Australian Family Party

Family Matters

Australian Family Party

Standing on the Promises

by

South-Australia-electionAt the Australian Family Party, we have always believed in building a stronger nation — through Defence, Economy, and Family.

What we do:
We stand to protect our nation, rebuild our economy, and support families as the foundation of a strong society.

How we do it:
We advocate for stronger defence and alliances, policies that promote growth through business and innovation, and values that protect and support families — honesty, respect, and responsibility.

Why it matters:
Because the Australia we know, love, and respect is worth safeguarding — for our children and grandchildren. In an uncertain world, we must unite, stand strong, and make sure our voices are heard.

Our last newsletter The Promised Land was very well received, and the momentum is building.

According to Roy Morgan, 17 per cent of Australians believe that the government should do more to support Israel.

A political party in South Australia needs just 4 per cent of the vote to be elected to the Upper House — and once in parliament, we will have the platform to make our case for stronger ties with Israel, and a stronger future for Australia.

To do this, we need good people — specifically, 50 candidates: 47 in the Lower House and 3 in the Upper House.

Being a candidate is not difficult — in fact, it is a great experience. There are no costs involved, and you can contribute as much or as little as you are able.

If standing yourself isn’t possible, perhaps you can encourage a young person who might be considering a political future. Mentorship is vital — without it, we risk leaving the future to career politicians with no conviction.

The good news is, Australians are ready for change. As The Australian recently reported, “Support for minor parties and independents has reached its highest level in at least four years.” The time is right.

Will you stand with us?
If you’re interested in becoming a candidate — or in supporting someone who might be — please get in touch today. Together, we can make sure that Australia remains safe, prosperous, and proud.

If you are interested in becoming a candidate, please contact us here (and choose ‘Federal Director’ as the recipient).

Thank you for your support.

The Promised Land

by

australia-israelA number of years ago, my wife and I visited Israel. We had hired a car and had been driving for a number of hours in northern Israel along the border with Lebanon then through the Golan Heights stopping at a number of Druze villages along the way.

As it was getting late in the afternoon, we thought we’d seek accommodation at the next town which was called Safed (or Zfat in Hebrew).

As we entered this small town, an overwhelming sense of peace and tranquillity came over us and we both commented on what a nice feel the place had.

‘Let’s stop here for a day,’ we said.

We checked a few places along the main road but there was no accommodation anywhere.

We then pulled into a place called The Rimon Inn but alas, it too was fully booked.

We were in Israel, we’d been travelling all day, my wife happened to be pregnant at the time, and there was no room at the inn. It wasn’t Bethlehem and she wasn’t due yet, but something was starting to sound familiar …

Getting desperate, I pleaded with the young lady at the desk saying, ‘We’re really tired, my wife is pregnant, do you have anything at all?’

Feeling a bit sorry for us, she said ‘Well there is an old stone building out the back’.

Smiling, I said ‘It isn’t a stable, is it?’

Understandably, she didn’t get the joke, so I simply said, ‘That will be just fine, thank you’.

And it was, as was the town itself. A delightful village built on the side of a hill. Steps everywhere.

We found out later that Zfat was where the ancient Hebrew prophets gathered. It was the ‘closest place on earth to God’ they said.

In the 77 years since Israel’s independence, the Jewish people have created a State that has become a global technological and entrepreneurial powerhouse.

With a population of barely more than 9 million – by comparison, its neighbour Egypt has 115 million, Iran has 90 million, Iraq 45 million and Saudi Arabia 33 million – Israel has become the Middle East’s superpower.

How did that happen?

First, immediately after leaving high school, all Israelis take part in compulsory military service.

After military service, they take their experiences with them into the private sector – first with their university studies, and then into business. Many highly successful start-up companies in Israel are founded by those who served together in the military. Brilliant.

Warren Buffett, one of the world’s biggest investors, has only ever invested in one country outside of the United States, and that is Israel. When announcing that his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, had paid $2 billion for a 20 per cent stake in Israeli toolmaker Iscar, Buffet said, “Israel reminds me of the United States after its birth. The determination, motivation, intelligence and initiative of its people are extraordinary.”

All of this has been achieved with no natural resources and being surrounded by hostile countries openly committed to wiping it off the map!

Compare that with Australia which has a population of 27 million, bountiful resources and the natural defences of an island continent.

The Australian’s Greg Sheridan says, ‘Australia is a nation in decline. Across every indicator you can imagine – economy, living standards, social cohesion, crime, health, military capability, the creativity and virtuosity of the arts – we’re in serious decline.’

In comparing the two countries, three key factors stand out – defence, the economy and family formation.

On DEFENCE, Australia spends 2 per cent of its GDP, Israel 9 per cent.

On the ECONOMY, Australia forecasts 1.7 per cent growth for 2025, rising to 2.2 per cent in 2026. Israel projects 3.4 per cent growth in 2025, rising to 5.5 per cent.

On FAMILY formation, Australia’s birth rate is 1.5 compared to Israel’s 2.9.

First, defence. It is a given that the first duty of any government must be the defence of the nation.

As has been widely admitted, Australia is currently defenceless. We rely totally on the United States.

And yet Australia has three times Israel’s population, 400 times its landmass and a GDP ($1,800 billion) three times the size of Israel’s ($600 billion).

Resource-hungry China, with its regional aggression and military build-up – particularly its naval force which is now the largest in the world – should send an ominous warning to resource-rich countries like Australia.

As mentioned previously, Israel is its region’s superpower. It knows what it needs and is confident in its ability to meet any challenge – with or without outside help – in one of the toughest neighbourhoods in the world.

Or compare the Middle East to the Far East.

Israel is half the size of Taiwan and has less than half its population but if it was Israel that was located off the coast of China does anyone think for one moment that China would threaten it?

A former chairman of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee reported that the volume of intelligence that the U.S. receives from Israel is greater than that which it receives from all NATO countries combined.

General George Keegan, the former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, said “If we had to gather the intelligence ourselves that Israel gives us, we would have to establish five CIAs!”

Israel’s success lies not in what is beneath the ground but in what is between the ears – and within its heart.

Former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke once said that Israel was ‘… an inspiration, a small, lone democracy in the Middle East’.

Its birth rate, which is double that of Australia, signals a strong belief in its future – and in its past.

The late Jonathan Sacks said, “To defend a country you need an army. But to defend a free society you need families, schools and an educational system in which ideals are passed on from one generation to the next, and never lost, or despaired of, or obscured.”

Israel defends its culture and its way of life.

Having said all that, and notwithstanding these stark contrasts, Australia and Israel have a lot in common, harking back more than a hundred years.

October 31st, 1917, for example, was a pivotal moment in the Middle East Campaign of World War I, where the Australian Light Horse Brigade captured the heavily fortified Ottoman stronghold of Beersheba.

The capture of Beersheba sounded the death knell for the Ottoman Empire’s 400-year occupation of Jerusalem and surrounding territory.

As a result, Beersheba formed a significant historical link between Australia and Israel.

Israel is currently fighting a war defending Western Civilization – which Australia is very much a part of – against an enemy that wants to destroy our civilization.

As always, and against all odds, Israel will win.

As discussed in previous posts here, here and here, Australia – and South Australia in particular, given its similar climate and topography to Israel – would benefit enormously from a much closer relationship with Israel.

South Australia is currently experiencing an ecological disaster caused by a massive outbreak of toxic algae, and neither the State nor the Federal Government seems to have a clue what to do about it.

Israel currently operates five desalination plants along the same length of coastline as the Adelaide side of Gulf St Vincent. Its marine biologists are the smartest in the world. They would have had this problem solved long ago.

But there’s something even more we have in common.

Australia’s Constitution begins with the phrase ‘Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God’ – yes, that’s the God of Israel.

Once again, it is good to be reminded of what Judeo-Christian values have brought to the world – the establishment of schools, universities, hospitals, aged care organisations and welfare agencies. The elevation of women, as well as the abolition of slavery, cannibalism, child sacrifice and widow burning.

It’s been said that one has to go through the wilderness to get to the promised land.

Australia has problems it urgently needs to solve and goals it needs to achieve.

We have spent long enough in the wilderness. It is time to enter the promised land.

On defence, the economy and the family, I stand with Israel.

Accordingly, the Australian Family Party will henceforth be:

BOB DAY’S AUSTRALIA ISRAEL FAMILY PARTY

If you would like to join me and thousands of other like-minded Australians, please JOIN us.

Thank you.

 

 

On Wings of Eagles

by

abortionIn a recent Liberty Itch article on abortion, the clinching argument was that being pro-choice regarding the Covid vaccine made the pro-life position on abortion hypocritical. I disagree.

Although prioritising individual liberty, libertarians also recognise that there is a role for government in protecting individual rights and property. Abortion, which has impacts on the mother, father and unborn child, therefore falls well within the ambit of libertarian discussion.

The matter of vaccination is a largely personal one – doubly so when the vaccine has not undergone normal medical trials to establish safety and efficacy.

Governments chose to indemnify drug companies from any negative outcomes as a result of the use of their Covid vaccines, a move that was as irresponsible as it was outrageous. These decisions further strengthen the argument for personal choice and autonomy.

On the matter of abortion, women indeed have a choice. They can choose to abstain from sex, thus avoiding any pregnancy. Alternatively, they can use contraceptive measures to significantly reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. The argument that a woman’s right to kill her unborn child is ‘empowering’ equates to the use of abortion as a convenient post-conception contraceptive.

The utilitarian argument, using abortion to reduce poverty and suffering, is also unconvincing – summarised neatly in the statement that a woman “should have the right to remove it, just as someone has the right to remove a guest from their property”.

As any property owner knows, removing a squatter or tenant who refuses to pay rent is far from simple, as the law is at pains to protect those who may be vulnerable. Further, any owner who evicted a squatter, tenant or guest while knowing that eviction would lead to their immediate death would surely risk being charged with manslaughter, if not murder.

If the utilitarian position is a reasonable one, then throwing an unwanted pet out of a car in a snowstorm is also perfectly acceptable.

Unsurprisingly, and very fortunately, making anything a crime does attract government coercion. I may not agree with the law, but I do expect the government to enforce any law it passes. On the other hand, as we know all too well, banning something does not mean it does not occur.

The argument that “It is wrong to violate the bodily autonomy of one person to keep another alive” acknowledges that the unborn child is a person. The pro-choice position then seeks to justify the unborn child’s murder on the basis that it violated the ‘individual rights’ of the mother, whose rights outrank the unborn child’s life.

If we are to accept that the ‘rights’ of one individual trump the ‘rights’ or, more importantly, the life of another, then this suggests that a hierarchy of individuals can be established for all individuals in our society. It also means an unborn foetus has the same right to life as the woman in which it is located.

By the same logic, should we kill recidivists to supply life-saving organs to more worthy persons?

Pregnant women can, of course, avoid the impact and responsibility of raising a child by placing the baby up for adoption.

The pro-choice argument for bodily autonomy once the woman has become pregnant also doesn’t hold water.

Imagine a pilot who decides halfway through a flight that they no longer wish to be a pilot, or a surgeon who decides halfway through surgery that they no longer wish to operate.

As a society, we expect people charged with responsibilities to discharge those responsibilities with all due care. A pilot or surgeon is at liberty not to commence a flight or operation, and to cease performing those functions when it is safe to do so. In a similar vein, a pregnant woman is responsible for the safe care of her unborn child and should be obliged to fulfil those responsibilities until that child can be safely delivered to the care of others.

We can all agree that men and women should be able to choose whether or not to have a child, or whether or not to keep a child after birth. What I cannot agree with is ending a child’s life simply because it is convenient for the mother and/or father. Even if the child is conceived as a result of rape or incest, or due to contraceptive failure, convenience is not a sufficient reason.

In South Australia last year, a bill was introduced into the parliament requiring that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy after 28 weeks induce the child alive, not stillborn. After 28 weeks, with proper care, babies are viable outside the womb.

The bill did not prevent women from terminating their pregnancies, it only insisted that the baby be born alive, not euthanized and be born dead.

Presumably, as the woman was planning to abort the child, giving the child to a loving couple to adopt would not be opposed. This would have given rise to a significant number of new adoptions.

The bill was defeated 10 votes to 9 in South Australia’s Upper House.

As a woman’s ‘right to choose’ a termination was not being compromised, why anyone would oppose saving the life of the child when it was going to be aborted anyway is beyond me.

Our laws are distinctly uneven when it comes to the issue of abortion.

On the one hand, they allow mothers to decide the fate of the child without the father’s input. On the other, if the mother decides to continue with the pregnancy, despite the father wanting an abortion, then the father remains responsible for the provision of child support.

In this regard, the silence from pro-choice feminists is deafening.

Personally, I would argue that the entire pro-choice abortion argument is a hypocritical house of cards.

For example, in 2009, a bill called ‘Zoe’s Law’ was introduced into the NSW Parliament that aimed to recognize the death of an unborn child as a separate offence – particularly in cases where the loss of the foetus was caused by a criminal act against the mother.

Named after Zoe Donegan, an unborn child who died in 2009 after her mother, Brodie Donegan, was injured in a car accident caused by a reckless driver, the case sparked debate about whether the legal system adequately addressed the loss of an unborn child in such circumstances.

The bill was eventually watered down and became the ‘Crimes Legislation Amendment (Loss of Foetus) Act 2021’ and is now the operative law in New South Wales for addressing the loss of an unborn child due to criminal acts.

Finally, our society prosecutes people for damaging the eggs of endangered eagles or nesting sites while celebrating human abortions, all while human birth rates continue to fall below replacement rates.

Thank you for your support.

 

Fox and Friends

by

foxIn 1969, former SA Federal MP Bert Kelly was sacked as Minister for the Navy after the Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne collided with America’s USS Frank E Evans in the South China Sea. Ministerial responsibility was interpreted differently in those days.

In 2025, Australia is once again on a collision course with the US, this time over our commitment to defence spending – with China again eerily in the picture.

Putting it bluntly, Australia is not pulling its weight and the Americans, who we rely on to defend us, are not happy.

In fact, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, together with his Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Ambassador to the US Kevin Rudd, seem to be going out of their way to annoy our most important ally.

All have made no secret of the fact that they do not like Donald Trump – or even America for that matter – but do they have to take the opposite side on everything?

It brings to mind those two great books – ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ and ‘How to Lose Friends and Irritate People’.

Albanese and Co. have clearly been reading the wrong book!

What they are doing is downright dangerous.

They are jeopardising the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) agreement which, at present, is our only forward defence plan.

Meanwhile, Chinese warships traverse our waters with impunity.

It is a given that the first duty of any government is the defence of the nation.

However, from the defence of the nation to the Middle East conflict to Russia and Ukraine to Australia’s energy policy and censorship laws, the Albanese government is letting the Trump administration know that we are not on the same page.

In Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Richard Plantagenet (later Richard III) says, ‘How sweet it is to wear the crown.’

Richard covets the crown and expresses his ambition and desire for the throne. He yearns for power and the perceived joys of kingship as he plots against the reigning King Henry.

However, when the question, ‘Where is thy crown?’ is posed to Henry himself, Henry responds that his crown is in his heart, not on his head, symbolizing that true kingship lies not in outward symbols of power but in what the crown represents.

Shakespeare’s insights into human nature and the yearning for power are timeless.

Like Richard Plantagenet, our Prime Minister might be good at getting to the top – be it to the top of a student union or the top of a political party – but once there he has proven himself to be totally unsuited to the role of competent governing.

It’s been said that voters want leadership, they want to be led – “But don’t boss me around,” they quickly add.

The job of a leader isn’t easy, but that’s the whole point.

Anthony Albanese was once asked, ‘Mr Albanese, if you were dictator, what’s the first thing you would do?’

‘Ban social media’, he replied.

How revealing.

That the Prime Minister would ban social media – our most popular means of communication – is brutally authoritarian.

It reminded me of a scene in the movie Oppenheimer in which nuclear scientist Robert Oppenheimer meets with President Harry Truman shortly after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2.

Following his successful testing of the bomb, Oppenheimer was known to have uttered the words, ‘Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds’, a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, a holy scripture from Hinduism.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Oppenheimer told Truman he felt he had ‘blood on his hands’.

Truman angrily responded with the words, ‘The blood is on my hands, not yours. It was me who dropped the bomb, not you’.

With that, the meeting was over, and Truman said he ‘never wanted to see that man again’.

There’s more than a little Oppenheimer in Albanese’s view of himself and the world around him.

There’s an old Greek proverb, ‘The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows only one thing’.

Albanese knows only one thing – politics. It’s all he’s ever done. He’s a hedgehog.

But as we know, the world isn’t made up of just one thing, it is made up of a whole range of competing factors and trade-offs that differ for different people of different ages who live in different places and have different priorities.

Like the ‘crystallised intelligence’ vs ‘fluid intelligence’ paradigm. Crystallised intelligence employs experience and wisdom and knows how the world works. Fluid intelligence knows how to study, learn facts and pass exams. Foxes vs hedgehogs. We’ve all met them.

Harry Truman – a Democrat (America’s version of the Australian Labor Party) was a good President. A Bob Hawke type of President.

Before entering politics, Truman was a soldier and then a shopkeeper. A better understanding of how the world works you wouldn’t get than by owning a shop!

Harry was quite the fox.

The story is told of when Truman was elected President, his former army buddy and shopkeeper partner, Eddie Jacobson, said to him, ‘O Harry, now that you’re President, everyone’s going to start telling you what a great man you are, when you and I both know you ain’t’.

True leaders value the Eddie Jacobsons in their lives.

Anthony Albanese is no Harry Truman – or even a Bob Hawke for that matter.

And Australia is all the poorer for it.

Having said all that, I am consoled by the words of a small child who prayed, ‘Dear God, please look after mummy, and please look after daddy, and please look after my brother and sister and most of all please look after yourself because if anything ever happens to you we’re all going to be in a real mess.’

Thank you for your support.

Life Lessons from Les Mis

by

les-misWhen the great French novelist Victor Hugo was in his 80s, he reflected on his life with the words, “I am like a forest that has been continuously cut down; yet each time I am cut down, the new growth has more life than ever”.

Hugo’s writings reflect his understanding of Biblical truth – that we are ‘continually and always being sanctified’ (Hebrews 10:14).

His epic novel, Les Miserables, embraces themes of crime and punishment, law and grace, sin and repentance, love and redemption.

As most will recall, the main character in the novel, Jean Valjean, is convicted of a petty crime and is imprisoned. He manages to escape before completing his sentence and begins to lead a bitter and resentful life. When he is treated kindly by a local bishop he repays the bishop’s kindness by stealing from him.

He is caught, but instead of pressing charges, the bishop vouches for him and invokes the words of Jesus, telling him to ‘go and sin no more’.

This is grace, unmerited favour, and it has a profound effect on him. His life, having been cut down, re-grows with love and ‘more life than ever’.

Valjean’s antagonist throughout the story is the ruthless and unforgiving policeman, Javert.

As US cleric Bishop Robert Barron puts it, ‘If Valjean represents grace, Javert is the embodiment of the law’ – harsh and unyielding.

Ultimately, Javert, being the proverbial Pharisee, cannot handle Valjean’s act of grace towards him and takes his own life.

This theme of law and grace permeates the Bible.

Jesus, for example, was crucified between two thieves.

These two thieves represent the two types of people in our fallen world: those who accept God, and those who reject Him.

As recorded in the gospels, both men speak to Jesus.

The first thief to speak represents those who reject God, “Aren’t you supposed to be the Christ? If you are, then save yourself … and us!”

No contrition, no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility for his crimes.

The second thief then rebukes his accomplice, “Don’t you fear God? We’re being justly punished for our crimes, but this man has done nothing wrong”.

The second thief takes responsibility. He doesn’t blame others. He admits he’s a sinner and is redeemed.

This is at the core of what has gone wrong with the world in which we now live.

As described in my last newsletter, Noughts and Crosses, sometimes we need to be reminded of what our Judeo-Christian heritage has brought to the world – the establishment of schools, universities, hospitals, aged care organisations and welfare agencies. The elevation of women, as well as the abolition of slavery, cannibalism, child sacrifice and widow burning.

The ‘equality of human beings’ is a Judeo-Christian idea which led to the abolition of slavery and international human rights.

All form the basis of Western civilisation which acknowledged original sin and the need for redemption.

We fail, we sin, we feel guilty. Acknowledging this is virtue.

In response, we confess, we repent, we accept forgiveness, and then we move forward with confidence. That is how we survive the vicissitudes of life.

I have proven this in my own life.

Marxists, leftists, and people from many other cultures, however, do not see it that way.

To them, admitting fault is seen as weakness. They do not accept responsibility for their situation. They blame others. To them, all is a zero-sum game.

And herein lies the problem.

By rejecting God’s system of confession, repentance and forgiveness, Westerners respond by looking elsewhere to placate their guilt – virtue-signalling being one of the main outlets.

As British-born American philosopher and scholar Kwame Anthony Appiah points out, watching King Charles acknowledge the unceded – or ‘stolen’ land – on which the Canadian parliament stands begs the question, ‘Then why do they continue to occupy it? And the obvious contradiction: acknowledging theft while benefiting from it is like apologising for eating someone’s lunch while still holding the sandwich!’

This is the West surrendering to the anti-God Left.

British journalist and political commentator Douglas Murray makes this point in his 2017 book, The Strange Death of Europe.

It is civilizational suicide.

Speaking of which, allow me to make an observation or two about the recent Federal election.

First, before too many claims are made about Labor getting a ‘strong mandate’, at the previous election (2022) Labor’s primary vote was 32.5%. In 2025, it was 34.5% – a 2% improvement.

As a percentage of registered voters, however – including informal votes and those who chose not to vote – Labor’s vote was just 29.5%

Seats won, however, paints a very different picture – from 77 seats in 2022 to 94 seats in 2025 – a 22% increase.

Winning 62% of the seats with 29% of the vote is starting to look like the UK or Europe!

Or compare Labor’s vote in 2016 (34.7%) 69 seats; 2019 (33.3%) 68 seats; 2022 (32.5%) 77 seats; and now 2025 (34.5%) 94 seats!

The disparity between votes and seats in 2025 is due to changes in preferences by the Liberal Party and minor parties.

In the past, the Liberal Party would typically put Labor last on its how-to-vote cards. This time it put the Greens last, resulting in what one might describe as the bright and silver lining on an otherwise dark and gloomy cloud – the ejection from parliament of Greens leader Adam Bandt!

In India it was said that people did not cast their vote but rather vote their caste. India’s caste system divided its society into hierarchical groups based on birth, occupation and ‘dharma’ – a cosmic order of law and moral principles that apply to all beings and things – and people voted accordingly.

That Labor’s vote does not change materially from election to election suggests that the old ‘Labor, right or wrong’ principle is alive and well.

Whether it’s education, immigration, net zero, energy or the environment – power bills going up $1,300 instead of coming down $275 – Israel and the Palestinians, international relationships (UN, WHO, WEF etc), the taxing of unrealised capital gains on our superannuation, abortion and euthanasia, the Albanese government is deeply entrenched in the Left of politics.

It will not end well.

Which is why we are readying ourselves.

Our merger plans with the DLP (and other like-minded parties) are progressing and we are looking forward to contesting the next election on the horizon – the South Australian State election in March next year.

Thank you for your support.

Noughts and Crosses

by

CrossFrançois-Marie Voltaire, the world’s most famous atheist, once proclaimed that although he didn’t believe in God, he employed devout Christians to be his accountant, his cook and his barber because, he said, ‘I don’t want to be robbed, poisoned or have my throat slit!’

Voltaire’s credo is a variation of the admission by another famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, who has taken of late to describe himself as a ‘cultural Christian’. He feels ‘at home’, he says, in the Christian ethos, going on to say that substituting Christianity with anything else ‘would be truly dreadful’.

Sometimes we need to remind ourselves of Christianity’s great contributions to the world.

Most of the world’s languages for example were put into writing by Christian missionaries.  More schools and universities were started by Christians than by any other group. Motivated by a sense of concern for others, Christians established hospitals, aged care organisations and welfare agencies.

The elevation of women was a Christian achievement, as was the abolition of slavery, cannibalism, child sacrifice and widow burning. Before Christianity came along, almost every civilisation and culture practised slavery or human sacrifice.

Countries which today enjoy the greatest civil liberties are generally those places where the Christian gospel has penetrated the most.

There is a Chinese proverb, “The tears of strangers are only water”. When there is famine or genocide in Africa, for example, Christianity says, “Those people are human like us, we need to help them”. Other cultures say, “Yes, it’s a problem but it’s not our problem”.

The ‘equality of human beings’ is a Christian idea which led to the abolition of slavery and international human rights. US Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said, “That all men are created equal is self-evident”. Most cultures throughout history however, reject this. ‘Inequality’ is what is self-evident they say – height, weight, strength, intelligence, truthfulness, talent etc. What Jefferson was referring to of course was ‘moral equality’. Each life is as valuable as any other.

Closer to home, the Reverend John Flynn founded the Flying Doctor Service and the Australian Inland Mission. His Presbyterian Ministers were known as ‘the boundary riders of the bush’ and were responsible for establishing communication through the inland pedal wireless.  Early colonial Governors Macquarie, Hunter and Brisbane were committed Christians. Governor Macquarie personally promoted the British and Foreign Bible Society and the Sunday School Movement. And Australia’s Constitution begins with the phrase, “…. humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God ….”

Which brings me to a disturbing but symptomatic example of attempts to remove Christianity from the public square – in this case, quite literally.

For more than 30 years, a small church in the Adelaide Hills village of Houghton, has erected three crosses at Easter time. The crosses are simple but strong structures which have steel ‘cleats’ attached to them to enable the crosses to drop into pipe sleeves in the ground. After Easter, the crosses are removed, the pipe sleeves capped, and a small amount of dirt and grass placed over the caps awaiting re-discovery the following year.

Easter

For reasons known only to local government bureaucrats, but obscure to common sense, the local council this year saw fit to remove the crosses shortly after they were installed.

The improbable reasons given for removing the crosses were that the Council had been ‘inundated with complaints’, that ‘no permit had been issued’, and ‘there were public safety concerns’. As one resident put it, ‘Safety concerns? What were they concerned about? That they’d go out there one morning and find someone had been nailed to one of the crosses and they would get the blame?’

EasterNot only had the crosses been removed, but a ‘Parking Infringement Notice’ had been attached to one of them together with a card inviting the reader to contact the Council for further information. This I subsequently did, only to be threatened with ‘another fine’ if the church didn’t immediately repair the slight depression in the ground where the crosses once stood!

One is always loath to attribute to malice what can be better explained by over-zealous bureaucracy, hence a post on Facebook and subsequent local backlash over the Council’s actions did result in an immediate offer by the Council to reinstate the crosses.

Regrettably, the industrious Council inspector had not only removed the crosses, but for some inexplicable reason had also dug out the in-ground sleeves which made it a major task to re-assemble the display.

As for the alleged ‘inundation’ of complaints – none having ever been recorded over the previous 34 years – the Houghton Church and its local residents enjoy a relationship going back 150 years. A local calendar features the following description of Houghton Church:

‘In August 2025, the Houghton Uniting Church will celebrate the 150th Anniversary of the laying of its foundation stone. Throughout that time – including through two World Wars and other cataclysmic events – Houghton Church and its members have been a source of comfort and care when needed. It has also been an important connection point for community events including its annual Christmas Carols on the Green and Pancake Tuesday events, as well as being an active participant in Remembrance Day and Anzac Day services. And of course, Weddings, Christenings and Funerals held at the church provide a service to the community during life’s ever-present milestones.’

These Councils need to be reminded of the old saying, ‘Be careful what you wish for’.

Banning Christianity from the public square is one thing, but trying to ban it from the local village square takes it to a place where even angels fear to tread …!

Thank you for your support.

Rock, Paper, Scissors

by

rock-paper-scissorsLord Byron, in his moving poem Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, offers the following reflection on life:

I seek no sympathies, nor needs,
The thorns which I have reaped are of the tree I planted,
They have torn me, and I bleed
I should have known what fruit would spring from such a seed.

If there’s one immutable lesson we learn from life, it is ‘we reap what we sow’.

From the micro to the macro, from the personal to the national, we know that actions have consequences.

In the natural world of physics, Isaac Newton formulated the laws of motion – his third law being that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction – meaning that if one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force back on the first.

We can all relate to this.

In the political world, it is said, ‘No good turn goes unpunished’ or ‘Why is he attacking me? I never did him any favours!’

My father used to say, ‘Beware of beginnings’. Once you start something, it is difficult to end it.

You may not even be thanked for beginning it, only criticized for ending it.

Which must be how America and Donald Trump are feeling right now.

For 80 years, America has patrolled the world’s shipping lanes, keeping trade functioning.

It has, at its own expense, been the world’s policeman and the principal source of funding for all manner of aid and humanitarian relief.

So, when a new President wants to clean up the ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ in the system and start forcing wealthy countries to pay more towards their own defences, instead of the world thanking them for 80 years of benevolence, it cops nothing but abuse.

Surely it is time the rest of the world acknowledged that it should not be left to one country to solve all the world’s problems.

After all, a strong America – militarily and financially – is undoubtedly a good thing for the world.

Even more so considering the rise of China.

In another case of reaping what has been sown, it has long been an accepted understanding in liberal democracies that there be a balance between a State’s three heads of power – the Legislature (congress/parliament), the Executive (President/Prime Minister/Cabinet Ministers) and the Judiciary (judges/courts).

It is the ‘rock – paper – scissors’ of how democratic societies govern themselves.

As we learn from the childhood game, ‘the rock blunts the scissors, the scissors cuts the paper, and the paper wraps the rock’.

If, however, one of the branches becomes too powerful and no other branch can control it, the system collapses.

Witness the dangerous overreach by some of the world’s judiciaries in taking on the role of opposition to popularly elected governments.

While we understand why those accustomed to having power do not like relinquishing that power – access to taxpayers’ money to fund their political infrastructure being the primary reason – engaging in relentless legal warfare such as that waged against Donald Trump invariably backfires.

And what French President Emmanuel Macron’s left-wing Renaissance party could not achieve at the ballot box, has been taken up on its behalf by the courts to convict the leading contender in the next election, Marine Le Pen, banning her from contesting the election!

Similar legal shenanigans have been occurring in Brazil, Romania and Israel, with unelected judges going out of their way to thwart the will of the people.

Canadian author Mark Steyn makes an ominous prediction:

‘We will soon no longer be able to vote ourselves out of this’.

In other words, no matter how people vote, the ruling class will not accept it.

The upshot will undoubtedly be the deterioration of national cohesion and the undermining of confidence in a country’s institutions.

We reap what we sow.

In one final observation, health has always been one of those ‘actions have consequences’ domains.

The term ‘fat cats’, for example, was once used to describe rich people. Poor people were undernourished and thin.

Today, it is often the case that the poor are obese, and the rich are thin!

Why is that?

Why has obesity more than doubled over recent years when governments spend more on health than ever before – and promise to spend even more at every election?

The same goes for education.

In 2013 the federal government spent $12bn on schools.

It is now $30bn, yet all the objective tests show school results going backwards.

The Australian’s Greg Sheridan says, ‘Whatever the problem was, it wasn’t money’.

But perhaps it was.

Too much of it, that is.

We reap what we sow.

Thank you for your support.

VUCA World

by

Donald-TrumpAs most will recall, the Coalition went to the 2013 election promising to ‘abolish the carbon tax, abolish the mining tax and stop the boats’.

Upon election, seven Centre-Right (CR) Senate crossbenchers voted in support of these three key election pledges giving the Coalition Government the numbers it needed (33 + 7) to get its legislation passed.

The seven Senators comprised three Palmer United Party (PUP) Senators, Ricky Muir of the Motoring Enthusiasts’ Party which had entered into a formal alliance with PUP, the DLP’s John Maddigan, the Liberal Democrats’ David Leyonhjelm and me, representing Family First.

With four Senators in his team, plus the fact Clive Palmer had been elected to the House of Representatives seat of Fairfax, watching Clive Palmer in action during that time reminded me of a comment by Winston Churchill about US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles whom he described as “… the only bull I know who carries around his own china shop!”

Clive was, and still is, a force of nature.

Following this successful endeavour, David Leyonhjelm and I met with Prime Minister Tony Abbott and put to him what we called a 40–40–40 game plan: ‘40 votes (a Senate majority) to fix 40 years of unfinished business and set the nation up for the next 40 years.’

We tried valiantly to convince him that the best way to get Coalition policies through the parliament was to have more Senators elected like us. That is, if the Coalition couldn’t win a majority in its own right – which seemed unlikely (and still seems unlikely) – it should at least attempt to achieve a majority with the support of like-minded minor party Senators.

Needless to say, our suggestion was not taken up.

In fact, the exact opposite happened. The Coalition, under Malcolm Turnbull, teamed up with the Greens (who had voted against ‘abolishing the carbon tax, abolishing the mining tax and stopping the boats’) and changed the Senate voting laws to get rid of those very Senators who had supported them!

As a result, and as predicted by John Howard at the time, the Greens increased their number of Senate seats from 10 to 12, Labor increased its number of seats from 25 to 26, centre-left parties increased from 1 to 3, the Coalition lost a seat, and the CR parties dropped from 7 seats to 3. From 33 + 7 (a CR majority) to 32 + 3 (a CR minority). A loss of 5 Senate seats!

If anyone can explain why the Coalition did that, I’d love to hear from them.

Well, Clive is back, this time as Chairman of the Trumpet of Patriots Party (formerly the Australian Federation Party).

Readers of this blog would recall numerous exhortations by me for Australia’s CR parties to work more co-operatively and to move from thinking ‘State-based’, to thinking and acting ‘nationally’.

If a CR party gets a Senator elected, that Senator should be viewed by their party not as their State Senator, but as their National Senator. The Senate, after all, hasn’t been a state-based institution for more than a hundred years. There is virtually no recognition of States in the way the Senate operates. Senators don’t even sit with their State colleagues; they sit with their party colleagues.

Which brings us to the impending Federal election.

We are currently living in what has been described as a VUCA world – volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous.

Many believe, me included, that what Donald Trump has done, and is doing, in America is badly needed here in Australia (ignore his tariffs on steel – they are so insignificant that they will have no effect on us. Donald Trump is a free-trader – he personally oversaw numerous free-trade deals when he was last in office. In any event, if we are so concerned about the price of steel, we should be focussing on the energy, IR and business regulation costs associated with making Australian steel).

What Trump is giving America, and the world, is a long-overdue dose of reality.

The borrowed time, the borrowed money, is coming to an end.

Europeans and Australians have been freeloading on America for more than 50 years and Americans want it to stop.

We should want it to stop.

The world has been acting like a school playground with its bullies and weaklings and America playing the part of the teacher trying to protect the weaklings from the bullies.

But the weaklings in this case do not need to be weak. Countries such as Germany and Australia are wealthy and resourceful and could, like Israel, stand on their own two feet if only they had a mind to.

Trump famously said, ‘Drill, baby, drill.’

We should be saying, ‘Mine, baby, mine!’ and ‘Farm, baby, farm!’

As has been wryly observed, there really are only two industries in the world – mining and farming. The rest are jobs.

And Australia happens to be very good at mining and farming.

Also on Trump’s list are:

  • Ending the climate change/renewable energy scam
  • Curbing immigration
  • Championing free speech
  • Supporting Israel
  • Instituting a Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.)
  • Advocating for a peace deal in Ukraine
  • Ending support for the transgender movement.

On that last point, we had the unbelievable spectacle during a recent NSW Government Estimates Hearing of the NSW Minister for Women and PREVENTION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, Jodie Harrison, saying if ‘someone identifies as a woman, they should feel free to use the women’s changerooms’.

This is the sort of wokeness that needs to be purged from society.

Our Prime Minister, however, seems to be going out of his way to annoy America’s newly elected President.

Albanese has made no secret of the fact that he doesn’t like Donald Trump – or America for that matter – but for Australia’s sake does he have to take the opposite side to Trump on everything?

It brings to mind those two great books – ‘How To Win Friends and Influence People’ and ‘How to Lose Friends and Irritate People’.

Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong, Kevin Rudd and many others have clearly been reading the wrong book!

Albanese and Labor are taking Australia down a very dangerous path.

From the Israel–Palestinian conflict to Russia and Ukraine – ‘We stand with Ukraine and will consider sending troops there’ – to censorship laws, to cosying up to the UK’s Keir Starmer who also detests Trump, Albanese has gone out of his way to make it clear he is not on the same page as our most important ally.

Former Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr says Australia should re-consider its relationship with the US and re-open discussions with the French on the submarine project!

The French! Who are, shall we say, ‘not famous for their military reliability’.

And all this while Chinese warships sail around our coastline!

In preparation for the 2026 SA State election, we have completed the Australian Family Party’s re-registration process with the SA Electoral Commission.

However, to:

  1. Promote the all-important cause of centre-right minor parties nationally (à la 2013) and
  2. Help enact Trump-like policies here in Australia,

I have joined the Trumpet of Patriots (ToP) SA Senate team for the forthcoming Federal election and Nicole Hussey, also from the Australian Family Party, will be the ToP candidate for the South Australian seat of Boothby.

Thank you for your support.

The Eyes Have It

by

WesleyThey say to be a successful traveller, you need a good sense of humour – and no sense of smell!

And for those who know anything about travelling around Europe – and know anything about Europeans in particular – they would understand the observation that heaven is not ‘up there’ and hell not ‘down there’, but rather that these places can be found in Europe.

‘Heaven’, they say, is where the Swiss are the administrators, the French are the cooks, the Germans are the mechanics, the Italians are the lovers, and the English are the policemen.

‘Hell’, on the other hand, is where the Italians are the administrators, the French are the mechanics, the Swiss are the lovers, the English are the cooks, and the Germans are the policemen!

Vive la différence!

Speaking of Europe, it was Oxford professor John Littlewood, who first published his theory on why he believed road accidents in Europe were substantially higher than those in Britain.

Littlewood suggested that it was all connected to the observation that a significant majority of people – seventy per cent in fact – have what he calls a ‘master right eye’.

In countries such as Britain that drive on the left, that first split-second view of approaching, overtaking or sudden change in traffic will be seen by the majority of drivers with their master right eye.

In countries that drive on the right, however, that split-second picture of traffic conditions is first seen by the left eye, which is the master eye in only thirty per cent of people.

Littlewood says that the same comparisons can be made with other countries which drive on the left – Japan, Australia, New Zealand – and comparable countries which drive on the right – the United States and Canada.

Littlewood says that the ancient Romans intuitively understood this and as a result drove on the left.

Driving on the right, he says, is Napoleonic – the result of the French Revolution – and like so many other things that derived from that great convulsion, they can be fatal.

On that score, much has been written about why England did not suffer the same catastrophic consequences that befell France in the late 1700s, when social conditions – Charles Dickens and all that – were very similar.

Why was there no English version of the French Revolution?

London and Paris – A Tale of Two Cities?

Many contend that it was the influence of the evangelist John Wesley (1703 – 1791), who was the principal leader of the revival movement known as Methodism.

For more than 50 years, Wesley travelled the length and breadth of England preaching the gospel and exhorting people to ‘… love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself’.

John Wesley did the preaching, and his brother Charles Wesley wrote the hymns:

‘O For A Thousand Tongues To Sing’ … ‘And Can It Be That I Should Gain’ …. and hundreds more beside.

Others, however, put the difference between the two countries down to that other great English religion – cricket!

Cricket?

Yes, cricket.

It’s been said that ‘If you understand cricket, you understand life’.

By the late 1700s cricket had become a well-established sport throughout England with villagers – rich and poor alike – playing on the many village greens across the land.

The rich and the poor knew each other!

In France, the rich lived in Versailles, the poor lived in Paris.

They didn’t know each other.

It’s a lot harder to execute someone you go to church with, sing hymns with, and play cricket with!

In France, there were no such inhibitions. The banality of evil ….

We don’t know whether John Wesley played cricket during his travels, but it would be a fair bet that he did.

In the English-style village in which I live in the Adelaide Hills – Houghton – this year marks the 150-year anniversary of the laying of the village church’s foundation stone. Throughout that time – including through two World Wars, the Great Depression, devastating bush fires and other cataclysmic events – Houghton Church and its members have been a source of comfort and care to the local residents. It has also been an important connection point for community events including its annual Christmas Carols on the Green and Pancake Tuesday, as well as being an active participant in Anzac Day and Remembrance Day services. And of course, weddings, Christenings and funerals held at the church provide a service to the community during life’s ever-present milestones.

Houghton Village once had a hotel called the Travellers Rest. It is no longer there, but the ground on which it once stood now forms part of the Village Green where community events take place and many a traveller stops and rests.

In the words of another great hymn:

‘His eye is on the sparrow,
And I know He watches me …’

The eyes have it.

Thank you for your support.

Lessons from Lausanne (Revisited)

by

In light of US President Donald Trump’s major announcement today that the United States will take over the Gaza Strip and relocate the Palestinian population to neighbouring Arab countries, members and supporters may recall our Newsletter of July last year which covered this very subject. We believe this is of such profound significance, that we have decided to republish the article:

Lessons from Lausanne

1 July 2024

hamas-israelThe story is told of a divine messenger who appeared to a peasant farmer.

“You have been chosen”, said the messenger. “Whatever you wish for, it will be granted.”

The farmer was shocked but beamed with anticipation.

“There is only one condition,” the messenger added. “Whatever you wish for, your neighbour will be granted double.”

The farmer’s smile disappeared, for he despised his neighbour.

“So, if I ask for a ton of gold, my neighbour will get two tons?”

“That is correct,” said the messenger.

“And if I ask for an extra 1,000 acres of land, my neighbour will get 2,000?”

“You understand well,” the messenger added.

The farmer thought in silence for quite some time, as he could not bear the thought of his neighbour prospering in any way.

Suddenly, his face brightened. “I’ve got it!”, he exclaimed.

“Put out one of my eyes.”

As the war between Israel and Hamas rages, I thought about this story.

Hamas and its Palestinian supporters are the peasant farmer. They despise Israel so much that they would rather sacrifice their own future than see Israel prosper in any way.

As has been observed many times, whilst the Israelis (and we here in the West) love life, Hamas and its supporters love death.

So, how does one reconcile such diametrically opposed positions?

In short, you can’t.

In January 1923, the League of Nations ‘Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations’ was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland.

The agreement stated that all Christians living in the newly established Republic of Turkey were to be re-located to Greece, and all of Greece’s Muslims were to move to Turkey.

The agreement specified that the populations being transferred would lose their original nationality – along with any right of return – and instead would become citizens of their new homeland.

The population transfers, which affected about one-and-a-half million people, imposed enormous pain on their respective populations, but was generally viewed as a success. Relations between Turkey and Greece improved immensely following the transfers.

Around that same time, the British came up with what might be called a ‘Two–State Solution’ to the Arab-Jew problem it had inherited in British Mandate Palestine. In an attempt to resolve the problem, the British allocated approximately 80,000 sq km of land to the Arab population in an area to be known as Trans-Jordan (now simply called Jordan), and 20,000 sq km to the Jews. In 1948, the Jews declared independence over their portion of land and the state of Israel was born.

Following the creation of Trans-Jordan in 1921, during the next 40 years, and despite being surrounded by numerous wealthy Arab states, those Palestinians who had not re-located to Jordan but had remained in what were known as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were kept in abject poverty. They were effectively stateless. Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. Neither state showed any interest in improving the lives of the Palestinians under their control, and certainly showed no interest in creating a separate state for them.

Following its spectacular victory in the 1967 war – which Egypt, Syria and Jordan had started (overwhelmingly supported by the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank) – in what must surely be the biggest missed opportunity since its founding, Israel should have done what the League of Nations did in 1923 and relocated the remaining Palestinian populations of Gaza and the West Bank to Jordan. Jordan was, after all, overwhelmingly Palestinian.

But as Israel has been doing since biblical times, it ignored calls to remove its enemies and prevent them from attacking it in the future.

The Lausanne Convention endorsed the practice of relocating ethnic and religious populations and established the legal right of states to re-locate large populations on the grounds of what they called ‘otherness’.

Another example was the partition of India in 1947 which saw millions of Muslims relocated to the newly established state of Pakistan and millions of Hindus relocated to India.

Speaking at the Lausanne Convention, French Prime Minister Raymond Poincaré said, “the mixture of populations of different races and religions has been the main cause of troubles and of war and that this un-mixing of peoples would remove one of the greatest obstacles to peace”.

As the Bible states, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” (John 6:60 KJV).

As with many of the world’s most intractable problems, we often end up being faced with two options – a bad option, and a worse option. There are no ‘good’ options.

In Israel’s case, the bad option – it would attract a great deal of international criticism – would be to do what the Greeks and Turks did in the 1920s and relocate the Palestinians.

A worse option would be to allow them to remain.

Allowing them to remain would require either the Americans, the Europeans or the United Nations – none of which is likely to do it – or the Israeli military, to occupy Gaza indefinitely.

Under any of these circumstances, Hamas would re-form and re-build.

That can’t be allowed to happen.

Relocation of the Palestinian population by absorbing them into other Arab countries is the least worst option.

Thank you for your support.