, as long as you don’t harm others.”

    We are not so persistent in reminding our parliamentary friends that the Harm Principle requires that we ‘weigh such harms.’

    The great horror of the last 3 years was that our leaders did not do this. Ignore psychological damage to infant school children plastered with a mask. Ignore the cheap, unhealthy food on the dinner table of a family with dual incomes lost to mandates. Ignore the evaporated life savings of ‘non-essential’ small business owners. Ignore the suicides and mental health flair-ups caused by lockdowns. Ignore the business collapses.

    It was one flu-like covid-19 harm, all other harms be damned!

    One must weigh the harms.

    The problem with the Bill is that it applies a blanket ban and fails to weigh harms.

    Just say the next virus is more potent. Let’s say it’s Ebola or something with a 50% mortality rate!

    In the end, we need politicians who apply John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in full. Live and let live as long as you don’t harm others. When there are competing harms, weigh them and choose the least harmful option.

    I want our government to have the same commercial tool as any private sector party. Indemnification, or the transfer of risk, is used by outdoor adventure operators, mining equipment hire companies, and many others. Why ban the government?

    As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be able to transact like the private sector.

    As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be ready to act in the case of genuine pandemic threat. As established, I want the government to potentially offer indemnity to vaccine providers in the case of emergency.

    And as a libertarian, I want politicians who’ll use skilled negotiators so offering indemnity won’t be necessary.

    Further …

    As a libertarian, I’m unimpressed by populist attacks on free enterprise, especially pharmaceutical companies which keep us alive. As a libertarian, I’d be more curious to know why anyone believes a vaccine company should absorb near sovereign-level risk for a government intent on releasing vaccines before they pass the government’s own safety standards. As a libertarian, my focus is on that government maladministration, not the vaccine company.

    As a libertarian, I’d prefer my government weren’t both umpire, with its TGA vaccine approval processes, and player, being the acquirer and dispenser of vaccines. I’d prefer to eliminate this conflict of interest.

    As a libertarian, I’d like to rollback government from healthcare delivery, replace tired old public hospitals with private hospitals, and to protect charities which run hospitals.

    And as a libertarian, I’d prefer our allies in parliament did not run adrift philosophically into the dangerous and choppy waters of the anti-capitalist. I am left in little wonder why the Greens and Senator Thorpe kept the Bill alive.

    I believe the correct approach for a libertarian here is to vote against the Bill. In our current system, the Government needs to make it easy for vaccine production to occur in the event of a genuine calamity.

    Our government already has one hand tied behind its back running a socialised system. Let’s not tie the other one by banning the free-enterprise bargaining chip of indemnities.

    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. 

    Talkin’ About My Generation (Part 1)

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    7

    In his excellent Liberty Itch post Golden Years last week, Max Payne writes, “By the time today’s young people are finally ready (or allowed) to retire, they may find they face a double challenge. First, their superannuation funds might have been ransacked by previous generations; second, the availability of quality care may be limited due to the challenge of delivering high-standard care without a large tax-base – especially in times of slowing productivity.”

    In their hit song My Generation, English rock band The Who – Pete Townshend on guitar, Roger Daltrey on vocals, John Entwistle on bass, and Keith Moon on drugs – err, I mean drums – sang, “…things they do look awful cold …. hope I die before I get old.”

    It is reported that German economists are baffled by reports from Australia that rising house prices are deemed to be ‘good news’. In Germany, inflation in house prices – like inflation in energy prices or food prices – is considered to be just the opposite.

    “How can it be good news?”, they ask, “when it takes two incomes to support a mortgage when previously young couples could buy a home and raise a family on one income? Or that homebuyers will pay many hundreds of thousands of dollars more in mortgage payments and government taxes and charges than would otherwise be the case?”

    Why has housing become so expensive in Australia? Motor vehicles, whitegoods, kitchen appliances, widescreen TV sets, personal computers and mobile phones are consumed in abundance around the world, yet prices remain low. Why is a house, which like other manufactured goods is made from readily accessible components, so much more expensive than other consumer products?

    No doubt demand stimulators like high immigration, low interest rates, capital gains concessions, negative gearing and first home buyer grants have increased demand for housing. However, increases in demand do not, of themselves, cause prices to rise. The exponential increases in demand for mobile phones, laptops and digital TVs did not lead to increases in their prices. In fact, the opposite occurred – prices fell – in some cases by more than half, due to increases in supply. The 1950s and ‘60s population explosion – the ‘baby boomer’ generation – likewise saw massive increases in demand for housing, yet house prices remained stable during that time because supply was able to keep up with demand.

    So, what has gone wrong in recent years?

    As most people know, over the past 20 years or so the actual cost of building a new house in Australia has roughly kept pace with inflation. Land prices, on the other hand, have skyrocketed.

    By restricting the amount of land available on the urban fringe, state governments have sent the price of entry-level housing through the roof.

    Land is the problem.

    On the fringes of our cities there is more than an adequate supply of cheap, unzoned land.

    Cheap land attracts not only home buyers but commercial interests as well, leading to more employment opportunities.

    So why are houses and commercial developments not being built on this cheap land?

    In short, manipulation of zoning laws.

    (For Part 2, click https://libertyitch.com/2023/08/22/talkin-about-my-generation-part-2/)

    Golden Years?

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    4

    The combination of an ageing population, lack of children being born and an unquenchable thirst for public spending on ever-expanding social services has the potential to wring the tax-base dry as a chronic demographic distortion unfolds.

    Although the mainstream media and most of the public are concerned about increasing population levels, an emerging demographic threat concerning the composition of the population should be attracting much more attention.

    Simply put, the world is ageing. Much of the world is experiencing birth rates below replacement levels. If it continues, this could have devastating cultural, societal and economic impact on Australia and the rest of the world. 

    The aged care royal commission’s final report was handed down in early 2021. Despite a 200% increase in the sector’s budget allocation from a decade ago, the report claims even more funding is needed to deliver higher standards and more personalised care. Furthermore, it claims such funding should be insulated from the broad fiscal and budgetary challenges the Federal Government faces.

    Yet as Centre for Independent Studies head of research Simon Cowen notes, the NDIS and childcare sectors are already subject to the same blank cheque-type model – one that supposedly increases the quality of care but in practice only maximises the cost.*

    An ageing population is not unique to Australia. But when coupled with lower birth rates and the impact of a subsequently smaller tax-base, it raises the question as to how a higher standard of aged care could possibly be funded.

    If self-funded retirement is to be a solution, superfunds and retail investors need to navigate the issue of liquidity with the funds being withdrawn by retirees not being replaced by new capital.

    In essence, our superannuation system is built on the concept of new money replacing the old – yet without population and productivity growth, this new money simply will not be coming in. So how will the superfunds maintain valuations? How will people fund their retirements?

    What is most alarming is that there is no obvious solution to this challenge. As we live longer, the cost of managing chronic disease and unhealthy lifestyle factors are growing steadily across the developed world, placing greater pressure on government-funded health services. With inflation sticky, generational wealth gaps expanding, the size of government increasing and a rising cost of living, young people are choosing not to have children.

    Economists, politicians, and young people need to begin seriously thinking (and talking) about this issue.

    Policymakers risk burdening young Australians with a lifetime of servitude to generations before them that enjoyed more freedom, prosperity, and quality of life.

    Moreover, by the time today’s young people are finally ready (or allowed) to retire, they may find they face a double challenge. First, their superannuation funds might have been ransacked by previous generations; second, the availability of quality care may be limited due to the challenge of delivering high-standard care without a large tax-base – especially in times of slowing productivity.

    In a current climate of simmering unease at the fault lines between younger and older generations of Australians, these concerns risk pushing society into an even more fractured state. But it is no use merely complaining. Rather than call for more socialism, taxation and ‘social justice’, young people need to claim back their liberty and financial future from the politicians that are pandering to an ageing voter base.

    Young people today are concerned about their future in the context of climate change, but the threat of an ageing population and low birth rates should be a more pressing concern. If our youth don’t consider this, they risk losing their own ‘golden years’ after having spent their working lives funding the golden years of their parents and grandparents.

    * Aged care cost blow-out won’t be solved by higher taxes, S. Cowan, 17 June 2023, Centre for Independent Studies

    The Danger To Society of the Public Health Industry

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    6

    The public health industry is a menace and remains a threat to Australia.

    It comprises people who believe we all require their guidance because, unlike them, we are incapable of making the right choices for ourselves. We must be nudged, cajoled, taxed, and supervised to ensure we get it right. And if that doesn’t work, compelled by force of law.

    The Covid pandemic exposed this in stark terms. The authoritarian wave that engulfed us, while mostly authorised by spineless politicians, originated from the public health people behind them. And in almost every case, they got it profoundly wrong.

    The result was countless businesses failed, careers ruined, relationships destroyed, and education missed, with worse health outcomes than Sweden. Even the current inflation is primarily a consequence of propping up the economy with borrowed money whilst “flattening the curve”.

    In terms of sheer ineptitude, it is difficult to go past the Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) in the states and Commonwealth. Paraded as experts and fawned on by the media, they proved to be foolish control freaks.

    Kerry Chant. NSW Chief Health Officer.
    Brett Sutton. Vic Chief Health Officer.
    Jeannette Young. Qld Chief Health Officer.
    Andy Robertson. WA Chief Health Officer.

    CMOs ought to be expert at public health, since their focus is on the health of everyone rather than individual patients, and up-to-date with both the scientific literature and international developments. While not necessarily researchers or experts themselves, they should be well aware of who the researchers and experts are and how to contact them.

    Yet repeatedly, the policies they recommended and endorsed were contrary to science, to experience, or both. 

    It started on day one. Australia’s rational and proportionate pandemic plan was simply abandoned in favour of China’s panicked lockdown model.

    Covid-19 is a respiratory corona virus, a well-studied category. It was well known that these viruses are highly vulnerable to sunlight and short-lived outside the body, relying on person-to-person transmission. Outdoor transmission was never likely, yet beaches and parks were closed, and gatherings prohibited. As for indoor spread, what was all that “deep cleaning” about? And why is ventilation only being mentioned now?  It’s a no-brainer in the veterinary world.  

    Once it was obvious that only the elderly were in danger, it was unconscionable to maintain the pretence that everyone else was. Children were never at risk, except from vaccine side effects, yet schools were closed and parents terrorised.

    In early 2021 when, contrary to expectations, it became apparent the Covid vaccines did not prevent either transmission or infection, the campaign to vaccinate everyone should have ceased. A statement from a CMO that the unvaccinated presented no danger to anybody else would have ended it.  Yet vaccination certificates acquired the status of internal passports in the Soviet Union, and countless people lost their jobs for refusing to be vaccinated.

    Ivermectin was being used to treat cases in multiple other countries with clear evidence of its value, yet it was banned from therapeutic use in Australia. How many lives might have been saved if CMOs had learned from what was happening overseas?   

    From the very beginning, the CMOs knew masks were useless at stopping respiratory viruses. Even Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Adviser to the US President, said as much.  Yet despite zero data to prompt a change, they somehow became a symbol of compliance; a sign that we were worshipping at the Covid altar. Even now there are poor neurotic souls who continue to wear them (and even some medical facilities that still require them.) The CMOs simply allowed the stupidity to continue.

    Their advice was at times foolish, even idiotic. The Chief Medical Officer in South Australia, for example, told spectators at a football match to avoid touching the ball. And South Australia was put into lockdown based on a rumour that a man had contracted Covid from a pizza box.

    South Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier

    The Covid panic might be over, but the public health industry remains unscathed. The bureaucrat behind Melbourne becoming the world’s most locked down city, where playgrounds were closed and fishing banned, curfews imposed and all manner of other idiocy imposed, was made Victorian Of The Year despite his state recording the highest Covid death rate in Australia. In Queensland, where closing the border with NSW caused enormous suffering, the CMO was promoted to governor.

    Much of the harm resulting from the Covid control measures could have been minimised, if not avoided entirely, if the CMOs had stuck to the science. Even if they had thought they were doing the right thing, they could have published their advice to governments so that others with relevant expertise could comment. Of all the CMOs, only Nick Coatsworth has showed any signs of regret.   

    It is only a matter of time before we are again subjected to their mindset. Even if there are no more pandemics, they will continue to impose their views on issues like smoking, alcohol, sugar and obesity.

    The public health industry perpetually worries that we might enjoy ourselves in an unapproved manner. Having succeeded far beyond their expectations with Covid, they remain a clear and present danger to society.

    The Consequences of Rent Control

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    1

    As Australia faces a rental crisis, the Greens are agitating for rent control. Chief among their voices is Adam Bandt, whose clarion call is: “Unlimited rent increases should be illegal.”

    The Greens and their cheer squad claim rent control protects tenants from excessive rent increases and provides affordable housing options. Such policies would be implemented in response to affordability concerns, shortages, and displacement risks in gentrifying areas. Advocates assert rent control maintains community diversity, prevents homelessness, promotes tenant stability, and offers security against sudden and drastic rent hikes.

    Introducing rent control scores politicians quick points. However, the policies are vociferously opposed by the majority of economists.

    Mr Assar Lindbeck was a Swedish professor of economics, a contributor to a Nobel Prize for Economics, and a socialist. Sweden also has the most restrictive rent controls of all OECD countries. Lindbeck wrote:

    Assar Lindbeck

    “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”

    Lindbeck’s quip on rent control highlights a rare consensus among economists. Across all persuasions (neo-classicals, Keynesians, Austrians and socialists), economists agree that rent control is a proven failure.

    This is shown by the “Rent Control Survey” 2012 conducted by IGM (Initiative on Global Markets) Forum. To the question: “Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them” – 81% of economists decisively answered ‘Disagree’.

    Rent control manipulates supply and demand dynamics, corrupting markets and causing inefficiencies.

    It has a blighted history of unintended, negative consequences and can permanently affect rental housing markets. Contrary to the intended purpose as an anti-poverty strategy, poor families suffer worst of all.

    As housing quality and availability declines, the middle class can often find alternatives. Poor families cannot. Higher-income households can also benefit under rent control, by receiving greater subsidies. In 2018, San Francisco city staff presented their first ‘Housing Needs and Trends Report’ and ‘Housing Affordability Strategy’ to a meeting of the city’s Planning Commission. A few notable admissions included:

    • Households that moved into rent controlled units are much more likely to be higher income than in the past.
    • Housing cost burdens worsened for all but the highest income households.
    • The city struggled to substantially improve housing affordability for low and moderate‐income households, and does not have a comprehensive picture of how various policies and resources work together to achieve affordability outcomes.

    Decreased profit margins incentivise landlords to prejudice tenant selection based on income and credit history. This disadvantages young, low-income families, especially single-parent households. It also impedes racial and economic integration by discouraging tenant mobility. In his study ‘Rent Control, Rental Housing Supply, and the Distribution of Tenant Benefits’ 2002, Dirk Early states “If landlords believe that larger households headed by young persons lead to quicker depreciation of their units, the rationing of units by landlords would lower the probability of larger and younger households finding rent regulated units.”

    Rent control unfairly burdens housing providers, by forcing below-market rates of return. This effectively transfers income from property owners to occupants of rentals. Understandably, landlords and investors are reluctant to accept this. In his study “Rent Control Effects through the Lens of Empirical Research” 2022, Konstantin A. Kholodilin reviewed 60 studies from 18 countries. Over 50% demonstrate rent control’s negative effects on new residential construction. All the studies confirm rent control policies adversely affect quality of housing as decreasing rent revenue diminishes funds for maintenance and refurbishment.

    Such proven, unintended consequences of rent control policies highlight the need for communities to explore alternative solutions for poor and middle-class housing. The libertarian solution to housing affordability and availability is elegant in its simplicity. Enable the free market to increase housing supply.

    In 2011, councils across Perth, Western Australia were given individual infill development targets by the state government. By 2016, 94% failed to achieve their targets. More than half had not reached 50% of their goal.

    Belmont, ‘City of Opportunity’, was one of the success stories. The city was proactively open and receptive to the market for over a decade. This encouraged robust investment. Belmont has maintained its infill development and continues to attract a wide range of families and businesses to live, work and invest in the city.

    When considering rent control, it is worth reflecting on the adage attributed to Mark Twain “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. Government enforced rent control predictably delivers negative outcomes.

    The free market is the only proven means by which to solve Australia’s rental crisis.

    The New Gulag

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    In his famous three-volume masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the frozen wastelands of Siberia where political prisoners and dissidents the Soviet state considered dangerous were held (for their speech, not their actions). A gulag was a Soviet prison; an archipelago is a string of islands; hence the term ‘gulag archipelago’ – a string of camps, prisons, transit centres, secret police, informers, spies and interrogators across Siberia.

    Today, people are frozen out of society in more subtle ways. The authorities no longer bash down your door and haul you off to a gulag for espousing the ‘wrong views’; instead, they silence and freeze you out of existence in other ways.

    No-one describes the current situation better than Scottish commentator Neil Oliver in his Essentials of Life video clip here. More about that shortly.

    Divide and conquer

    As we know, the Left’s chief weapon is division. Unite the disaffected groups and those with grievances, and then ‘divide and conquer’ the rest of us. Divide along racial, generational, sexual, religious or economic lines. Any line will do.

    What may have started as ‘the workers vs the bosses’ – ‘the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie’ – and ‘supporting the poor’, became just a ruse to gain power. Workers and the poor have long since been abandoned by the Left who now find other ways to divide and conquer.

    In his excellent book, Democracy in a Divided Australia, Matthew Lesh writes:

    “Australia has a new political, cultural, and economic elite. The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers. This divide is ripping apart our political parties, national debate, and social fabric.

    Inners are highly educated inner-city progressive cosmopolitans who value change, diversity, and self-actualisation. Inners, despite being a minority, dominate politics on both sides, the bureaucracy, universities, civil society, corporates, and the media. They have created a society ruled by educated elites – that is, ruled by themselves.

    Outers are the instinctive traditionalists who value stability, safety, and unity. Outers are politically, culturally, and economically marginalised in today’s graduate-dominated knowledge society era. Their voice is muzzled in public debate, driving disillusionment with the major parties, and record levels of frustration, disengagement, and pessimism.“

    For over a hundred years, Australia fought to remove race from civic considerations. Yet now we are being asked to permanently divide the nation by entrenching an Indigenous Voice into our Constitution. By the ‘Inners’, of course.

    In the workplace, politicians are still treating workplace behaviour like a game of football. Australia’s employers (‘the bosses’) are on one team, and Australia’s employees (‘the workers’) are on the other. The game is then overseen by a so-called ‘independent umpire’ called the Fair Work Commission. But of course, this is not how workplaces operate at all. The ‘game’, if you even want to call it that, is played not by two teams of employers and employees, but by hundreds, even thousands of different teams, competing against hundreds and thousands of other teams of employers and employees.

    Mark Twain observed, “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example”.

    Here’s one – the infamous Dollar Sweets dispute where unions were picketing Fred Stauder’s confectionery business. Other confectionery businesses were approached to support Fred but were rebuffed saying, “Why should we care if Dollar Sweets goes down? It will mean more business for us.”  So much for ‘bosses vs workers’.

    While paying lip service to free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law and smaller government, the Liberal Party in Australia has all but abandoned these ideals in practice. As has big business, which, truth be known, was never on the side of free markets. Corporations have always wanted markets they can dominate, and to eliminate the competition. If that means aligning with the Left or doing the government’s bidding, so be it.

    Which includes – and here we return to our ‘new gulags’ theme – closing a person’s bank account, destroying them on social media, or excluding them from employment. Business is right on board with this.

    The Left will keep pushing its woke agenda until it is stopped. And it will not be stopped with facts, figures, logic, evidence or reason. It doesn’t care about any of that. It will only be stopped with political power.

    Holding conferences, writing opinion pieces, producing podcasts and YouTube interviews in the hope of persuading people have, I’m afraid, had their day. The ‘Inners’ now rule.

    Stopping the relentless march of the Left will require political power. Seats in parliament. Which means like-minded people and parties forming alliances and working strategically and tactically together to win seats.

    In Neil Oliver’s video clip, he says, “When it comes to the state, that which it can do, it certainly will do” and “What can happen to anyone, will soon happen to everyone”.  

    So, if you belong to a think-tank, lobby group or centre-right political party, and want to stop the woke Left further ruining our country, then please encourage your organisation to place less emphasis on winning arguments and more emphasis on winning seats – as previously outlined here and here.

    Thank you for your support.

    Welcome To Warburton, Where Yes Is A Death Sentence

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    3

    Shareholders are being taken for a ride, as are donors, trade unionists, sports fans and taxpayers. The relatively few high-profile CEOs, charity leaders, trade union leaders, sports administrators and politicians foolish enough to forsake their duty and send other people’s money to the referendum Yes case are doing harm. Many of their supporters and funders, and possibly a majority, are against the proposition. They are not as foolish as their leaders.

    Corporate
    Trade Union
    Sport

    Leaders who think that a solution to Aboriginal despair lies in permanent government intervention in the lives of those few Aborigines who are failing in this modern society should think again. It is not all about government. Changing the Constitution does not change behaviour. Changing the Constitution will not get children to attend school. Changing the Constitution will not stop the grog, or the abuse, or the awful habits that cause early death.

    This week, Aboriginal children will walk into the store at Warburton in Western Australia and purchase the typical fare of an Aboriginal diet. On the same latitude as the border of Northern Territory and South Australia, Warburton is as remote as it gets. But cake, Coca-Cola, and energy bars are all available, and expensive. For adults, throw in smokes. These are typical purchases. Week in and week out. Eating and drinking junk foods, not working, and having no purpose in life other than consumption, is a death sentence. No amount of government intervention can save this. No Voice, no committee, no treaty, no ‘truth-telling’, no Makarrata can save these people.

    Warburton Art Gallery

    Aboriginal people are a modern people. In Warburton, mobile phones are commonplace. Electricity keeps the food and drink cool. Without the paraphernalia of the modern world there would be no Warburton, it would have closed decades ago. Aboriginal people rely on modern means to survive. Most have no idea how it is made. This is cruel. 

    The task of leaders is to have every child understand how it is that the mobile phone and electricity that makes their food and shelter available comes in to being. Government may be the provider, but it is not the maker.

    Government makes nothing, it merely covers the indignity of woeful ignorance.

    Why do governments refuse to teach their citizens how their lives have been degraded to the point of begging? This is no gracious gift; it is stealing the future of these people. It is an abandonment of leadership. Recognition is not the same as reconciliation.

    Kids enjoying the Warburton Swimming Pool. Picture: Steve Girschik

    Aboriginal parents face an awful choice. To keep children ‘safe’ on country, away from the worst of modern life, grog and drugs, or in doing so, condemn their children to live restricted lives, with poor education, few prospects and a poor diet. The great lie of this referendum is that choices can be avoided. Somehow, 24 select delegates in Canberra will solve the parents’ dilemma. They will not; they will continue to mask the choice and, in default, make the choice for them. A slow death on country, rather than to break free, with the help of their families and guidance from outsiders on how to handle the wider world.

    There is no love for Aborigines in this referendum proposal, just ego.

    The Aboriginal people at Warburton are radically disabled. They are self-determining alright, sitting on country, speaking language, and dying early. And CEOs and the Prime Minister think that this is a good idea.

    They must, because their solution is to change nothing. Not to learn how to create value, not to adapt, but to wait. Government monies as a permanent way of life are poison.

    Gary Johns is President of Recognise a Better Way

    Laughing In The Face of Tyranny, $1 Million Bounty On Their Heads

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    Imagine you lived in Australia and enjoyed a great life. Then the government became tyrannical, you protested for democracy, but an anti-democratic security law was passed and you were intimidated and arrested. Released, you fled to New Zealand and were granted a visa there. But the Australian Federal Police placed a bounty on your head of $A190,202 (US$127,728) and activated its security apparatus to ‘extract’ you.

    Can you image this breach of your basic civil liberties? In what kind of psychological state would you be?

    As far as Liberty Itch knows, this story is fictitious. However, it corresponds to a true story so similar that we need only change three facts. In the real-life version you were born and raised in British-ruled Hong Kong, a Commonwealth country. Your new home is Australia. And your name is Ted Hui. All other details are the same.

    If you default to the ‘don’t-rock-the-boat’ conservative position of, ‘Yeah, well, that’s none of our business because he’s not an Australian citizen’, let’s take Mr. Hui’s situation but assume the victim is an Australian citizen. You now have the factual circumstances of Australian lawyer, Kevin Yam.

    Ted Hui
    Kevin Yam

    The Hong Kong Police has issued a HK$1 million bounty on someone who is not only an Australian resident, but an Australian citizen!

    Slothful ‘status-quo’ thinking might argue, “These men have obviously broken the law. They’re criminals. Police issue bounties all the time.” But there’s a lot more to the story.

    When the British transferred Hong Kong to China in 1997, the City was imbued with all the benefits of British culture: a parliamentary democracy, small government, plus a robust common law judicial system protecting civil liberties and property rights. It was a stable, bustling success story. China agreed to preserve democracy there for at least 50 years.

    Hong Kong Handover. 1997.

    Six years in and the Chinese Communist Party couldn’t resist meddling. Small snippets at first, then an attempt to implement a security law in 2003, thwarted by democrats. The student Umbrella Movement resisted the tyranny from 2014. But by 2019, the communists had installed sufficient sympathisers to flex their coercive muscle. Pro-democracy protests continued, in some ways similar to Australia’s Freedom Rallies protesting against the Covid lockdowns, but with higher stakes. In 2020, the Hong Kong National Security Law was passed, establishing “crimes” of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign organisations, control mechanisms to entrench authoritarianism.

    In Mr. Hui’s case, he was elected to the Legislative Council as a Hong Kong Democracy Party MP. He lent his support to the protests. For his efforts Mr. Hui was arrested and imprisoned without trial several times, the duration each time becoming longer than the last. In jail, he was coerced to be silent about the loss of freedoms and assaulted. He was released, fled and today lives in Adelaide.

    Liberty Itch has covered Mr. Hui here and here.

    Mr. Yam’s story is that he is an Australian citizen and merely lived in Hong Kong for twenty years. He’s a legal scholar with Georgetown University’s Centre for Asian Law and lives in Melbourne.

    These aren’t the backgrounds of criminals.

    These are scholarly, principled men acting for democracy and freedom.

    The CCP-backed Hong Kong Government is using extra-territorial arrest warrants and bounties as an intimidation tactic against an Australian lawyer. In light of the new security law, Australia rightly cancelled its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020. Interpol has not been issued with a Red Notice by the Hong Kong Police. It would never be approved.

    In response to the Chinese Communist Party’s bounty, Mr. Hui said it “makes it clearer to Western democracies that China is going towards more extreme authoritarianism.”

    Mr. Yam stated, “It’s my duty to speak out against the crackdown that is going on right now, against the tyranny that is now reigning over the City that was once one of the freest in Asia. All they want to do is try to make a show of their view that the national security law has extra-territorial effect.”

    The freedoms of speech, assembly, movement, the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial are cornerstones of liberal democracy which libertarians cherish.

    It would be an error to view these men as an overseas problem. A CCP edict that Australian citizens and residents be ‘pursued for life’ is an affront to all Australians. If you support Assange’s freedom, you will find these bounties on Mr Hui and Mr Yam abhorrent. And, being the thinking, philosophically consistent libertarian that you are, you should express support for their human rights.

    If you don’t, who will support yours?

    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.

    1...121314...16Page 13 of 16

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    Hugo Chávez: Spiritual Leader of The Woke

    Lionel Orellana - 0
    The 1999 Venezuelan Constitution, sponsored by the late Hugo Chávez as the foundation for his nascent revolution, has been described as “the non-sexist Magna Carta.” The...

    Green Sky Thinking

    Trump promised libertarians. Here we go!

    Labor Betrays Doc Evatt And South Australians

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv