Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 17

Go Where You Are Treated Best

By
Damon Hayhow
-
2

‘Go where you are treated best’ is the tagline of entrepreneur, Andrew Henderson, founder of the business Nomad Capitalist. Andrew and his team help entrepreneurs, retirees and others move their lives out of countries like Australia to countries where they will be treated best. It is a business that has being growing exponentially in recent years.

When I first heard Andrew speak those six words during the earliest days of the Covid sham, it hit me like a power-slap from Mike Tyson. What the hell was I still doing in Australia? For years I thought I had been fighting to build small businesses. But I had not; I could do business just fine. I had a bunch of great products and services in an interesting niche. I liked my customers, and my customers liked me. The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it. The reality was Australia no longer treated me well, let alone best.

The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments. 

“We crush many a dream around [here]” was proudly proclaimed to me by an officer of Melbourne’s Stonnington Council when I applied for a permit to open a simple, small business. He also bragged how new laws rendered thousands of commercial properties “completely unlettable”. Sadly, the only thing shocking about his statements was his candor. His malicious and malignant attitude towards honest citizens, small business operators and the future success of the country was what I had come to expect from Australian bureaucrats.

Being an unwilling participant in an abusive relationship with local government was only part of the problem. The bigger problem was the direction of the country as a whole.

The absolutely disgusting and immoral human rights abuses orchestrated by the Victorian Government, media and law enforcement during the Covid sham was not an aberration. Nor was the Victorian public’s willing complicity. It was unequivocal proof of the direction society had been headed.

So what is a patriotic Australian supposed to do? Vote? For whom? Protest? And get shot with rubber bullets or sprayed with mace for not supporting the Government-approved message? Exercise your free-speech online? And get arrested in your home, in front of your kids, even if you are pregnant? Or have your government-permission to practice your profession cancelled? Or have your bank accounts frozen? 

Australia does not have a bill of rights. You have no legislated right to free speech or right to protest. The Government could not care less about having signed the international treaty for human rights. Their Covid shenanigans proved that unequivocally.

When democracy has been hijacked, like it has been in much of the so-called “free world”, your most powerful option is to vote with your feet and go where you are treated best. If enough people leave, the people and government left behind will be forced to change, to stem further losses and attract good people back. If they do not change, the country will fail as their beliefs and policies were destined to anyway.

The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it.

Unfortunately, for most people leaving is not an option. The nature of most people’s vocations, businesses, finances and/or families makes leaving all but impossible. There will always be people who have no option but to stay and fight against bad governments. But that does not mean staying and fighting is noble; in most cases throughout history, staying to fight your own government has been a terrible option.

For the few people who can move their lives and business elsewhere in the world, they owe it to themselves and their country to go where they are treated best. It is not weak or cowardly, as many jealous people will say. Nothing is harder than leaving family and a lifetime of friends, to face the uncertainty of restarting life in a new country. But it can be the most patriotic thing you can do; not to mention cathartic, enlightening and positively life changing. 

Join Mailing List

A country is not its government. Being so disgusted and disillusioned with a government that you move says nothing about your feelings toward the country or its people. The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments. 

Australians are lucky to be welcomed all over the world. Wherever you go, you will always be Australian (or whatever nationality you are). If you go where you really are treated best, you will almost certainly be more financially, emotionally and spiritually successful than you could have been under the current government in Australia. 

Nomad Capitalist has a website. I recommend taking a look at it.

Unions And Religion

By
Nicholas Samios
-
2

Unions and libertarians disagree about almost everything. However, they do both share one core tenet – the right to “freedom of association”.  Well, maybe not so much anymore.

Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals. It also happens to be a right incorporated in international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  Freedom of association stands as a cornerstone of a free society.

Unions rely on freedom of association for their very existence. Unless workers are free to associate, there can be no unions. 

Finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith.

However, a piece of recent news begs the question as to whether this right is still valued, or maybe even understood, by the union movement.  Or perhaps the left’s war on Christianity gets precedence over one of the union movement’s foundation principles.

Unions are now lobbying the Federal government to legislate to prevent religious schools from hiring teachers on the basis of faith.

For many Christians it is their faith that has led them to libertarianism – for reasons discussed elsewhere on Liberty Itch.  I won’t revisit here that any attack on Christianity is also an attack on our civil liberties.

Not all libertarians are church goers of course (albeit they should seriously consider becoming so). Secular libertarians should be alarmed, nonetheless. The debate over proposed religious discrimination laws in Australia presents a significant point of contention, particularly concerning the principle of freedom of association.

The union movement’s position on this is riddled with hypocrisy.

Firstly, the right to freedom of association also extends to religious organizations, allowing them to maintain their faith-based hiring practices. By pushing to restrict these schools’ hiring autonomy, the trade unions risk undermining the very freedom of association they hold dear.

Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals.

Second, trade unions, which typically advocate for workers’ rights, appear to disregard this idea when it comes to religious schools’ hiring practices. This raises concerns about the consistency of their stance and whether they are applying the same standards to themselves.

Third, while the unions bemoan discrimination implicit (they say) in hiring based on faith, by limiting faith-based schools’ hiring autonomy, they may discriminate against religious individuals who want to work in environments aligned with their beliefs, thus contradicting their own principles of non-discrimination.

Join Mailing List

And finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith. Limiting their ability to hire staff who share their beliefs homogenises the educational landscape and limits diversity of educational options, which is contrary to the principles of a free and open society.

Let’s call it what it is: the trade union movement’s call to prevent faith-based hiring in religious schools is at best the “politics of envy”, and at worst an unprincipled and hypocritical attack on Christianity. Let’s see if state and federal governments have the courage and integrity to resist this push.

Is “Freedom” a Non-Word?

By
Gerardine Hoogland
-
2

The past few years have prompted a more focused view upon the word Freedom and all that it entails. Covid lockdowns along with coercive directives to take a new and warp-speed developed vaccine to “save Grandma” have been at the core of it. 

When I ran as a candidate in Australia’s federal election in 2022 for the United Australia Party, I was one of four freedom candidates vying in my electorate of Lilley. One day on pre-poll, I approached a journalist from one of our major newspapers to ask why we were being ignored by the press, and the public not afforded the opportunity to hear what we had to say. His response was to cast his arm widely over the throng of people lining up on a very wet and wild day to say that we were irrelevant, and that what all those people out there were interested in was only “red” and “blue.” 

We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth. 

After explaining to him why I was standing up for our freedoms and challenged him to tell me why the people didn’t have the right to hear our messages, he told me: “Freedom is a non-word.”

Naturally I disagreed, and the historian in me tried to appeal to his better judgement, given that his own career reflected the freedoms available to him to pursue a path to write and communicate his thoughts and ideas. 

If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans, which was created to ensure the people had a voice and for the three levels of government to remain separate. 

Imagine telling Socrates, the man who questioned everything and who encouraged others to do the same, that the word Freedom meant nothing at all? I doubt he would have needed hemlock to see his last day – the shock would have taken him out.  

Almost four years have gone by since our world changed, and many people have forgotten about the egregious rules and punishments that were handed down from on high. They have proceeded to carry on with their lives, tut-tutting those of us who remind them of just what the government overlords did. 

If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans

Australians are by nature laid back. Sadly, that proved more true than many of us thought possible when the majority knelt before the altar of the Leviathan. 

The future may look grim as we watch our inherent rights taken away from us, but I continue to look to the wisdom and foresight of the ancients as they navigated their own way through the quagmire of tyranny and oppression. We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth. 

Join Mailing List

Because history does matter. And so does freedom.

When the Gauls razed Rome to the ground in 390 BC, the general, Camillus, had to restore faith in the soldiers and the people to continue to defend and believe in their own freedoms. Many wanted to leave the ruins and rubble of their beloved Rome, but Camillus would have none of that, stating:

“Must it be seen that Gauls could tumble Rome to the ground, while Romans are too weak to lift her up again?”

It is my hope that one day soon our nation will wise up enough to do the same heavy lifting which is required to reclaim what is rightfully ours, and what is absolutely a word unto itself – Freedom.

Don’t Pay the Pied Piper

By
James Hol
-
2

More than anything, government is incompetent. It is staffed by people who, by and large, have been or would be unsuccessful in the private sector – whether the receptionist at your local motor registration office or the Prime Minister of Australia.

Ultimately, we are aware of this. However, thanks in part to television programs such as The West Wing and House of Cards, we simultaneously believe the government is comprised of savant-level masters of psychoanalysis and manipulation.

THE MARKETPLACE OF GOVERNMENT

Perhaps one of the biggest tactical failings of libertarians and anarchists is the tendency to view the government as one cohesive and comprehensive entity. While it is true that most Western governments are behemoths, they are not homogenous. Rather, they are comprised of a number of disparate departments competing for their slice of tax revenue. 

Good leaders should be able to admit their faults and avoid acting on emotion

Both libertarians and authoritarians like to think that government departments work in tandem, sharing relevant information and working together to overcome an obstacle or bring down the ‘bad guy’.

While they do undoubtedly work together at times, we should all be very hesitant to assume that is typical. Often, it is in the interests of the self-serving bureaucrats who lead various government departments to work against other departments. 

What is better for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) than to prove the incompetence of the Department of Home Affairs? If you were a self-serving bureaucrat at DFAT, you could leverage that to demand more scope, which means more funding, a bigger empire, and perhaps more money in your pocket.

INCOMPETENCE BEFORE CONSPIRACY

Whenever we are presented with government inconsistencies, we should always consider incompetence before conspiracy. That is not to say that government conspiracies do not exist, but the level of expertise required to pull off many of the conspiracies posited is something that is simply not possible for the incompetent people who have comprised our governments for many decades.

When attempting to determine the likelihood of a conspiracy theory being true, it is always worth examining:

  1. The number of co-conspirators required.
  2. The profit or benefit for the conspirators.
  3. The use of unfalsifiable statements and arguments.
  4. The deliberate misinterpretation of events.
  5. The excessive use of baseless arguments.
  6. The number of assumptions required.
  7. The false messiah.

It is true that most Western governments are behemoths, they are not homogenous. 

THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I 

Even when we look at recent Covid tyranny, the most likely culprit is old-fashioned pride. While homegrown tyrants like Dan Andrews and Mark McGowan do not deserve to ride off into the sunset of retirement without facing the accountability of the people, that does not mean they were motivated by a global conspiracy to imprison their own constituents and usher in a social-credit-style system at the behest of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Occam’s razor dictates that their real fault was the inability to detach their own pride and ego from the policy they prescribed. We all find it difficult to reverse our instinctive position and admit that we were wrong. 

This does not excuse tyranny; good leaders should be able to admit their faults and avoid acting on emotion, but it is important we recognise the banal origins of tyrannical behaviour. We are all capable of extreme tyranny.

THE RABBIT HOLE

All this is to say that there are some conspiracy theories out there that are ridiculous, yet refuse to die. Flat earth, reptilians, QAnon and fake moon landings are just a few that immediately come to mind. These theories are not only completely ridiculous, but dangerous. They serve to ideologically neutralise those who believe them: instead of directing their investigation towards actual, observable corrupt government and corporate institutions, they are too busy chasing shadows, fighting imaginary adversaries and worshiping false messiahs.

Join Mailing List

What have any of these conspiracy theorists actually accomplished? Have they created a thinktank that has shaped public policy? Have they run a successful candidate? Have they meaningfully gained influence and shaped culture? Have they captured a single reptilian? Have they found real evidence demonstrating the earth is flat? Have they proven anything? All they have achieved is increased sales of their “natural remedies” they advertise.

Julian Assange and Edward Snowden showcased actual government corruption and exposed real conspiracies in their entirety. Meanwhile, when it comes to grifters like Ricardo Bossi or Q, the revelation is always “just around the corner”.

Challenging narratives and thinking critically isn’t just about calling out corporatist media propaganda and government corruption, but also the grifters within our own movements.

Curse of The Planner

By
Bob Day
-
1

In her excellent book The Siberian Curse, British-American author Fiona Hill describes how the settlement of Siberia in the twentieth century and the mass movement of people and industry into this vast region by central planners lie at the root of many of Russia’s contemporary problems.

Central planning – whether geo-political, social, urban or economic – has caused many a disaster.

Examples abound around the world, but allow me to cite a local one.

Worst of all, it puts home ownership out of the reach of those on low and middle incomes. 

A number of years ago, I bought a block of land on a very busy main road in one of Australia’s capital cities.  I submitted plans to the local council to build 12 semi-detached home units on the land and, as the zoning allowed for such a development, I didn’t expect any problems. That was of course until I came up against the Council Town Planner who said he’d recommend the development be approved “subject to the provision of noise attenuation devices” across the front of the property (noise attenuation is a fancy name for sound-proofing).  I tried to point out that there were thousands of kilometres of main roads with many thousands of dwellings fronting these main roads and it all seemed to work quite well without ‘sound attenuation’. I also told him that the project was actually geared towards older people, many of whom prefer the noise of traffic and pedestrians chatting as they said it made them feel safer than in some quiet back street or cul-de-sac.  But he was having none of it. He wanted his noise attenuation devices.  

Naturally, I tried the commercial argument that people who didn’t like noise wouldn’t buy into the project and that the market would sort it out.  But for reasons known only to town planners but obscure to common sense, he rejected all my pleas, and I had an acoustic engineer design a front fence to assist with noise attenuation.  But no sooner had I finished the job than the Royal Society for the Deaf bought all the units – every single one of them.  I showed the planner the contract and he couldn’t even see the funny side of it. 

Ludwig von Mises, one of the most notable economists and social philosophers of the 20th century, observed:

Ludwig von Mises

‘The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans.  Planners aim at one thing only:  the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of their own plans.’

National, State and Local government planners now infiltrate our lives at every turn. 

Take the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), for example, the nation’s main economic planner.

The RBA has over 1,500 staff and as well as its headquarters in Sydney, has offices in London, New York and Beijing. 

The RBA basically has one main task – to control inflation. As we know, inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods and services. When governments contribute to this by running deficits, the RBA is there to put up interest rates and make the government feel the pain of their spending. In recent years, however, the RBA did not do this. In fact, in spite of record deficit-spending, former RBA Governor Philip Lowe said in 2021 the bank would be keeping interest rates low until at least 2024! 

Central planning – whether geo-political, social, urban or economic – has caused many a disaster.

Since then it has raised interest rates 14 times in an attempt to bring inflation under control, in effect shifting the inflation burden to consumers – particularly low-income consumers – through price rises. 

One can also trace the current housing affordability crisis back to the RBA when it similarly refused to admit it made a mistake with its submission to the 2003 Productivity Commission Inquiry into First Home Ownership. The Bank’s focus on demand stimulators (capital gains tax, negative gearing, low interest rates, etc. – all Federal matters) and not supply factors had a huge influence in shaping the Productivity Commission’s findings. 

Join Mailing List

As we now know, the RBA overlooked the real source of the affordability problem – the unwillingness by State governments to release more land for new housing and urban planners’ obsession with urban densification, an idea that has failed all over the world. Whether it’s traffic congestion, air pollution, the destruction of bio-diversity or the unsustainable pressure on electricity, water, sewage, or stormwater infrastructure, urban densification has been a disaster. Worst of all, it puts home ownership out of the reach of those on low and middle incomes. 

As von Mises observed, the step between planner and dictator is not as big as some might think. When their plans are rejected, planners become indignant, and instead of adjusting their plans to suit the people who have rejected their ideas, they seek ways to enforce their will on the people. The inner authoritarian is revealed.

China’s Dystopia II: The Digital Panopticon

By
Warren Wang
-
2

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

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

The Illusion of Convenience Over Privacy

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

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

Surveillance: Beyond the Physical Realm

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

Digital Dystopia: A Double-Edged Sword

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

The Perils of a Cashless Society and Social Credit

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

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

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

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

Rethinking Freedom in a Digitally Connected World

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

Join Mailing List

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

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

The Lure of Government Benevolence

By
David Leyonhjelm
-
3

Why is it that in many countries, including Australia, governments consistently spend more than they collect in taxes, thus increasing the national debt? 

Most governments understand that budgets should be balanced. They have seen what happens in countries that accumulate too much debt and cannot service it. And yet, the debt keeps growing. 

The explanation is rather uncomfortable for many of us. It is, broadly speaking, our own fault. We keep electing governments that reflect our thinking.

There was a time when we largely provided for ourselves. Prior to 1909, for example, there was no age pension; everyone was expected to save for their retirement, directly or via a mutual society. 

The reality of socialism is universal poverty, but the illusion of unlimited, universal care remains powerful.

Similarly, prior to 1910 there was no disability support pension. Privately funded charities and philanthropic organisations provided assistance for the disabled. 

It was the same with health care; Medibank, the precursor to Medicare, did not exist until 1976. 

University fees were a private cost until 1974. There were many scholarships on offer but those who failed to obtain one and whose family was unable to pay the fees would often delay or forego tertiary studies. 

For women returning to work, childcare was typically provided by families, friends and neighbours, or by community organisations such as churches. Government subsidised childcare only began in 2000. 

Most people would probably be disinclined to wind back the clock. And yet, most people also believe that they already pay too much tax and do not wish to pay more. And therein lies the problem. 

In the five years in which I was a senator, I wrote hundreds of articles for newspapers and magazines. The subject on which I received the most hostile feedback was the suggestion that eligibility for pensions should take into account all assets, including the family home. It was inequitable, I argued, that the taxes of those who could not even afford to buy a home were funding the pensions of those living in multi-million-dollar houses. 

I lost count of the number of people who claimed they were entitled to a pension because they had paid taxes during their working life. Many also argued that age pensions were justified because there were parliamentary pensions (although these were abolished in 2004). 

It made me realise that Australians want to have their cake and to eat it too. That is, they want the government to pay for all sorts of services, but do not associate this with taxes. Money from the government is somehow different.  

We keep electing governments that reflect our thinking.

The outcome is that governments implement generous schemes such as the NDIS, age and disability pensions, Medicare, childcare subsidies and HECS, generally to public acclaim, without mentioning where the money is to come from. There are far more votes in spending money than collecting it. 

This presents a problem for libertarians, who advocate low taxes and small government. How can they persuade Australians that the hugely expensive government-run schemes they consider to be a right are either not necessary or could be replaced by something that is cheaper and more effective, if approached differently. 

This same problem is now facing Argentina’s new president, Javier Milei. Although Argentinians elected him with his libertarian agenda, he did not receive a majority of votes and his party does not have a majority in parliament. Argentinians, like Australians, have been told for decades that the government will provide. Like most Australians, most are yet to accept that their expectations are unrealistic. 

Join Mailing List

Unless voters can be persuaded that there is no such thing as free government money, and that personal responsibility yields better results at lower cost, there is little chance governments will implement policies based on that. Even in Argentina, which has defaulted on its national debt no less than eight times, the appetite for economic reality is low. Milei will require the wisdom of Solomon to implement his policies. 

We must hope that he succeeds. The reality of socialism is universal poverty, but the illusion of unlimited, universal care remains powerful. 

Digital Incompetence

By
Jaimie Stevenson
-
2

The Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 (the Digital ID Bill) was passed by the Senate this month. 

According to the government the Digital ID System will address the need for a “secure, voluntary, and inclusive method” to verify Australians online, because “recent cyber incidents” have proven the need for identification to be “reliable”. Somehow, this is all said without the slightest hint of irony. 

Just last year the story emerged that the government’s flagship Digital Identification system, ‘myGov’, had been ‘hacked’ to the tune of over half a billion dollars. Fraudsters claimed $557 million from the Australian Tax Office (ATO) by creating false myGov accounts and linking them to the tax files of 8100 genuine taxpayers. They replaced the bank details of real people and businesses with their own.

This ‘recent cyber incident’ did indeed prove the need for identification to be secure and reliable. It also proved that government is not the organisation to make it so. 

But this example of the government’s profound lack of competence with information technology is not isolated or rare. The government’s track record of implementing reliable and secure digital infrastructure projects could only be described as appalling. 

How can the government claim that its digital identification system will be voluntary and inclusive when it has been knowingly acting unlawfully with identification for years?

Who can forget when Queensland Health tried to implement a new payroll system? They blew their budget by 20,000%, costing Queensland taxpayers an astonishing $1.2 billion and requiring 1,000 new staff to manually manage the payroll. The independent inquiry described the debacle as “the worst failure in public administration in Australian history”.

Then there was the disastrous Robo debt scheme. The Australian government tried to build a system to detect welfare fraud and overpayments. 443,000 Australians were abused and wrongly accused of fraud or Centrelink debts. Some were so distressed by the abuse they took their own lives. There was a class action lawsuit resulting in a $1.8billion pay-out from the government. The debacle led to a Royal Commission which described Robo debt as a “human tragedy”. 

Then there is the $1.5 billion My Health Record project. The former head of the project, Paul Shelter, famously said he would opt-out of the My Health Record system that he himself was responsible for building because of the poor security model. He disliked that your private and personal data can be accessed for reasons of public revenue. He said that the poor security, along with the way people were being signed up (without their express consent) was “symptomatic of the way government handles IT”. The National Audit Office confirmed recently that My Health Record still fails to appropriately manage cybersecurity risks. 

With a resume of disasters like these, how can we be expected to trust the government to build a secure and reliable digital identification system? The centrepiece of the system – myGov – has already been hacked successfully.

But the demonstrable lack of trustworthiness of the government with regard to digital identification extends beyond incompetence. The Government has for years been unlawfully using identity verification services without any legislative basis in breach of their own privacy laws. A Senate inquiry heard that the Document Verification Service has been used over 140 million times by approximately 2,700 government agencies and industry organisations. That was just in the past year alone. 

443,000 Australians were abused and wrongly accused of fraud or Centrelink debts.

In addition, the Face Verification Service was used 2.6 million times. Senator Shoebridge stated that “The conclusion that pretty much every stakeholder has drawn is that the current identity verification services procedure is unlawful and, in the absence of any statutory underpinning, is open to legal challenge”.

He warned that the government was facing “potentially significant civil damages” that could be “aggravated by the fact that they continue to operate a service knowing full well that it is unlawful, and in breach of the privacy laws”. 

The newly passed legislation is clearly a case of the Government giving itself legal permission to do what it has been doing unlawfully. Digital Rights Watch told Senators that the government was now retrofitting a legislative foundation to an existing set of practices and rushing the Bill through to protect itself from liability. The Law Council of Australia also criticised the use of these services without any laws underpinning it.

Join Mailing List

How can the government claim that its digital identification system will be voluntary and inclusive when it has been knowingly acting unlawfully with identification for years? The long history of catastrophically botched digital infrastructure projects prove that we absolutely cannot trust in the government’s competence. But its equally appalling record of disregarding privacy and identity – to the point of ignoring its own laws – prove that it cannot be trusted with our privacy or personal information at all.

Big Announcement For Liberty Itch

By
Kenelm Tonkin
-
4

Today is my last day as Publisher.

With the dedication of many classical liberals and libertarians, Liberty Itch has now grown to the point of needing someone full-time in the role.

What started 433 days ago as my personal Substack is now Australia’s first and only libertarian daily, a stimulating and thought-provoking online magazine boasting sixteen magnificent libertarians, among them former ministers, Productivity Commission members, senators, party leaders, economists, lawyers, historians, doctors, entrepreneurs and human rights activists.

At the time of publishing this, there are 210 compelling articles. Reflecting the dangerous overreach of government in our times, Liberty Itch has focused heavily on personal liberty and economics. Afterall, we want government out of our bank accounts and out of our private lives.

Liberty Itch has dissected legislation and scrutinised budget expenditure. We’ve poked-fun at sluggish agencies and celebrated electoral wins. Liberty Itch has fearlessly held the torch to the feet of those who steal our money and trample our civil liberties. And we’ve interviewed Nobel Prize nominees and chased MPs from corruption-inducing relationships.

In the midst of these battles and as I recruited more writers, the back-office burden grew. I was pleased to appoint an Editor in former Senator David Leyonhjelm to alleviate some time. Searching for the next growth steps, I appointed Peter Leech as Strategy and Planning Advisor. A eureka moment with him saw me alleviate another 15 hours a week on article artwork and layout. We now have Vikas Sharma as Curation Designer.

We established a New Zealand desk to extend our reach.

Let’s shape our future direction together, now with a full-time Publisher at the helm.

Liberty Itch is read by Australian and New Zealand libertarians, naturally. However, the readership now penetrates the United States, India, Georgia, China, the United Kingdom, UAE, France, Canada, Singapore, South Korea and many other countries. It boasts an aggregated monthly reading time in excess of 100 hours. Not bad for short, punchy 3-minute articles!

For the new Publisher, there will be further iterations of functional delegation required to make Liberty Itch a permanent fixture on the political landscape, including in the areas of subscriptions, advertising, distribution, additional contributor recruitment, TV show and merchandising.

I’m confident however that a sound base has been established. This 433-day entrepreneurial act and the 83 articles I’ve written are my contributions to the movement.

Liberty Itch will flourish best if the next phases are navigated by someone full-time, if only a person could be found.

I have identified and recruited that person.

In order to maximise the success of our mission to promote libertarianism, I’m pleased to announce that I have sold Liberty Itch to former Senator Bob Day AO who will assume the role of Publisher full-time from 12 noon ACDT today, 22 December 2023 with my blessing and full support. 

What started 433 days ago as my personal Substack is now Australia’s first and only libertarian daily

I initiated a first meeting with Bob Day so we could negotiate preferences in our respective capacities as party presidents, I for the Libertarians and he for the Australian Family Party. We instantly hit it off. I shouldn’t have been stunned to discover on walking into his office that it housed a 2,000+ volume private library on libertarianism. His pedigree as an economic liberal is well-established. Bob served as a senior office-bearer of the H.R.Nicholls Society and also the Centre for Independent Studies, both libertarian think-tanks. He was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for his services to the housing industry and, much to the chagrin of the Left, for social welfare. And his commitment to Liberty Itch has been unwavering, beginning as a writer near the start of our journey and now committing his energies full-time to the top job.

Please make Bob feel welcome as he takes the reins.

A particular thank you to former Senator David Leyonhjelm. Not only is David the Editor of Liberty Itch but, in this capacity, he is coaching the next generation of libertarian writers. At times, that is challenging. It’s not easy to push back on volunteer writers. Self-reflection is hard at the best of times, but best when facilitated by a willing and experienced mentor. Thank you David.

And a very special mention to our Chairman, Andrew Allen. Andrew is a lifelong friend and business partner. He has carefully scrutinised my Liberty Itch work and provided countless hours of governance and IT support since launch to this transition of ownership. Liberty Itch would never have emerged were it not for Andrew.

Join Mailing List

I will continue to write for the publication I founded and love. 

There is much to do. The socialists and jihadists, identitarians and the woke are circling. Conservatives do not have the answers. As FA Hayek said, “The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.”

Let’s shape our future direction together, now with a full-time Publisher at the helm.

Exciting times.

Onwards and upwards.

Polite Inquiries

By
Max Payne
-
2

Nothing short of a full Royal Commission into the nationwide pandemic response will be satisfactory given the scale of government intervention, the hurt caused, and the economic and social legacy it has left on Australia.

One of the many well-known rules of politics is that one only calls an inquiry when one is already sure of what it will find. Such was the case in Victoria, when retired judge Jennifer Coate headed the inquiry into Victoria’s bungled Covid hotel quarantine system, a vulnerability which led to months of lockdown across the state. She found that ultimately ‘no one’ was responsible for initiating the conditions under which breaches occurred, which largely revolved around contracted private security being compromised by lack of supervision and infection control training. 

Premier Daniel Andrews took the opportunity to roll his then Health Minister Jenny Mikakos, and the report was able to pinpoint the decision to use contracted private security as a key failing. In the end, two departments blamed each other (a fine was paid from one to another), Andrews apologised and claimed ‘accountability’, and we never quite found out why the police force or ADF were shunned while expensive security contracts were whipped up and tendered with lightning speed. 

Daniel Andrews

So as the Federal Government launches its own inquiry into the Federal response to the Covid 19 pandemic, libertarians, and indeed anyone interested in the truth of these matters, could be forgiven for remaining cynical.  

But it is a disgrace that we may never be able to hold the states accountable for the most egregious government interventions during the pandemic.

For one, this inquiry ought to be a Royal Commission – one that can obtain key documents and communications, and compel witnesses to appear and truthfully answer questions. In Victoria, phone records and key communications were redacted, the inquiry and media focussed solely on only one key decision (or ‘creeping assumption’), and the political damage was very limited.    

As mentioned, an inquiry operates within the confines of what the current government is prepared to expose. In the case of Andrews in Victoria, a few carefully selected heads rolled. With this upcoming Federal inquiry, the goal will undoubtedly be to inflict further damage on former Coalition ministers. 

The terms of reference focus solely on the federal pandemic response, and specifically rules out the ‘unilateral actions of state and territory governments’. Thus, many of the most harmful government interventions and gross acts of bureaucratic inflexibility cannot be examined. 

The language of the terms of reference also fails to mention human rights, and seems fixated on systems, rather than the human cost of the pandemic. I daresay the findings of this inquiry will focus on how government can be improved during a pandemic or emergency, not how it can be minimised.    

One of the many well-known rules of politics is that one only calls an inquiry when one is already sure of what it will find.

We will however have a chance to ruminate on the two years of international border closures and inflexibility on that front. We can shine a light on the secrecy of National Cabinet meetings, the role of the Home Affairs department in suppressing online information, and the role of the ADF at supporting the enforcement of State restrictions. We can also reflect on the Federal Government’s role in communicating to Australians about Covid-19, vaccines, safety assessments and initial restrictions. Finally, perhaps we will have a chance to inspect the economic damage inflicted by the dramatic fiscal response, perform a cost-benefit analysis and review the economic legacy of programs such as JobKeeper, JobSeeker and HomeBuilder. 

Join Mailing List

But it is a disgrace that we may never be able to hold the states accountable for the most egregious government interventions during the pandemic. What of the bureaucratic inflexibility at state borders, which kept families and loved ones apart and even resulted in the deaths of infants? What of the vaccine mandates that drove a wedge between those who ‘consented’ and those who didn’t, inflicting untold social and economic damage in many cases? What of the state-imposed lockdowns which persisted well beyond the initial period of uncertainty and panic in 2020? 

We deserve to have these questions picked over with the finest of combs, and those responsible for unnecessary harm must be held accountable.  

1...161718...38Page 17 of 38

Popular Posts

My Favorites

Labor Betrays Doc Evatt And South Australians

Kenelm Tonkin - 0
For all my life, Australia has been a place where freedoms were safe. In fact, Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, a Labor man of letters, youngest...

Closing The Gap One Child At A Time

Melbourne Man Charged With Foreign Interference Offence

The Liberty Coalition is Finally (T)Here

Popular Categories

© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv