Home Blog Page 16

What should the Australian Defence Force do?

Hint: the answer is in the name

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) does lots of things it shouldn’t.

Restrict the trading of others

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) helps to enforce sanctions.  

It contributes in varying degrees to efforts to enforce sanctions endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, like sanctions against North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and various countries in Africa, as well as other sanctions like those against Russia, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe.

Sanctions impede and redirect, rather than stop, trade involving the targeted countries.  They rarely bring about regime or policy change in the targeted country, and any impact in this regard is more often negative than positive.  Sanctions amount to a diplomat’s response to a call to ‘do something’ without the commitment of ground troops.

Deterring and countering restrictions on our own trade

Some say the ADF can and should defend Australian trade by ensuring the ADF can project power including through a long-range navy.

This is wrong.

The likelihood of any attempts to stop Australia’s trade is low, the likelihood of success of any such attempts is low, the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australia’s trade would be far from catastrophic, and the ADF can do little to deter or counter any of this anyway.

Firstly, consider the likelihood of attempts to stop Australian trade.  Here are some scenarios, from less to more likely.

  • The United Nations Security Council agreeing to impose sanctions on Australia in an attempt to stop Australian trade.
  • An assortment of powerful countries defying the Security Council and attempting to stop Australian trade themselves.
  • One country, such as China, unilaterally attempting to stop Australian trade, including through war.
  • Pirates attempting to stop Australian trade.

Each scenario is unlikely, except perhaps the risk of piracy, for which traders can arrange their own security.

The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy

Secondly, consider the likelihood of success of any attempts to stop Australian trade. As we see with current sanction efforts, and even at the height of the last world war, even the most sophisticated campaigns against a country’s trade tend to impede and redirect trade, rather than stop it.

Thirdly, consider the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australian trade. Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade.  We are more self-sufficient than you think.  So a successful blockade of Australia would cause some hardship, but any claims beyond this are hyperbolic.

Finally, even in the unlikely event of a successful trade blockade against Australia, what would be the optimal ADF response?

Nothing.  

The point is, the cost of having a military powerful enough to counter such a blockade would be greater than the cost of living self-sufficiently.

The ADF as foreign aid

The ADF is building infrastructure in PNG, Vanuatu, Fiji and the Solomons, doing maritime surveillance to defend the fisheries of various Pacific Islands, and training military and police forces in various Pacific countries. 

Such action may fail to deliver political stability and prosperity to the Pacific, and may fail to deter the establishment of Chinese military bases in the Pacific.  Moreover, Australians suffer little from instability and poverty in the Pacific, and Chinese military bases in the Pacific would do little to increase the risk of, or damage from, Chinese aggression to Australia.  

The ADF’s actions in the Pacific are essentially foreign aid, the funding of which should not be forced on all taxpayers.

Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade.

Other overseas operations

The operations of the ADF beyond the Pacific are unwarranted too.

The ADF is training Ukrainians to fight Russia and remains in a fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with a current focus on training Iraqi forces. The ADF dons blue berets to police the borders of Israel and the Koreas and to provide security in South Sudan, having recently provided security in Mali.

These are not our fights. Interested Australians should be free to engage in these conflicts if they so choose, without roping the Australian taxpayer in. The ADF’s engagement in these fights does not represent cost-effective training for defending Australian soil, which is best done through defensive exercises in Australian conditions.  And while ADF personnel are overseas, they are not defending Australia.  

Enforcing obedience to state law

During the Covid lockdowns, the ADF was used in support of state police to prevent travel beyond legally permitted limits and to keep state borders closed. 

The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy, and the military should not have been tasked with law enforcement.  In liberal democracies, we train and regulate our military primarily for the exertion of force on enemies, and our police primarily for the service and protection of citizens.

Disaster relief

The ADF is increasingly being used for humanitarian assistance following floods and bushfires. This is not its role; indeed, such activities are a serious distraction from its primary role of the defence of Australia. 

State governments should bolster the ranks of volunteer organisations to provide humanitarian assistance.

Racial Friction in New Zealand

For every government in New Zealand, the year commences with a focus on Maori affairs. For historical reasons most political parties undertake a pilgrimage to the Ratana Church on the 25th of January to commemorate the birthday of the congregation’s prophet, Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana. It is a reserved affair: politicians are discouraged from grandstanding and expected to listen to the concerns of the Ratana movement (by no means representative of all Maori). Marvellously, they do. 

Waitangi Day, New Zealand’s national day, is celebrated on the 6th of February. By tradition politicians travel to the Waitangi Marae (meeting grounds), the site of the signing of the treaty between the British Empire and many Maori tribes which most New Zealanders consider the country’s founding document. 

Democracy in New Zealand has eroded over the last six years of a radical Labour/Green regime

Maori protocol is fairly strictly maintained within the Marae (female politicians require a dispensation in order to speak, for instance) but outside things can be rather raucous. In the past Maori and their non-Maori supporters have used the occasion to express discontent, with some protests turning confrontational and descending into violence. As recently as 2009 former Prime Minister John Key was assaulted on his way onto the Treaty Grounds. While most Waitangi Days at Waitangi are one big Kiwi picnic, confrontations between angry demonstrators and lines of police are not unknown.   

Against the backdrop of these occasions is the culture wars. On one side are the proponents of democracy comprising the vast majority of non-Maori New Zealanders. On the other are the proponents of Maori separatism comprising the tribal elites, their progressive allies, and those ordinary Maori who agree with their point of view. The essence of the disagreement is in interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi  (Te Tiriti o Waitangi.)     

“The Treaty” as it is known in Kiwi parlance is a relatively simple document in its original English form: ceding sovereignty to the Crown with equal rights as British subjects and property rights guaranteed. In the Maori version the language is more open to interpretation. Some doubt whether Maori ceded sovereignty at all, complicated by the fact some Maori tribes didn’t sign it. 

The confusion surrounding interpretation has led to the development of the Principles of the Treaty. Although never defined, the Principles permeate legislation and proliferate throughout the public sector. At the core of the previous Labour/Green regime’s radical interpretation of the Principles is racial segregation: Maori at 16% of the population sharing equal authority with the 84% non-Maori population, euphemistically referred to as “co-governance.” 

In some respects, it is reminiscent of Apartheid.

The Waitangi Tribunal was established in the 1970s to negotiate compensation from the Crown for the various Maori tribes due to historical Treaty breaches. A programme of “full and final” settlements has been underway ever since. The majority of Kiwis support these settlements as fair and believed the end to be in sight as the number of outstanding negotiations dwindled. Their disappointment at learning this was not to be the case and that Maori were instead demanding an end to equal suffrage was a major factor in the overwhelming victory of the centre-right coalition at the November general election. 

For every government in New Zealand, the year commences with a focus on Maori affairs.

Both of the winning minor parties signed coalition agreements with the major National party that included Maori specific policy. The populist NZ First party promised to ensure English would be used across the public sector so the 97% of Kiwis who don’t speak te reo Maori could understand government communications. The libertarian ACT party undertook to deliver a referendum to define the Principles of the Treaty but the other two parties could only bring themselves to go as far as to support a parliamentary bill through to First Reading. For its part, National said that co-governance would be entirely removed from the delivery of public services and eligibility would be determined by need instead of by race.

This shared policy platform enrages the Maori elite and those who benefited from the previous Labour/Green regime’s largesse, predictably leading to tiresome accusations of racism. New Zealand is perhaps the only country in the world where ‘inherently racist tyranny of the majority’ is regarded as a valid description of democracy. Indeed, variations of this sentiment regularly appear in our national discourse, espoused by the left-wing.

Other intemperate remarks from left-wing politicians such as threats to “go to war” certainly haven’t helped, instead exacerbating tensions. Tensions that may be violently expressed outside Te Tii Waitangi marae on New Zealand’s national day.

Democracy in New Zealand has eroded over the last six years of a radical Labour/Green regime and the country now stands at a crossroads. Our society is confronted by fundamental challenges to our constitutional arrangements and the choice is simple: either we’re a multicultural liberal democracy or we’re a bi-cultural ethno-state.

Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders believe we are one people, and this was the intention of the signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Redress for past injustices is right and proper, the imposition of Apartheid is not.

Things to do on Australia Day

Here is your definitive list of Australia Day must-dos. Any one of these makes you a thoughtful Aussie. Do all 22 and you’ll end up with an Order of Australia.

1.Start the day with Vegemite on damper and Weet Bix;

2.Wear eucalypt silvery-green and deep gold clothing. Make an effort with the hues; lime-green and canary yellow just won’t cut it;

3.Fly a large Australian flag at home so your neighbours can see it. Bonus points for a huge flag flown proudly atop a permanent flagpole in your front yard;

4.Host an Australia Day BBQ at your place;

5.Wear a sprig of wattle on your lapel;

6.Give someone you love a bouquet of native flowers;

7.Sizzle all-Aussie beef steaks and burgers with a native bush tomato and mountain pepper berry rub;

8.Serve burgers with beetroot and an oversized Queensland pineapple ring. Bonus points for onion and a BBQ poached egg;

9.Make an Australian dessert like pavlova, lamingtons, Iced Vovo tart, vanilla slice or fairy bread;

10.Recite Mackellar’s My Country aloud before the family. Bonus points for Banjo Paterson’s The Geebung Polo Club done with rhythm and build-up;

11.Play a hotly-contested, raucous game of backyard cricket. Bonus points for loud, speculative appealing and protestations when turned down;

12.Do anything at the beach. Absolutely anything!

13.Tweet your unreserved appreciation and love for Australia;

14.Recite the Oath of Allegiance even as a lifelong citizen;

15.Share with family and friends what you love about Australia;

16.Play Slim Dusty, Nelly Melba or Percy Grainger, as your taste dictates. Just make sure the music is Australian;

17.Self-consciously use old Australian dialect words. Bonus points for: “You’re bonzer, cobber. It’s the Pom who’s gone troppo, a fair dinkum drongo. What a galah!”

18.Fly the flag from your car and drive around your neighbourhood;

19.Photograph a beautiful Australian scene and share on social media;

20.Sing loudly and without any hint of self-consciousness any of the following: I Am Australian, I Still Call Australia Home, Waltzing Matilda or Advance Australia Fair. Bonus points for including the second verse or for leading a group to sing all of them with you;

21.Debate who is Australia’s greatest author; and

22.Prepare and deliver a short summary of the life and adventures of an Australian explorer.

I love Australia, its freedoms, its opportunities, its outdoorsmen. I love our individual flair, our explorers, our flinty pioneers and adventurers. That a mere 26 million in a mere 236 years have, with sweat, turned this wide, brown land into a beacon, a free and liberal home for all.

Don’t Welcome Me to My Country

During the debate leading to the Voice referendum, prominent Voice supporter Marcia Langton was quoted in the media saying that if the referendum was defeated: 

“How are they going to ever ask an Indigenous person, a Traditional Owner, for a welcome to country? How are they ever going to be able to ask me to come and speak at their conference? If they have the temerity to do it, of course the answer is going to be no.”

In other words, a no vote would result in Aborigines refusing to provide ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies. 

As is well known, the no vote was overwhelming. However, so far there has been no reduction in the welcomes.  

The definition of racism is treating people differently on the basis of race. The result of the Voice referendum demonstrated that Australians are profoundly anti-racist; Australians do not want to be treated differently according to race. They just want to be treated the same as everyone else, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion or cultural origins. As George Orwell would have put it, no Australians should be more equal than others.  

Nobody doubts that Aborigines immigrated to Australia 10,000 years ago

The problem with welcome to country ceremonies is that they are at odds with this. They are only performed by Aboriginal Australians, and imply that those performing them have a special claim to the country that other Australians do not have.  

If they were welcoming visitors to land over which they had a proprietorial right, such as an indigenous reserve, this might be understandable. But that is not the case. Moreover, most of those performing the ceremonies are not even elders who could at least claim to be representing their clan. 

Similarly, if they were welcoming foreign visitors to Australia, on behalf of all Australians, it might be understandable. But that is also not the case; indeed, most foreign visitors never witness such a ceremony. 

In reality they are simply Australians, paid performers, purporting to welcome fellow Australians to their own country. 

As a successful multicultural society, Australians respect diverse cultures. From the Aboriginal Garma festival to the Indian Dev Diwali celebrations, plus numerous other ethnic ceremonies and celebrations, they happen freely and without hindrance. 

However, all Australians, including the Aborigines, are ultimately descended from immigrants. The only difference is the time period. As a consequence, going beyond respect to declaring one particular culture as superior is a step too far. 

Nobody doubts that Aborigines immigrated to Australia 10,000 years ago (or longer if some are to be believed), but why does that make their culture more deserving than the culture of the Chinese who arrived during the gold rush, or the Greeks and Italians who arrived after the Second World War, or even first-generation immigrants from India?  

Australians do not want to be treated differently according to race

If longevity in Australia is a basis for cultural priority, why shouldn’t the descendants of First Fleeters assert priority over all those who followed them? 

There is another reason why welcome to country ceremonies should be abandoned: they are actually not part of Aboriginal culture at all, but were invented by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley to welcome a group of Māoris in 1976. Australia’s first governor, Captain Arthur Phillip, could never have witnessed a welcome to country ceremony in 1788 because they did not exist at that time.

Those who support welcome to country ceremonies are largely the same people who advocated for a yes vote for the Voice or repeat slogans such as “always was, always will be”. They are simply out of step with mainstream opinion; today’s Australians are not responsible for what occurred long before they were born and will not be held liable for it.  

And while there are genuine concerns at the differences in health and education between Aborigines in remote areas and other Australians, it is perfectly obvious to them that welcome to country ceremonies will not close the gap. Moreover, there are other Australians also missing out who are not Aboriginal. 

Australians are kind-hearted and generous, and have always supported assistance on the basis of need. But having Aborigines welcome us to our own country is simply un-Australian.

Decommissioning Solar & Wind Projects: A Costly Endeavour

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. 

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.

Good Reasons for Suspicion

Worldwide outrage engendered by the SWIFT Affair seems rather quaint today. Operating since 1973, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication is the messaging system that accounts for almost all international financial transactions. Evidence emerged in 2006 that the United States government had been covertly monitoring SWIFT transactions since the late 1990s and in collaboration with SWIFT since 2001. 

SWIFT’s collaboration to supply transaction data breached the laws of Belgium (where it is based) and Europe. That European citizens could be subject to such monitoring by a foreign power caused great consternation among both the populace and European governments. 

Justifying the enormous collection of the private information of citizens of allied and friendly countries, the US government claimed it was a necessary aspect of terrorism prevention. To avoid the appearance of disunity between NATO allies in the ‘War on Terror’, and to placate an indignant population, the European Union negotiated an agreement to enable US access whilst making provision for minimal privacy for European Union citizens. An agreement which was altogether academic: as Edward Snowden’s 2010 disclosure of classified NSA material demonstrated, the United States resumed clandestine surveillance of SWIFT before the ink on the agreement was dry.

The Social Credit System is popular in China, where efficiencies and fraud prevention are broadly appreciated.

This incident became fertile ground for conspiracy theories among a growing segment of the populace in Western countries, particularly those already suspicious of government overreach in ‘The War on Terror.’ 

(The populations of non-Western countries, accustomed to the American modus operandi in world affairs, required no such convincing.)

From survivalists in the Appalachian Mountains to billionaires purchasing luxury fallout bunkers in New Zealand, people began to think about ‘what if’, extrapolating contemporary social, political, geo-political and environmental trends to rational yet disconcertingly dystopian conclusions, pessimism exacerbated by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and resentment at the enormous taxpayer-funded bailouts of the institutions that caused it. 

Currency suddenly held people’s attention. Was it evolving from a means of exchange to a mechanism for surveillance? Could it be used to impose social controls on entire societies? What if it was absent altogether? What are the privacy ramifications of obsoleting paper currency? 

SWIFT’s collaboration to supply transaction data breached the laws of Belgium (where it is based) and Europe.

No-one needed to look too far for answers to most of these questions. In 2014 the Social Credit System was introduced by the People’s Republic of China to several regions. The excesses of the state and the capabilities inherent in the system became readily apparent to horrified Western observers shortly thereafter. Currently comprised of disparate systems, the objective is for the Social Credit System to coalesce into a consolidated system encompassing the entire country. Underpinning the system is financial transactions (currently the Yuan, in future the Digital Renminbi.)

The Social Credit System is popular in China, where efficiencies and fraud prevention are broadly appreciated. Many of the criticisms of the system as a form of Orwellian control are overstated but not invalid. Suspicious foreign observers rightly point out that while it might not be utilised for that now, it could be in the future. Conversely, observers taking a nation-state perspective began to consider the possibilities for their own societies.

So ended the decade: a growing appreciation by governments for the control inherent in surveillance of financial systems, and a burgeoning section of the populace suspicious of state overreach into private transactions. 

Technology is the enabler for all of it, good and ill. As the technology landscape evolves the battle remains the same, between the rising libertarian instincts of the populace and the authoritarian tendencies of the state. Yesterday’s battle was the SWIFT affair. Tomorrow’s battlefield is cryptocurrencies and Central Bank Digital Currencies.

Subjects I’ll address in part II.

China 2024 and Beyond: A Troubled Future

My recent discussions on Liberty Itch have painted a picture of China’s landscape as a prison-like surveillance-intensive system, and as a no-privacy technology-driven cashless society. In this article, I want to further explore the future of China as we look towards 2024 and beyond. I will examine the implications of China’s expanding surveillance state, the tightening grip of authoritarian power, the simmering economic challenges, and the looming demographic crisis.

A Safe Prison

In China, particularly within its major cities where surveillance cameras are omnipresent, the situation resembles a vast yet secure prison. Proponents may argue that it ensures unparalleled safety, but high security is also a characteristic of prisons, largely due to extensive surveillance, with only a few exceptions like Jeffrey Epstein.

Beyond what I discussed in my previous article, emerging technologies are being used by the government to further erode any remaining privacy. A recent example I heard from a friend is a discreet device, easily overlooked, capable of extracting comprehensive information from your phone within a short range. Although not widely deployed yet, the potential of such technology is horrifying. While the most secure phone option in China is an overseas iPhone, these have been banned by all government bodies and affiliated organisations – a decision aimed at facilitating surveillance under the guise of patriotism.

 The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023

A Loyal Empire

Xi Jinping’s regime is imposing a concentration of power unprecedented since Mao’s era. This communist empire demands not just loyalty, but absolute allegiance from its members. Figures like the recently deceased former Premier Li Keqiang, known for their more liberal stances on society and the economy, have been conspicuously absent from the new cabinet for a year.

With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier. In various government bodies and affiliated institutions, such as banks and universities, advanced AI-embedded cameras are being employed to analyse people’s facial reactions. These sophisticated systems scrutinise subtle changes in lips, noses, chins, eyes, and eyebrows to infer individuals’ emotions – admiration, confusion, indifference, or even dissent. The leap from mere “facial recognition” to “mind reading” is deeply troubling.

A Growth Mirage

China’s economy is facing severe challenges. Despite optimistic forecasts for a robust recovery following China’s post-COVID reopening at the end of 2022, the reality in 2023 has been starkly different.

Stock Market: In contrast to the significant gains in global share markets in 2023, with the US up by 24.2%, the Eurozone by 15.7%, and Australia by 7.8%, China’s stock market has seen a decline, down by 11.4%.

Property Market: The real estate sector, once a cornerstone of China’s economic growth, has seen a decline of 20-30% across most major cities. In cities like Shanghai, luxury properties have seen even steeper declines of 30-40%. This downturn is more pronounced in smaller cities experiencing a net population outflow. Additionally, a report in August 2023 indicated that the vacancy rate in 28 major cities was at 12%. (For comparison, Australia’s vacancy rate was recorded at 1.02% in October 2023.)

Local Government Debts: Local governments need to repay a record US$651 billion in bonds in 2024. The deep property slump is reducing their ability to generate income from land sales, which is a crucial revenue source. The slowdown in the broader economy has also affected their tax revenue. Growing concerns about potential defaults could trigger a widespread economic crisis.

Spending: Although people are still showing off with travelling photos on popular Chinese social media platforms, overall spending has reduced significantly, leading to the phenomenon termed “selfie travel.” A friend, whose business has suffered a significant downturn, satirically remarked, “I used to shop at Hermes, but now I shop at Uniqlo.”

With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier.

Youth Unemployment: The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023, leading to the government’s decision to cease publishing the data. The last official youth unemployment rate was over 20%. This trend is attributed to a slowing economy and a mismatch between graduates’ skills and job market demands, as well as their expectations and “lying flat” attitudes, which pose serious implications for social and political unrest.

Baby Boom Bust

China’s future is increasingly influenced by a significant demographic issue: its declining birth rate. In early 2023, China experienced its first decline in birth rates in 60 years, a trend that only intensified as the year progressed. Despite policy shifts from the One-Child to the Two-Child and later the Three-Child policies, young families remain reluctant to have more children. This trend, along with minimal population growth, threatens to strain social security systems, potentially leading to a critical tipping point.

Conclusion

While numerous factors, such as potential war with Taiwan and evolving political and economic relations with Western countries, play a role in shaping China’s future, the areas discussed here are particularly significant. The increasing reliance on surveillance, a heightened emphasis on ideological conformity, and a declining population, point towards significant difficulties ahead. Though Xi Jinping, persistently criticised for lacking the capability to advance China’s progress, remains the unchallenged supreme leader, China is in urgent need of a new Deng Xiaoping—a true reformist—to take the country back onto the right track.

(Don’t) Be Your Own Boss

By ‘closing the loopholes’, Labor ultimately seeks to undermine self-employment, casual employment and competition, Libertarians must take note. 

November 17 2023 The scene is the 2023 HR Nicholls Society conference in North Sydney; the speaker is Ken Phillips; the topic: Federal Labor’s ‘Closing the Loopholes’ bill. 

Phillips is unassuming, plainly dressed, but he means business. In a conference otherwise dominated by partisan interests and the society’s own history, he cuts through with a powerful and practical message. Having dissected and analysed all 274 pages of the ‘Loophole’ bill and written his own submission (on behalf of Self-Employed Australia [SEA]), he has been in regular contact with the crossbench, who Labor currently relies on to pass legislation. 

Ken Phillips

Phillips was optimistic then, satisfied that the crossbench were heeding his call for caution and discernment over the prevailing narrative. But it was not to last; Senators David Pocock and Jackie Lambie combined to split, then pass, the first tranche of the bill, including concerning new provisions that escalate the power of union delegates. But the worst is yet to come.

Subject to an inquiry this year, the remainder of the bill seeks to undermine commercial contracts, create strict pre-conditions that define ‘casual’ employees, and effectively prevent workers from being their own boss. 

The loophole bill relies on the rhetoric of exploitation: pitting workers against employers and removing agency from consenting participants in the ‘gig economy’. 

90% of people working for digital gig platforms are also employed elsewhere.

The reality is quite different – I should know, having been a contract worker and a casual for much of my working life. These reforms in fact represent a direct attack on my livelihood. 

Keep it casual

As Phillips demonstrates in his analysis of wages by employee type, casual workers are financially better off on an hours-worked basis to the tune of about 6% (more if you consider the higher super contributions). What’s more, being a casual employee allows for the worker to ramp up or down their hours, take on a different employer and maintain flexibility much more readily – something I made use of as a student particularly.  

Businesses also require flexibility to operate effectively in the marketplace, as demand and staffing requirements fluctuate. The loopholes bill creates stringent regulations on how an employee can be considered casual. This will simply disincentivise businesses from hiring staff as employers will have fewer options to reduce their wage liability when business is slower. 

Fixed contracts

Contract and self-employed workers are also in the sights of Labor and the unions. The proposed legislation coins a new term – ‘employee like’ – to describe self-employed workers. This means self-employed workers will be subject to the industrial relations system, undermining the nature of commercial contracts between consenting parties. 

As a contract worker myself, I do not miss the IR system. My generous employers allow me paid leave entitlements anyway, and I can readily work for an employer based anywhere in the world, making my own choices with regards to super contributions.  

Pitting workers against employers and removing agency from consenting participants in the ‘gig economy’.

Getting a gig

A major objective of the loophole bill is supposedly to protect workers from exploitation in the ‘gig economy.’ The reality is quite different: well over 90% of people working for digital gig platforms are also employed elsewhere – they are ‘hustlers’, earning top-up income outside of regular employment.

There are concerns for market competition too. By eliminating self-employed workers from the marketplace, large operators in industries such as transport and construction will face less competition. How this market concentration will benefit workers and consumers, or is consistent with Labor’s message to voters, I cannot reconcile.  

An unlikely union

It is a good deal for those large operators though, and it’s an especially good deal for the unions, perhaps revealing the true motivations behind this bill. Trade union membership has dwindled for decades, and the availability of flexible or casual work has further undermined their influence. 

By forcing all workers into employment contracts subject to IR law, the unions can once again wield significant influence. Large employers can collude with these unions and suppress competition, diluting the influence of smaller or independent players in their respective industries. 

The big loser is of course the workers, who lose flexibility in their employment arrangements, are forced to work in industries dominated by a few large players, and are financially less well off if they are casual. 

It is truly a sad state of affairs that the party of workers would propose such a bill, but it is characteristic of Australian politics, long divorced from the interests of common workers.
Further reading: https://selfemployedaustralia.com.au/be-your-own-boss/

University River

In William Blake’s hymn Jerusalem, the phrase ‘those dark Satanic mills’ was assumed to refer to the cotton and woollen mills of his time and their terrible working conditions.  

Based on the date of the hymn and Blake’s religious background, many question whether he was referring to the Dickensian factories and cotton mills at all, but rather to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Blake was scathing of universities. He loathed them. He saw them churning out, factory-like, a new godless world. 

“I will not cease from mental fight”, he writes in a subsequent verse. 

These elite establishments, he considered, were incapable of mental fight.

Fast forward to December 2023 and United States Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asking a number of University Presidents at a Congressional hearing whether “calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?”

Staggeringly, each of the University Presidents – including Harvard University President Claudine Gay – refused to answer in the affirmative, saying only, “When speech crosses into conduct, we take action.”

“It would depend on the context,” she added.

In other words, only when Jews are actually murdered would the university step in!

The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful.

Similar responses were given by the other University Presidents, which would no doubt be mirrored by responses from some of Australia’s elite universities were they to be asked the same question.

‘Satanic’. ‘Incapable of mental fight’. Exactly what Blake was referring to.

The above exchange is what one might call a ‘shibboleth’.

In his excellent book Blink!, Malcolm Gladwell describes how it is possible to weigh up situations in the ‘blink’ of an eye.

In other words, how to make good decisions in an instant by doing what he calls ‘thin slicing’. Thin slicing can be likened to slicing a big salami, and no matter how thinly you slice it, everything you want to know about the whole salami is in that one slice.

Often you don’t have time to study or research an organisation or a person; you have to analyse what is going on by finding that ‘thin slice’. That shibboleth.

Shibboleth is a Hebrew word meaning ‘stream.’ It is referred to in the Old Testament book of Judges, where Jephthah and the men of Gilead fought the Ephraimites and captured the Jordan River crossing. As people crossed the river, to distinguish who was friend from foe, they had everyone say the word ‘shibboleth’. If they couldn’t pronounce it properly, they knew they were the enemy. From this, the word shibboleth was absorbed into the English language to describe a key identifier or a dead give-away. 

What we saw in the University Presidents’ exchange was that dead give-away.

Jewish Liberal MP Julian Leeser has said: “I go back to the universities because this is the cauldron where it all starts.”

Julian Leeser

The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful. A recent scorecard on incidents of anti-Semitism in Australian universities found that in the last year there had been 56 incidents of anti-Semitism at the University of Sydney, 49 at the University of NSW, 17 at the University of Technology Sydney, 9 at Macquarie University, 7 at the University of Melbourne, and 6 at Monash University. 72 per cent of those surveyed said experiences of anti-Semitism had worsened since the Hamas attack of October 7.

Part of the explanation for this lies with Gramsci’s long march through the institutions to impose Marxist thinking – beginning with the universities. It is where formative minds are indoctrinated. 

Once out of university, these graduates disperse into other key institutions – the law, politics, media, business – where Marxist ideology soon takes hold.

It was once the case that occupations such as nursing, teaching and journalism were learned ‘on the job’ – on the hospital ward, in the classroom, doing the rounds of the courts – supplemented by part-time study. Journalism, in particular, was considered more of a trade than a profession. 

Not anymore. Now, they all go to university first. 

Calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?

Sometimes, when a regime has been in place for a very long time, it is not possible to break through that system.  Over time, institutions – such as the public service or the industrial relations system or higher education – become adept at building up defences and seeing off zealous reformers. 

The only option is to break with it

Employers should be encouraged to hire students with the appropriate aptitude straight from high school and facilitate their continued education in the form of part-time study at industry-specific places of higher learning.

I myself was recruited straight from high school into a materials testing and research laboratory.

Similarly, sponsored employment traineeships and cadetships could be rolled out across all sectors, so as to by-pass the toxic environment that our universities have become.  

Let me finish with a story.

A group of hikers was out walking when they chanced upon a river. Their attention was suddenly drawn to a number of young people in difficulties being carried downstream by the river’s strong current. 

The hikers immediately jumped into the river and started rescuing the youngsters.

As they pulled them out, they noticed that more and more young people were being swept towards them. 

As more youngsters appear, one of the hikers climbed out of the river.

“Where are you going?”, asks one of the other hikers.

“I’m going upstream to find out who is throwing all these kids in the river!”, he replied.

The universities are the river. We have to stop our young ones being thrown in.

Capturing The Glory Undeservedly

Somehow, the West has gotten into a real twist about identity, especially that of minorities. In the name of justice for minorities, identity is being used to undermine equality and liberty. Minority group identity has become a weapon to be wielded against the alleged privileges of the majority. The result is that common humanity and individual freedoms are being undermined. More insidiously, merit is being forgotten.

Much of the work on behalf of minorities has come subsequent to their success. Liberalism was their friend. It may have taken longer than, for example, white working-class people to succeed, but they got there or are well underway. Identity campaigns are not helping anyone except the elite of the minorities trying to capture more of the spoils. 

For example, the University of Technology Sydney announced in 2018 that it intended to build a First Nations College. Fortunately, it has not progressed too far: the 2018 announcement that it would open in 2023 remains unfulfilled. It is a pity Monash University had no Working Class College when I attended in the 1970s. I could have avoided those middle-class private school wankers by hanging around with grunters from my old suburb. Well, those that made it to university. 

Let the heat die and ensure proper processes to hear matters in the cool light of day.

It is true that other identities, such as Catholics and Anglicans, built university colleges, but they mostly raised their own money and had a deep history of scholarship. There are women’s colleges too, but these, like single-sex schools, are fading.

The aim of the UTS college, it said, was to help ‘forge a more inclusive society’. By separating one race from others? Mind you, race is a bit of a stretch. The students most likely to attend would be from the suburbs and probably the children of intermarried parents; in other words, they are highly integrated – think Pearson, Langton, Davis, Behrendt, etc. 

Aboriginal and working class students are not so successful as a group, but those who are bright can and do make it. That is the point. Others may not want to attend, preferring to follow in their parent’s footsteps, where TAFE beckons and practical skills can be acquired that are less susceptible to identity propaganda. Even a Labor Prime minister has woken up to free fees for TAFE.

The UTS college also claims its purpose is ‘to remove the real and perceived barriers that prevent Indigenous participation in higher education and the broader economy.’ They made it to university on merit, didn’t they? The rest is up to them, or should be, unless they are to be cossetted forever. The fear of segregated colleges (UTS says they will allow some non-indigenous students) is that they discourage integration and shun inclusion.

According to Pluckrose’s Social Injustice, identity politics emerged in the 1960s within the broader manifestation of postmodernism. Postmodernism emerged in academia as a philosophy that questioned everything. It is so sceptical that it does not believe in objective truth or knowledge, believing everything, even knowledge, is corrupted by politics and political power. It opened the door to identity as a powerful tool to undermine common humanity, individual freedom, and merit. 

Minority group identity has become a weapon to be wielded against the alleged privileges of the majority.

A more prosaic explanation of identity politics is that of Mounk’s The Identity Trap. He explains that the Left was lured by collective action against the majority, where, despite the triumph of liberalism, minorities were marginalised. And yet, the minorities only had to wait; liberalism was their saviour. Actions such as a First Nations College come after the triumph of liberalism. It is an attempt by successful Aborigines to capture more power and glory undeservedly.

The antidote to the evils of postmodernism and identity politics is, of course, liberalism. Pluckrose appeals to secularism’s principle: ‘In a secular society, no one should be punished for rejecting religion or any other ideology.’ In other words, stop the cancel culture gig. The former President of Harvard University, Professor Gay, resigned because she was the culmination of cancel culture. When pressed by a Congressional committee on virulent anti-Israel protests on her campus, she defended the cancel mob. Simple direct questions from a single Republican representative outed her. 

Mounk recommends that leaders cultivate a spirit of tolerance of ideas; for example, when racist accusations are made, he recommends no discipline until the facts are clear. That seems obvious, but the rush to judgment fuels the fire. Let the heat die and ensure proper processes to hear matters in the cool light of day. Don’t allow craven editors and the X (Twitter) mob to be the judge. Gay was forced out not because she wanted to let things settle before acting against anti-Semitic hate speech but because she was in a vanguard that selected students on race and brooked no demur from those in the hate speech camp.

Essentially, there are no ‘identity’ ideas, just ideas. Joining in this crusade for liberalism, our group, Close the Gap Research, is working to uncover one of the engine rooms of the identity industry as it manifests in Aboriginal politics. We are reviewing the qualifications of professors who claim Aboriginal heritage. We are also analysing Reconciliation Action Plans where organisations profess to do good but instead reinforce separate identities and undervalue the contribution of people as employees: workers. Now, there’s an old-fashioned idea.

Gary Johns is chair of Close the Gap Research and author of The Burden of Culture.

Popular Posts

My Favorites

Welcome To Warburton, Where Yes Is A Death Sentence

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...