Senator Ralph Babet (UAP, Vic) in full flight on Senate floor
LIVE DEBATE
Live now from the Senate floor, Senator Ralph Babet (UAP, Vic) raises ‘matter of interest’ … removal of Australia’s prohibition on nuclear electricity generation.
The Senator in full flight. An historic speech. Watch live now …
Nuclear energy prohibition started to emerge as a possibility in the old Hawke, Nuclear Disarmament Party days in the 1980s.
However, the nuclear energy prohibition actually came into being on 10 December 1999. The Howard Coalition Government was seeking to have a new nuclear research reactor built at Lucas Heights, Sydney. Labor was opposed so the Liberals and Nationals turned to the Australian Greens for support. The Greens said ‘yes’ if the the Government would support a prohibition on nuclear electricity production. In the absence of any nuclear power plants being constructed, the Howard Government agreed, Lucas Heights was built and the general ban instituted.
The debate in the Senate lasted 10 minutes!
On 28 September 2022, Senator Canavan (LNP, Qld) delivered a second reading speech for Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 calling for the nuclear energy prohibition to be lifted. This amendment was not carried.
Senator Babet continues the fight.
SENATE PROCEDURE
Time for “Matters of Interest” speeches are allocated proportionally to political parties on the basis of the seats held.
The United Australia Party has one senator of seventy-six, or 2% of the time available. As the sole senator for his party, Senator Babet receives all of that time.
It is worth noting therefore that senators of the majors only receive “Matters of Interest” time at the whim of their party leadership. Liberty Itch imagines this adversely affects Senator Matthew Canavan (LNP, Qld), Senator Gerard Rennick (LNP, Qld) and Senator Alex Antic (Liberal, SA).
There’s been a lot of talk about the US-Australian alliance, especially with AUKUS nuclear submarines attracting bi-partisan support in Australia.
Libertarians typically split on the issue of foreign affairs, geopolitics and military action.
(L to R) Australian PM Albanese, US President Biden, UK PM Sunak
Group one says we should maintain a self-reliant, self-defensive military and not engage in foreign entanglements. Adopting a non-interventionist policy in matters foreign, this school of thought argues alliances can put a target on our back so seeks to defend Australia if and only if directly attacked. For want of a better term, we’ll call them the “Neutrality” group.
Group two says free countries are rare, face authoritarian foes and Australia, a free nation, is vulnerable with its large coastline and sparsely-populated continent. Arguing for a robust military but knowing Australia can’t by itself defend such a land mass with few people, this school seeks foreign alliances, which include international obligations, to fully protect our freedoms. We’ll call them the “Alliances” group.
So, here’s the flash poll.
Do you support the United States-Australian military alliance?
Yes or no.
Once you’ve voted, I’ll share some thoughts on this.
The Workplace Health and Safety Bill was being debated at 12:30pm today and a coordinated insurgency was executed to amend the Bill to ensure covid vaccine mandates were impermissible.
Leading the fight were Senators Ralph Babet (UAP, Vic), Gerard Rennick (LNP, Qld), Matt Canavan (LNP, Qld), Malcolm Roberts (ON, Qld) and Alex Antic (Lib, SA).
Labor, the Greens and all but three of the Liberal-National Coalition voted in unison to allow covid mandates to continue. The vote for the amendment was Ayes 5 and No’s 31.
We understand Pauline Hanson (ON, Qld) was absent.
Here’s a video summary published from Senator Babet’s office.
Well, it was mischief-making in the sense that I like to sharply define the line between liberal and conservative and then, with all the goodwill in the world, provoke people to think and explore these differences.
There is a difference, you see.
So I posted a video clip between American commentators Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. They had opposing views of how to handle inevitable job losses caused by driverless trucks. It illustrated the difference eloquently.
Then I challenged you to vote whether you agreed with Tucker Carlson or, by inference from his question, Ben Shapiro.
The results are in:
37% Tucker Carlson; and
63% Ben Shapiro.
If you agreed with Tucker Carlson, you are a conservative.
If you agreed with Ben Shapiro, you are a liberal.
As I repeat ad nauseum, conservatives wish to conserve. Here, Mr. Carlson would be happy to conserve current industry development rather than advance it. He’d be happy to keep truck drivers in jobs for which technology has a more efficient solution, the driverless truck.
By inference from his question, Mr Shapiro would prefer to let the free market take its course, permit the technology and have truck drivers migrate into related freight work or even redeploy into other industries.
There’s a big difference in approach.
Liberals and conservatives are not the same.
You’re an optimist if you’re a liberal (or if you must, a classical liberal or libertarian, they all mean the same thing!) You believe in people, in their ability to innovate and in their ability to adapt to change. In the case of driverless trucks, you fully embrace this new technology and you want to encourage the creators of that innovation by allowing it to be unleashed on the market. No restrictions. And you have faith truck drivers, given appropriate notice, are more than capable of finding new work. You are confident they aren’t simply going to sit and bemoan the loss of one type of occupation. Rather, you know they’ll have to find other work to feed their families, as we all do.
You’re a pessimist if you’re a conservative. You believe, as Mr Carlson even said, that you don’t want high school educated men let loose on society without a job. He assumes that high school educated men would suddenly become helpless and even dangerous. That’s the inference.
Blimey!
Talk about loss of faith in our fellow citizens. It’s a nanny state attitude. What evidence is there for this? None that I can find. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence high school educated men are adaptable.
Take 1980s Newcastle. A city bustling with blue collar men busily working the steelworks. Now look at 2020s Newcastle, a lifestyle, health and university town. What happened to these steelworkers? Was Newcastle ravaged by idle high school educated men wreaking havoc across the city? No. Some of these men were due to retire, some moved to the Wollongong works, some stayed in Newcastle moving into value-add niche industrial enterprises, some stayed in the large industrial companies but worked from home as the companies left, some started their own businesses using their skills in new ways, some simply moved into new industries altogether, some retrained, some took early retirement to enjoy life.
Take my grandfather. He grew up and apprenticed as a wheelwright at the tale-end of the old wooden spoke and hub horse-drawn carts. Then as his career developed, wood gave way to steel spoke and hub wheels. Then steel plates came in. What a transition!
Further, when a conservative says ‘let’s restrict technology’, what does that signal? It’s the same as saying to every inventor and innovator, every scientist and engineer, to every entrepreneur and free thinker that their fresh, new ways of solving old problems are unwelcome.
As I say, conservatism’s tendency to oppose change can be helpful. However, if that’s all we on the Right do is oppose and conserve, we end up sliding to the Left. Opposition and conservation are insufficient to fight the Left.
We must treat our innovators with respect and let them advance society. We must not be conservative and stand in the way.
We must treat our fellow citizens with respect, have confidence in them that they can cope with change. We should not mollycoddle them.
Don’t be a conservative like Mr. Carlson.
Be a classical liberal like Mr. Shapiro in this debate.
By crikey, I’m a little bothered we’re always at sea politically.
The Left is pounding us with wave after relentless policy wave.
The Liberal Party has drowned, its body face-down, bobbing and drifting. We libertarians, classical liberals and the otherwise centre-right are in danger of the rip sweeping us to sea.
Things are perilous. Just look at the eddies and currents fatiguing us:
Familiar places and landmarks being renamed in costly rebranding programs
Activists undermining joyful time spent on Australia Day
If we continue only to oppose these ideas, as is the conservative instinct, but not counter with our own, we’ll soon lose more freedoms than is already the case.
We need bold classical liberals and pugnacious libertarians to fiercely propose striking new policies.
Take the Voice To Parliament as an example.
… classical liberals cannot support systemic racism.
But first, here’s a quick primer for our international subscribers. The Voice To Parliament is a government body proposed by referendum to be enshrined in Australia’s Constitution. It’s stated purpose is to recognise Indigenous people as the first inhabitants of Australia and to act as an advisory board for any bills coming through the Federal Parliament which impact Indigenous people. The body would be comprised exclusively of ethnically Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The motivation for the Voice To Parliament is that Indigenous people suffer poorer life chances and that this is the result of British colonial invasion and ongoing occupation. The Voice to Parliament is said to be just one step in a process of Reconciliation, the duration and shape of which is unspecified.
In short, what’s being proposed is a new third-chamber of the Australian Parliament with a racial-eligibility criterion to participate.
Yes, it’s as bad as that sounds.
Think Apartheid.
Predictably, the Labor Government along with the socialist Australian Greens will vote “Yes.”
The feckless Liberals are confused and unable to take a view. Their paralysis is painful to witness.
Their Coalition partner, The Nationals, are deeply-rooted and sure in saying “No” and have weathered the storm of a confused defector.
Primer over.
So what do we do?
First, we vote “No.” We do so because we as classical liberals cannot support systemic racism.
Good so far but now we must plan to seize the initiative.
Second, we ask ourselves, “By what power or mechanism can the Labor Government even legislate something as abhorrent as systemic racism?”
The answer is in the Australian Constitution. Like the United States Constitution, Australia’s has an enumerated list of areas in which a Commonwealth government can legislate.
It’s section 51.
Run your finger down that list and you’ll discover subsection 26 furtively trying its best not to draw attention to itself …
Section 51 (xxvi) “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”
Yes, you read that correctly. The Constitution anticipates that a Federal government may legislate on the basis of race.
I don’t know about you but I find this abhorrent. What happened to equality before the law? What happened to judging not by the colour of one’s skin but by the content of one’s character? I’m thinking of 1933 Germany, 1970 South Africa, of Rwanda at its most bleak. Why look at people from a racial perspective at all? If we must have legislation, let’s not discriminate by the amount of melanin in the skin!
So, here’s the front-foot classical liberal in me …
At the very next electoral opportunity, let’s put a referendum of our own to the people. Let’s rescind section 51(xxvi) from the Constitution!
In one fell swoop, no Commonwealth Government will ever again be allowed to make laws with respect to race.
The benefits are:
No elevating one ethnic group at the expense of the other
No targeting one ethnic group for the purpose of disadvantaging them
No costly Department of Indigenous Affairs and the countless agencies which grift off it
The Federal Government has one less legislative jurisdiction, has its wings slightly clipped
With the money saved, we can repay at least some of the suffocating debt
Indigenous communities will be treated like all others and so weaned off the teat of the state. Same opportunities. Same laws.
Indigenous communities stuck in a cycle of inter-generational welfare receipt will learn self-reliance quickly.
It has a lot to recommend it.
So rather than simply react to a Leftist proposal and not respond in kind, let’s advocate a bolder, muscular kind of original liberalism, of classical liberalism, of libertarianism.
Last month, Liberty Itch revealed how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses Chinese culture and the Chinese-Australian diaspora to engage in influence-grabbing, covert-operations in Australia.
Such tactics are a threat to Australian democracy as these operations are often intended to weaken the democratic process, hampering the ability of many Australian citizens and leaders to voice their dissent against the anti-freedom Chinese government.
The lack of criticism in mainstream society towards Beijing’s human rights abuses and its interference in our country have become ‘normal’.
So, today, we are going to dissect yet another instance of Chinese Communist Party soft power in South Australia, this time through the guise of ‘arts and cultural exchange’.
The formula is simple once articulated: create fear and intimidation on one hand and use soft power on the other.
Look hard enough and you’ll discover surreptitious soft-power influence in the Adelaide Festival Centre, the heart of the arts in South Australia.
The venue, of course, is vibrant, upmarket and inviting. With its unique design and diverse range of events and performances, the Adelaide Festival Centre is well-loved by all interested in the arts.
Hosted in this iconic arts venue, theChina Today Arts Week Showcase is sponsored by the China Federation of Literary and Art Circles, which refers to itself as a “national non-governmental organisation.” Manipulation is almost invisible, but for the listing of Xi Jinping’s wife as a Vice-President in its Beijing-based headquarters.
China Federation of Literary and Art Circles Leadership chart
The China Federation of Literary and Art Circles aims to “unite and serve writers and artists, to train literary and art talents, and to promote the development and prosperity of literature and arts”, according to its website.
“Unite” is the keyword to which one should pay attention. We talked about the United Front Work Department (UFWD) in previous articles and how the UFWD conducts interference in Australia.
In essence, the UFWD aims to bring together all the forces that can be united and mobilise all people in and resources outside China for its national security interest.
All people. Artists, painters, arts lovers, business executives, residents, politicians etc. Everyone should be used to “unite” and increase Beijing’s soft power. That is the UFWD philosophy.
Although the China Today Arts Week Showcase is linked to the Chinese Communist Party, Liberty Itch fully supports the right to free artistic expression, performances and gatherings. Libertarians are not in favour of prohibiting non-violent activities.
One can, of course, undo the CCP’s deceptive and covert influence-grabbing techniques by bringing clarity and transparency to the situation. Readers of Liberty Itch can be informed of the real purpose of this CCP exhibition and make conscious choices which art providers they wish to back: those who work to connect people to their humanity, versus those people connected to the crimes against humanity in the name of the arts.
To take pleasure in authentic, top-notch Chinese culture free of CCP influence, consider backing the 2023 Shen Yun in Australia. Through this troupe, Beijing’s ability to control and manipulate the narrative of Chinese culture and history can be minimised.
The abrasive and race-obsessed Senator, who resigned in disgrace as Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in 2022, now resigns from the Party which made her career and had her return in 2022.
You can understand Adam Bandt’s ashen face. Loyalty be damned!
Greens in turmoil
Hemmed-in by a nation-destroying fence of her own construction, she’ll now enjoy a life on the crossbench, a lone political animal with an untested, so-called, “Blak” constituency. Oh, for spelling!
The ever-upbeat Senator Ralph Babet from the United Australia Party was characteristical swift in his reponse, telling Liberty Itch:
“I welcome Senator Thorpe to the crossbench and look forward to working with her in opposition to The Voice referendum.”
The Liberal Party, under the leadership of Peter Dutton, is the limp partner in the Liberal-National Coalition on The Voice. In contrast, the Nationals have offered stiff opposition to what many call a race-eligible third chamber, a principled position despite the risk of desserters.
Social media is saturated with a more blunt assessment of The Voice: apartheid.
Senator Babet’s enterprising bridge-building is work the Liberals seem long ago incapable of achieving.
Well may Liberty Itch subscribers wish the energetic Senator Babet good luck. He will need it. Senator Thorpe was initially against The Voice, then for, now uncommitted, hardly the history of a sure-footed politican with a clear voter-base.
The phrase ‘foreign interference‘ often brings to mind the covert meddling into Australian affairs by the Chinese and Russian governments, both the foes of democracy.
It’s fascinating to observe Australian politicians and the public’s attitude towards Russia and China. We are quick to reprimand Russia for its involvement in the Ukrainian conflict, yet our knees wobble when it comes to criticizing the Chinese Communist Party’s mass killing. And the wincing first-hand accounts of Uyghur concentration camp torture is altogether unsettling.
The human rights abuses continue even now on an industrial scale.
Chinese money is powerful. I hear you. What about human rights? Aren’t they important too?
Now, the spotlight is on Melbourne and a pivotal foreign interference test case.
Di Sanh “Sunny” Duong, a leader of the Chinese community, is the first individual charged under Australia’s foreign interference laws.
Former Liberal Minister Alan Tudge together with Mr Duong.
The prosecution and the Australian Federal Police claim that Mr. Duong, aged 67, contributed $37,000 in 2020 for the Royal Melbourne Hospital in an attempt to secure influence with former federal minister, Alan Tudge, which might later be used in support of Chinese interests.
Mr. Duong has, on record, written to a politician in the Liberal Party in the past and suggested that Australia should support China’s expansionist Belt and Road Initiative, a project that was subsequently terminated by the Federal Government in 2020 due to national security concerns.
Sarah Kendall, a legal researcher of foreign interference legislation at the University of Queensland, commented that this case illustrates the breadth of the laws. She pointed out how an activity which may seem harmless could be regarded as a criminal offence if the authorities can prove that the conduct had the intent of preparing for foreign interference.
The law is unusual for a liberal democracy in that it requires from the prosecution only that a defendant intends to use current influence in the future for the purposes of foreign interference.
This is a balancing act for a classical liberal.
Liberals want to protect our hard-won freedoms and an expansionary foreign power like the Chinese regime is a threat to those freedoms especially when operating inside Australia. On the other hand, liberals believe in individual freedom of movement, habeas corpus and the rule of law.
Mr. Duong was charged in November 2020 by the Australian Federal Police. He pleaded not guilty in 2022. He denied engagement in any foreign interference activity, despite that he was a leader of Chinese community associations overseen by the CCP’s United Front Work Department, about which Political Itch has written in China’s Covert Australian Ops.
Magistrate Susan Wakeling determined that there was enough evidence to proceed to trial.
This is the first time a citizen has been charged with facilitating an act of foreign interference, an offence that carries a maximum 10 year imprisonment.
Whatever the result, it will be a critical precedent.
Whether there is a conviction or not, Mr. Duong’s case will be just the first of many. Similar acts of foreign interference have happened and are still happening every day in each Australian state.
How effective are we in defending our democracy? Political Itch will be there when the judgment is handed-down.
This open letter assumes the reader has also read the Australian Financial Review column by Alexander Downer dated 4 Dec 2022 found here . Start there and follow with this Open Letter.
As a former State and Federal Executive member of the Liberal Party, as a former Young Liberal of the Year and participant in 72 pre-selections, I agree with much of what you wrote.
The fact that the Liberal Party has lost its philosophical mooring and is now drifting wherever the political currents take it was the very reason I left and joined the Liberal Democrats in South Australia.
They stand for fiscal restraint, individual freedom, rule of law, freedom of speech, entrepreneurialism, freedom of worship, free trade, equality before the law, innovation and science, the very things the Liberal Party have abandoned and seem unable to clearly articulate.
As an example of just how unable even Liberal Party senators have become to hold true and firm to these beliefs, see here Senator Andrew Bragg from NSW on ABC’s Q&A:
It’s not only the Liberal Democrats who provide fresh competition. There are good people in other parties who share these values but do not see the Liberal Party as their natural home any longer.
Nowhere was the Liberal Party’s drift more evident than during covid overreach. And it’s with that in mind that I turn to your column.
You wrote, “In South Australia, the public was on the whole supportive of the state government’s termination of traditional civil liberties.”
As you know, public opinion can be manufactured. When you say leadership was required rather than managerialism, nowhere was that needed more than during covid.
You wrote further, “The values of selfless individualism and individual freedom and responsibility are timeless. The Liberal Party shouldn’t allow them to be cast as anachronistic.”
You can see my emphasis in both these quotes.
I’d therefore like to ask you a simple question in an effort to reconcile those two quotes from your column:
Do you agree it was a mistake for the recent SA Liberal Government to have terminated traditional civil liberties at the expense of our timeless value of individual freedom?
This open letter is published on Liberty Itch, which boasts current and past MPs as well as current party leaders and activists as subscribers.
The term Lunar New Year is more accurate than Chinese New Year. The spring festival is not exclusively Chinese but celebrated throughout China, Hong Kong, Tibet, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and, yes, here in Australia among communities sharing this heritage.
Liberty Itch strives for accuracy, an appreciation of all cultures which observe Lunar New Year festivities and, as you are well aware, we are not in the habit of bending to the Chinese Communist Party.
Let freedom ring!
So, terminology aside, it’s unfortunate then that the Chinese Communist Party infiltration operations within Australia are in full swing.
Today, our focus is on Perth, Western Australia, and how the CCP is wooing major party politicians there.
Soft-power, you understand.
The Perth Chinese Consulate invited key Western Australian legislators and Commonwealth bureaucrats to their Lunar New Year function. Attendees included the Hon. Sue Ellery MLC, Minister for Finance, Commerce and Women’s Interests from the Australian Labor Party, and the Western Australian Liberal Leader Dr David Honey MLA.
Pro-Beijing, United Front Work Department affiliated organisations – reminder, the UFWD is the Chinese Communist Party’s official propaganda arm – were also present at the function, including the executives and founders from the Chung Wah Association Inc, the CCP Media Perth Post andAustralian Chinese Times, the WA Beijing Association, and the Australian Peaceful Unification Association.
Unsurprisingly, given the Chinese regime’s constant civil liberty infractions and growing interference here in Australia, there was a human rights protest self-described as “End CCP” out the front of the consulate.
Political Itch has spoken to a key figure of that protest, Richard Lue. His account is that, at the end of the function, Minister Ellery and Dr Honey sought to avoid the peaceful protesters at the front by taking the back exit. Then, surprised the protesters were documenting the comings and goings from the consulate, Dr Honey ‘ran away quickly’ when he spotted their camera.
WA Leader of the Opposition, Liberal’s Dr Honey takes the back exit
This is not the behaviour of MPs confident of their actions.
Why scurry through the back exit? Why run to avoid the camera?
Would it not have been better for a Minister and a Liberal Leader to boldly walk out the front door and talk with the protesters about their grievances?
Both the Minister and the Liberal Leader were given a red bag by the consulate on departing. Given the CCP has embroiled other politicians in career-ending activities, we thought this at the very least worth questioning.
Political Itch reached out to Labor’s Sue Ellery to ask what was in the red bag and to find out why she took the back exit rather than just hear the protesters’ complaints. Sue Ellery’s office did not respond.
Dr Honey’s office did respond, as follows:
Please give me a call just so I can clarify a few things.
But basically, Dr Honey left via the front door, not via a back or side door and walked directly to his car which was parked on Royal Street.
The red bag he was holding was a party gift bag that was given to all attendees – it contained some low value trinkets etc… (it was a cap, a fan and a poetry book).
The function was held by the Chinese Embassy to celebrate the Chinese Lunar New Year.
Political Itch has subsequently received photos from an eyewitness that the Liberal Leader exited the Chinese Communist Party’s Perth Consulate from the back door on Royal Street. The front gate of the Consulate is on Brown Street, not Royal Street, according to the Consulate’s official address.
Whether these politicians exit from the front or back, or whether they receive minor trinkets in a gift bag is not the point, of course.
What is relevant is that our politicians prefer to immerse themselves in the hospitality of an abhorrent regime which regularly abuses human rights, rather than listen to the victims of that regime.
There were so many questions we wanted to ask. One which came to mind was the persecution of Christians in China.
Political Itch took up Dr Honey’s invitation to call multiple times over a two day period. In the absence of a call back, we then wrote the following email to his office:
Dear Sir,
We are unable to get hold of you on the phone.
The answer as to which exit Dr Honey used is in dispute by eyewitnesses.
A follow up question for Dr Honey –
According to ChinaAid’s 2021 Annual Persecution Report, more than 50,000 Christians were arrested in China in the Shanxi Province alone. Will Dr Honey be willing to speak up on behalf of Christians within and outside the Liberal Party and talk to the Perth CCP Consulate about the persecution of Christians in China?
On this more serious question, Dr Honey’s office did not respond.
It would be generous for you, the reader, to conclude that they are all too busy to respond. These are serious issues.
It is more than disappointing that Labor and Liberal politicians in Western Australia hob-nob with the communist elite, operatives who are actively undermining our democracy, but not able to advocate for victims of human rights abuses and persecuted Christians.
Take note. Chinese Communist Party infiltration is deep. Worryingly, WA Labor and Liberal are lulled into forgetting who they represent and are not acting like the principled democratic leaders they should.
