Australian Family Party

Family Matters

Australian Family Party

Courtroom Guinea Pigs

by

platypusFour incidents converged recently – two from Western Australia and two from South Australia.

The two from WA were about a group of prisoners who dined on guinea pigs they had sourced while out on work release, and a German backpacker, Carolina Wilga, who was miraculously rescued after being lost in the Western Australian bush.

That second incident reminded me of South Australian tourist Shane Taylor who, a number of years ago, found himself in similar circumstances to both Ms Wilga and the prisoners.

As Taylor’s vehicle, like Ms Wilga’s, had become bogged, he followed the golden rule of the outback – ‘Stay With Your Vehicle!’ After about a week, however, and no rescue in sight, he decided to try his luck and find his own way out.

Hungry and thirsty after many days of hiking through rugged scrub, Taylor came across a small stream.

After a quick drink, Taylor attempted to walk on a log which had fallen across the stream, however about halfway across, the log broke and to his dismay fell into the creek and hit a platypus!

It was the first time he’d seen a platypus in the wild, and being hungry, decided to build a fire and cook it. At which point a Park Ranger appeared – much to Taylor’s relief!

Until, that is, the Park Ranger promptly booked him for ‘eating a protected and endangered species’!

Appearing in court, the magistrate read out the charge – ‘Eating a protected and/or endangered species’ – and asked Taylor if he had anything to say for himself.

‘As a matter of fact, I do, Your Honour!’

‘There I was, stuck in the middle of nowhere, my 4-wheel drive bogged to the axles, I’m doing the right thing – ‘staying with my vehicle!’ – but after about a week, when no-one came, I thought blow this, I’m taking my chances.

‘Well, after about another week hacking my way through endless scrub, I came across this creek which I had a big drink from. I then tried to cross the creek on a log which had fallen but about halfway over, the log broke, and would you believe it, Your Honour, it hit a platypus – yes, a platypus! – and squashed it.

‘Naturally, I felt sorry for the animal, but it was now dead, I was hungry, so I decided to cook the thing.

‘And just as I was chewing on it, along came a Park Ranger – and I must say, Your Honour, I was very, very pleased to see him!

‘And that’s when he said I was breaking the law by eating a threatened or endangered species!’

‘Well, that does sound perfectly reasonable to me’, said the magistrate, ‘Case dismissed!’

‘Thank you, Your Honour’, Taylor responded, ‘Thank you.’

Just as Taylor was about to leave the courtroom, the magistrate called out to him and said, ‘Before you go, Mr Taylor, I’m intrigued, what does platypus taste like?

‘Well, Your Honour, it tastes like a cross between koala and dolphin’.   

Which brings us to the fourth incident about inconsistencies in the criminal justice system. Unlike the platypus story, this one is real.

The incident – and subsequent commentary on comparative justice in laws and sentencing – was brought to our attention by Adelaide journalist and broadcaster David Penberthy.

It concerned Mount Gambier MP Troy Bell who was sentenced last month to five years jail for stealing from a charitable fund, and a separate case in which a violent thug was permitted to walk free.

Penberthy wrote the following:

“Given the constant public outcry over soft sentences for people who commit serious crimes, it is worth reflecting on the thumping punishment meted out to former Mount Gambier MP Troy Bell.

“It is particularly worth reflecting on Mr Bell’s punishment in the context of the following letter to the editor written by hotelier Peter Hurley and published by The Advertiser:

‘I read with interest the article “Drunkard trashes and bashes” (The Advertiser, 2/10) detailing the sentencing of Samuel Ajal for wilful damage and assault following a violent rampage at the Arkaba Hotel.”

“Despite three hotel employees being assaulted – one of them bitten – and damage to gaming machines exceeding $80,000, Magistrate Davis offered Mr Ajal words of comfort, assuring him he was a “good person” who had done a stupid thing.

“We frequently hear of the right of workers to feel safe in their workplace. Yet in this case, those rights seem to have been disregarded.

“Mr Ajal received a suspended sentence, was placed on a good behaviour bond and is not required to compensate the Arkaba for the extensive damage he caused.

“This outcome falls well short of community expectations for such serious offences.

“The staff, the Arkaba Hotel and the wider public have been let down by a justice system that appears to prioritise the offender’s comfort over the victim’s wellbeing.

Peter Hurley AO, Fullarton’.

“Troy Bell set up a charity and then pilfered nearly half a million dollars for his own personal ends.

“His punishment? Five years jail, with a minimum two years and six months non-parole period.

“Bell remains well-liked in his community despite having done what he did. Lots of people have stories of how he helped them.

It begs the question, ‘Why was Troy Bell not described, as in the Arkaba case, as ‘a good person who did a stupid thing’?

As Penberthy points out, “Bell didn’t physically or emotionally hurt anyone. He didn’t hurt a child, and no-one will be permanently affected by his misconduct.

Perhaps the severity of the sentence was because Troy Bell was an MP?

Penberthy puts that notion to rest by comparing Bell’s crime with another disgraced political figure from the same region – former Labor MP Bernard Finnigan.

Finnigan was charged with 30 counts of having child pornography on his computer. Two of the charges eventually made it to court and he was found guilty of one of them.

Finnigan didn’t go to jail, receiving a 15-month suspended sentence and a $1,000 good behaviour bond.

Finnigan was propping up an industry which abused countless numbers of children.

As Penberthy points out, Troy Bell’s crime is not in the same league as Finnigan’s.

Peter Hurley said that during the attack on the Arkaba, Ajal screamed “You’re all going to die tonight.”

Such inconsistencies cannot be allowed to continue. If judges cannot, or will not, hand down appropriate sentences, then parliament must step in and write mandatory sentences into legislation.

If, however, judges are attempting to apply some kind of ‘social justice’ principles in their sentencing, they should note what the Bible tells us not once, but twice: “Do not favour the poor in court”.

Judges are to apply real justice, not ‘social justice’.

Favouring one group of citizens over another based on socio-economic or racial grounds is not only unjust, it also foolish. It always ends badly – especially for the favoured group.

Thank you for your support.

 

Australian Idol

by

australian idolWhen John D. Rockefeller died in 1937, he was reputedly the richest man in the world.

At his funeral were many of his employees as well as a large contingent from the press.

Spotting Rockefeller’s chief accountant in the crowd, a young journalist from The Washington Post approached the accountant after the funeral.

“Weren’t you Mr Rockefeller’s accountant?” enquired the journalist.

“Yes, I was,” replied the accountant.

“Tell me,” whispered the journalist, “How much did he leave?”

“All of it,” whispered the accountant.

Rockefeller built Standard Oil, amassing (in today’s money) a $400bn fortune. He treated wealth as ‘life’s purpose’, crushing anyone who got in his way. In later life he admitted that his early greed was ‘demonic’.

Napoleon conquered all of Europe for political glory, crowning himself ‘Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Rhine, King of Spain and King of Holland’.

For sporting glory, Lance Armstrong admitted to doping in seven consecutive Tour de France wins.

Examples of the pursuit of beauty and body-building image are too numerous to list.

Those who seek personal glory and those who seek financial opportunity are often frequent bedfellows. As are a good many cosy relationships between businesspeople and governments.

The French have a saying, ‘Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose’ – the more things change, the more they remain the same.

The Bible, for example, recounts the incidence of a riot in Ephesus in 55AD.

The Apostle Paul had been preaching the gospel, and a number of people were converted to Christianity causing a drop in trade for the local idol-makers.

“About that time there arose a great disturbance … A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. There is a danger that not only our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty.” (Acts 19:23–27)

Classic rent-seeking.

In recent times, Climate Change and its handmaiden Renewable Energy have become man-made idols and, like Rockefeller and Demitrius, anyone or anything standing in their way is crushed.

A good example of Renewable Energy being like ‘gods made by human hands which are no gods at all’, is so-called ‘green hydrogen’.

In 1975 – 50 years ago – during the 94th Congress, the US House of Representatives held the first of two investigative hearings on the subject of hydrogen – ‘its production, utilization, and potential effects on our energy economy of the future’.

The hearing was chaired by Congressman Mike McCormack, who claimed hydrogen ‘had the potential of playing the same kind of role in our energy system as electricity does today’.

In 2003 – 22 years ago – economist Jeremy Rifkin, published The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the Worldwide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth.

In that book, Rifkin claimed that ‘Globalization represents the end stage of the fossil-fuel era. Turning toward hydrogen is a promissory note for a safer world’.

Then-President George W. Bush bought into the vision. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, he said, ‘With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome the obstacles associated with taking hydrogen-fuelled automobiles from the laboratory to the showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today (2003) could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free’.

According to the US Bureau of Statistics, there were 4,089,000 children born in the United States in 2003.

Now aged 22, not one of them has bought a hydrogen-fuelled automobile.

A few months after his speech, the Bush Administration announced a collaborative effort with the European Union for ‘the development of a hydrogen economy’, including the technologies ‘needed for mass production of safe and affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles’.

Hydrogen is indeed abundant, but it is not a source of energy. Like petrol or electricity, it must be manufactured. Which, in energy terms, is very expensive (it takes three units of electrical energy to produce two units of hydrogen energy). In other words, it requires a lot of electricity to make a small amount of hydrogen that is hard to handle, difficult to store, and expensive to use.

And yet, despite all that has been known for the past 30+ years, in 2019, South Australia’s politicians pumped hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into green hydrogen schemes.

In its Renewable Hydrogen Action Plan, the Office of Hydrogen Power announced ‘500,000 tonnes of green hydrogen would be produced annually by 2030’.

It has just been shut down.

If we want a strong enough economy that can build a strong military that can defend us against looming regional threats, then our politicians need to abandon their obsession with man-made idols such as climate change and renewable energy.

Swedish Statesman Axel Oxenstierna summed up the situation this way, “Behold my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed.”

That was 1640 – nearly 400 years ago.

Plus ça change …

Shelter from the Storm

by

ShelterBob Dylan’s soulful ballad from his 1975 album Blood on the Tracks provides a helpful guide to where we finally might be heading on climate change and renewable energy.

First, let me state that ‘climate change’ is real. Taking action on climate change, however, is not.

The pain, the angst, the disruption, the cost associated with ‘taking action on climate change’ can all be summed up in two words – reducing emissions. CO2 emissions in particular – from power generation, transport and farming.

In the name of ‘reducing emissions’, Australian and international renewable energy merchants – corporate parasites who manipulate the political process to extract money from taxpayers and consumers – have leapt onto the ‘climate change’ bandwagon and have raked in billions of dollars by gaming the system, raising energy prices, impoverishing consumers, fleecing taxpayers and destroying jobs.

Phrases such as ‘subsidised renewables’ simply mean taking money from low-income people in the form of taxes, charges and higher electricity prices, and giving it to the renewable energy merchants.

They are a scourge. They tarnish the political process, distort the market and in the case of energy, distort the entire economy.

Renewable energy is probably the biggest scam the world has ever known.

Most scams target naïve investors who, when they lose their money, have only themselves to blame. The renewable energy scam, however, has been perpetrated by governments, with consumers and taxpayers the hapless victims.

The scam uses every trick in the book including fear – “the earth will become uninhabitable” –  to emotional blackmail – “think about your children’s and grandchildren’s future”. It is reprehensible.

Over the past 20 years, an entire false economy has developed fuelled by ‘Renewable Energy Targets’, ‘Emissions Trading Schemes’, ‘Emissions Reduction Funds’, ‘Renewable Energy Agencies’, ‘Climate Change Authorities’ and so on. Wind farms, solar farms, giant batteries, pumped hydro, green hydrogen, clean hydrogen, green steel, carbon capture and storage … one day this whole racket will collapse, and someone will write a book called ‘50 Years of Madness: How the World was Conned’.

How a tiny, harmless natural part of the environment has been used to spook the masses and undermine our entire way of life is going to be a question for the ages.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is not dirty; it is not harmful.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have indeed risen but they are not harmful to either humans or the climate. In fact, elevated levels of CO2 have increased crop yields and vegetation growth.

As Thomas Huxley, the famous biologist once said, “Many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact”.

Or this from author Khaled Hosseini, “Better to be hurt with the truth than comforted with a lie”.

As for the science of climate change, it is nowhere near settled.

For every scientist who says CO2 is a problem, there’s a scientist who says it isn’t.

Friends of Science, a Canada-based non-for-profit organization comprised of more than 500 active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals, has written to the United Nations telling it there is no climate emergency. Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in its letter:

  1. Natural as well as anthropogenic (man-made) factors cause warming.
  2. The warming is far slower than originally predicted.
  3. Climate policies are relying on inadequate models.
  4. CO2 is not a pollutant – it is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth.
  5. More CO2 is actually beneficial for nature; it greens the Earth and is good for agriculture.
  6. Global warming has not increased the incidence or the severity of natural disasters.
  7. Climate policies must respect scientific and economic realities.
  8. There is no climate emergency; therefore, there is no cause for panic.

Clearly, there is not a man-made climate crisis, yet we are being forced to pay ridiculously high prices for electricity even though we know that high power prices kill people, particularly older people.

Even if emissions were a problem, which they are not, attempting to reduce them comes at a huge cost for absolutely no benefit.

China, India, Russia, the United States and all the developing world are not reducing their emissions.

Around the world, hundreds of new coal-fired power stations are under construction.

The world is not walking away from coal. Or gas.

Yet, here in Australia, we have both major parties calling for net zero emissions.

Australia is not going to stop exporting coal and gas to feed power stations in other countries, but somehow burning coal and gas in those countries is different from burning them here. Go figure.

In any event, if renewable energy is as cheap and as reliable as has been claimed, then why does it need legislation and subsidies to prop it up?

In summary, the only rational approach to climate change is to do what mankind has always done – adapt.

If human beings can adapt and live comfortably in cities such as Helsinki, Finland with temperatures of minus 5 degrees or in Phoenix, Arizona in the United States with temperatures of plus 35 degrees – a 40-degree difference – then we can certainly adapt if temperatures do in fact increase by 1 or 2 degrees. As for melting ice caps, temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic average minus 40 degrees. A 1- or 2-degree change is not a crisis.

If we wish to have a strong enough economy that can build a strong enough military to be able to defend ourselves against looming regional threats, then we are going to need to abandon this obsession with useless forms of energy generation, such as wind and solar.

The Australian Family Party hereby calls for the abandonment of ‘Net Zero’ and the repeal of all climate change and renewable energy legislation.

A Few Good Men

by

few-good-menIn that classic scene from the movie A Few Good Men, Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise is defending two Marines accused of murdering a fellow Marine based at Guantanamo Bay.

Kaffee believes the Marines were following a ‘Code Red’ – an illegal order for extrajudicial punishment – issued by Colonel Nathan Jessep, the base commander, played by Jack Nicholson.

Kaffee gets under the skin of Jessep who is a formidable, authoritative figure who sees himself as above reproach.

During a tense exchange, Kaffee asks Colonel Jessep, “Did you order a Code Red?”

The Court Martial Judge quickly interjects with, “You don’t have to answer that question.”

Jessep arrogantly responds, “I’ll answer his question”.

“You want answers?” Jessep sneers.

“I think I’m entitled”, replies Kaffee.

“You want answers?” Jessep shouts.

“I want the truth!” Kaffee shouts back.

Jessep then blurts out his famous line, “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”

Kaffee once again demands to know, “DID YOU ORDER A CODE RED!”

Jessep erupts with, “Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.

“Who’s gonna do that? You?

“I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom … and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

“You don’t want the truth because deep down you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.

“We use words like honour, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something.

“You use them as a punchline.

“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

“I would rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post”.

When this movie was released in 1992, Tom Cruise’s character Daniel Kaffee was, as you’d expect, the good guy, and Jack Nicholson, the baddie.

But the Utopian post-World War II, post-Soviet Union, ‘End of History’ world that gave rise to movies like A Few Good Men didn’t last.

The world never was, nor is it now, how we’d like or wish it to be. The cruel truth is that our desire for a just, kind, or ideal world inevitably clashes with the harsh, indifferent, and unpredictable nature of reality.

In 2022, in a military news outlet called Task & Purpose, retired US Marine 3-star General Gregory Newbold expounded on this theme in an attempt to remind the civilian population of what the military is and what it does.

“Many citizens – especially our most senior politicians and military leaders – seem to have developed a form of dementia when it comes to warfare. The result is confusion or denial about the essential ingredients of a competent military force. The condition is exacerbated and enabled when the most senior military leaders who ought to know better defer to the idealistic judgements of those whose credentials are either non-existent or formed entirely by ideology.

Newbold is referring to the Lt Kaffees of the world.

He continues: “The military has two main purposes – to deter our enemies from engaging us in warfare and if that fails, to defeat them in combat. Deterrence is only possible if the opposing force believes it will be defeated. Respect is not good enough; fear and certainty are required.

“The military cannot be a mirror-image of the society it serves. Values that are admirable in civilian society – sensitivity, individuality, compassion, tolerance for the less-capable – are often antithetical to the traits that deter a potential enemy and win wars that must be fought.

“There is only one over-riding standard for military capability – lethality – the ability to kill. And the officeholders who dilute this core truth with civil society’s often appropriate priorities undermine the military’s chances of success. Reduced chances of success mean more casualties which makes defeat more likely.

“Wars must be waged only with stone-cold pragmatism, not idealism. War is a means to an end, and the end is defeat of the enemy and the establishment of a peace, but not just any peace but a peace in your favour.

In an ominous warning of troubling times ahead, The Australian’s Paul Kelly reported recently:

“This week the dictators came together in Beijing – Xi Jinping, flanked by Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un – in a display of authoritarian power rarely matched since World War II.

“The vast military display featured nuclear-capable missiles, undersea vehicles, the latest drones, fighter jets, anti-ship missiles and long-range bombers reinforced by thousands of troops goose-stepping in almost perfect co-ordination.

“China intends to dominate in industrial, military and ideological domains.

“Xi’s message is that China’s military dominance of the Asian region will be irresistible.

“The world has just witnessed the most powerful symbolic display of China’s military aspirations with their intimidating logic for Australia.

“And what did our government have to say?

“Nothing – or nothing of any note.

“We cannot even find the language to address the events transforming the world that pose the most serious challenge for our country and people.”

I have never been anti-China.

Bob-Day-Xi-AbbottAs reported in my previous comments on China in Beijing to Damascus – A Road to Peace, China has a fascinating Judeo-Christian history.

I have also met Xi Jinping, albeit briefly, in 2014. We talked about housing and how Chinese investors viewed Australia’s property market very favourably.

But a lot that has happened since then disturbs me greatly.

We need options. Our total reliance on the United States is untenable. Its growing internal divisions could seriously impact its external commitments.

One alternative defence bloc could be a Japan–South Korea–Philippines alliance; however, these are all conventional military powers. They would be no match for a nuclear superpower such as China.

India is a friend and is a rising geo-political player. It is also a nuclear power.

But India looks after India, and being an avowed Hindu country, is also culturally very different from Australia.

As Kelly reports, in Beijing, leaders from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea met and did not hide their contempt for the West.

Which brings us once again to Israel.

Israel is currently fighting a war defending Western Civilization.

It is a military superpower.

We should develop a closer relationship.

The Israel-Gaza conflict will soon be over, but China’s military expansion will not.

Can we handle the truth?

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.

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.