Australian Family Party

Family Matters

Australian Family Party

Stop Monkeying Around

by

monkeyA group of social scientists conducted the following experiment:

Starting with a cage containing five monkeys, the scientists hung a banana on a string inside the cage and placed a set of stairs under it.

Within seconds, one of the monkeys went to the stairs and started to climb towards the banana. As soon as the monkey touched the stairs, the scientists sprayed all the other monkeys with cold water.

After a short while, another monkey made a similar attempt with the same result – all the other monkeys were sprayed with cold water. Before long, if any monkey tried to climb the stairs, the other monkeys prevented it from doing so.

They then put away the cold water and removed one of the monkeys from the cage and replaced it with a new one. The new monkey saw the banana and immediately started to climb the stairs. To its surprise and horror, all the other monkeys attacked it.

After another attempt and attack, the new monkey soon realised that if it tried to climb the stairs, it would be assaulted.

They then removed another of the original monkeys and replaced it with a new one. The newcomer also went to climb the stairs and was similarly attacked with the previous newcomer taking part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, they replaced a third original monkey, then a fourth, then the fifth. Each time the newest monkey took to the stairs, it was attacked. Most of the monkeys that were beating it had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs nor why they were participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try to get the banana.

This is how aspects of culture are created.

“Abraham Lincoln said, ‘The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next’. Arguably, there is nothing more significant to the future of a nation as the education of its children. How we teach children about our history, our national identity, and the principles of western liberal democracy by which we live is therefore the concern of all Australians.”

The above quotation is from a booklet titled, Activism via Education: 7 ways the new Australian Curriculum will impact your kids, published by the Institute of Public Affairs. In the booklet, the authors highlight how hostile to Christianity Australia’s national curriculum is. It is also highly critical of Western civilisation.

An example of the indoctrination of children through the education system is the Government’s 2020 Early Years Learning and School Aged Care Frameworks which states, “Pre-schoolers will learn about non-binary gender identity and become champions of reconciliation and sustainability under a proposed new curriculum for early learning.”

The battle for a nation’s culture goes back a long way. The Greek-Roman wars saw Rome conquer Greece militarily, but the Greeks conquer the Romans philosophically. Rome controlled the territory, but the Greeks controlled the culture. And as modern-day management gurus tell us, ‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast!’. In Australia today, the right might control the territory but the left controls the culture.

In John Glubb’s Fate of Empires Glubb references the empires of Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome, Arabia, Mameluke, Ottoman, Spain, Russia and Britain – and significantly, how they all lasted around the same length of time – 250 years.

In his book, Glubb describes the 7-point cycle of empires: Pioneers > Commerce > Affluence > Intellectualism > Disintegration > Decadence > Despair.

Born in 1897, Glubb did not include the United States in his book, but there is no doubt that America – Pax Americana – which replaced the British empire, has dominated the world and is now clearly in play – particularly as it exhibits the last three points in the cycle – Disintegration > Decadence > Despair.

Interestingly, the US was founded on 4 July 1776, signifying its 250 years will be up in four years’ time (2026) which seems about right considering what is happening there right now.

Our culture of Western democracy was founded in Christianity and in the family. It’s why Marx and Engels, the co-authors of the Communist Manifesto, were determined to undermine both. Marx and Engels knew faith and family were the enemy. They did not like what families and people of faith talked about around the dinner table.

It’s time to stop monkeying around.

Thank you for your support.

Checkmate

by

Checkmate-Elizabeth-CharlesDuring the Republican Referendum debate in 1999, people would often ask, “The Queen seems like a very nice person, but what exactly does she do that benefits us?”  I’d respond by saying, “It’s not what the Queen does, it’s what she stops other people from doing!”

More about that shortly.

When the Republican Movement started in the early 1990s, I immediately joined Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) and offered my services to them. It was at the Adelaide Town Hall launch in November 1993 that I met ACM organiser Tony Abbott, Adelaide identity Kym Bonython, editor of The Adelaide Review Christopher Pearson and Federal Court (later High Court) judge Michael Kirby. After the launch, the five of us went to the Oxford Hotel in North Adelaide for dinner to discuss tactics. So began a long association with the cause.

Asking ‘What exactly does the Monarch do?’ is a bit like asking, ‘What exactly does that guard out front of the bank do all day’?

Knowing what we know about human nature, we are not naïve enough to think there aren’t closet dictators and tyrants lurking even in Australia. There are those among us who believe they are above the people, they disdain the people and resent having to answer to them. They are not as rare as you might think.

In 1975, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam tried to govern without the consent of parliament and was subsequently sacked by the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General.

We can be sure no-one will ever try that again – govern without the consent of parliament, that is! You only have to do it once.

With the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, everyone it seems has their own special reflections on our late Queen.

For me, I was born the year she ascended the throne – 1952. My father was born in the same year as her – 1926, and my mother adored her. She spoke warmly of her throughout her life, from her war-time exploits – my mother was in England’s Land Army – to the Queen’s annual Christmas Message. My mother never missed a message.

But now, at the age of 96, the Queen has gone. Not quite as old as her husband Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (or ‘Fella-Belong-Mrs-Queen’ as they call him in PNG’s Pidgin English) who was 99 when he died last year, but a wonderful age all the same.

Speaking of dying at 99, the Queen greatly admired the American evangelist Billy Graham who also died aged 99. As some wag said at the time, ‘God obviously wasn’t a cricket fan, giving his best player out on 99 …!’

Over a period of more than 30 years – from the 1950s to the late 1980s, the Queen met with Billy Graham at least a dozen times.

“For me, the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life”, she said.

David Bruce, Executive Vice-President of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association said,

“Reverend Graham would say Queen Elizabeth was a deeply spiritual person. We know from listening often to her Christmas messages to the British Commonwealth, that she would invoke the gospel.

“Reverend Graham took every opportunity to end their meetings in prayer”, he said.

Here in Australia, the Republican Movement is once again firing up, sensing perhaps an opportunity to change our system of government from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic. From a monarch represented in Australia by a Governor-General as Head of State, to our very own President.

And there’s the rub.

How will this President be elected or appointed – by the people as in the United States? Or by a select few?

There is no doubt that if a President were to be elected, it would be a political contest. Just what we need, replacing a non-political monarch with a Donald Trump or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. Wonderful.

Current political leaders and academics can see the obvious flaws in a direct-election model of voting for a President. The politicisation of the office of Head of State, as in the US, would be unbearable. The last thing we need is another layer of politics.

And yet, consistent polling since 1999 shows that if we are to become a Republic and have a President as Head of State, then the people want to be the ones to elect him or her. So, for the foreseeable future, King replaces Queen. Checkmate.

One thing’s for sure, Australians will not be persuaded to change to a Republic by academics like Professor Greg Craven and his silly 1999 full-page ads:

Who will you put first –

YOUR FAMILY or the ROYAL FAMILY?

Professor Craven would do well to remember Margaret Thatcher’s maxim, ‘First you win the argument, then you win the election’ (or referendum as the case may be) and leave the writing of political ads to Clive Palmer.

So, the current system will remain with us for the time being, and Australians, as is the Australian way, will give the new King a fair go.

Not that Charles is a stranger to us. He has visited Australia no less than 16 times, even spending part of his schooling here.

God save the King.

Thank you for your support.

Between Elections

by

parliament-house-between-electionsAs the late Texas politician Robert Strauss used to say, “You can fool some of the people all of the time – and they’re the ones you need to concentrate on”.

In politics, the golden rule is whatever result you see, that is what was intended.

Former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson says, “We live in an age of astonishing disengagement by far too many good citizens in the life of our nation. I suspect that without compulsory voting we’d have up to half the electorate not bothering to vote at all.”

If we apply the golden rule to John Anderson’s observation, then citizens being disengaged from politics is exactly what is intended. Keep people in the dark. Do things that turn them off politics. Take parliament’s Question Time for example. Not only do our politicians behave appallingly, they take our money and our freedom and say they will act in our best interests. Instead, they act in their own interest and the interests of the rent-seeking cartels. No wonder people are disillusioned and disengaged.

This world is not a playground, it is a battleground. The troubling aspect, however, is the consistency of the forces on that battleground. Whether it’s Black Lives Matter, Roe v Wade (the US Supreme Court ruling on abortion), transgenderism, climate or Covid, the activists seem to all follow the same script – regardless of where they are in the world or how the issue affects them.

Most people are not into confrontation and opt out, leaving the world to be ‘ruled by those who show up’ as the old saying goes. The problem is that those who show up do not think like the ‘good citizens’ John Anderson has in mind.

The activists want everyone to be like them and embrace their views on everything from morality to marriage to matters of life and death – and everything in between. If you object, as US Bible teacher Chuck Swindoll puts it, “If you don’t shut up, we’ll shut you up”.

The world is polarised like never before. As we’ve said on our website previously, the (political) centre is disappearing. Public policy is becoming like a gym barbell with weights on each end and a long bar between them. People are either at one end of the political spectrum or the other.

Science was once similar to mathematics in that there was general agreement on the facts. Not anymore. ‘Follow the science’ is looking less like mathematics and more like economics, with one side of politics pushing its version of the science and the other side pushing theirs.

So, what is the answer?

As we have argued from the outset, ‘family, faith and freedom’ are the best bulwarks against division and authoritarianism. We must stand firm.

We need to be fierce advocates for the family as society’s key defender. Our Top 10 objectives are to STOP:

  1. The ‘tax and control’ agenda – including opposing digital identity legislation.
  2. Fearmongering – climate change is not a threat to life on earth and nor is Covid.
  3. The money-making racket that is renewable energy.
  4. The indoctrination of children through the education system.
  5. The undermining of faith-based schools and organisations.
  6. The mental health epidemic.
  7. Addictions to alcohol, gambling, drugs and pornography.
  8. The decline in home ownership and the associated rental nightmare.
  9. Social media harming the young.
  10. Bureaucrats running the country.

As the Greens have demonstrated over and over again, the way to get what you want is through political power. You get elected, you do deals to increase your Senate representation, and then when you have the balance of power – like they have now, you flex your muscles and get your way.

If you agree, please continue to support us – particularly between elections.

A basic $20 annual donation would cover our expenses. Please support us if you can here.

Thank you again.

The Veil of Ignorance

by

rawls-slaveryIn his fascinating book, A Theory of Justice, the American moral, legal and political philosopher John Rawls promotes an idea called the Veil of Ignorance.

When drawing up laws, says Rawls, lawmakers should imagine themselves standing behind a curtain or veil, ignorant of what position they themselves will occupy once the law has been passed. Rawls cites a number of examples of this idea, the second being housing which I will cover shortly.

The first example he gives is in relation to slavery. What sort of law would lawmakers write if they were unsure whether they themselves would be slave or slave owner once the curtain was lifted?

His second example of housing is as relevant today as it was in 1970 when he wrote his ground-breaking book.

This approach, he states, would create a more just society.

Let’s consider this in relation to housing.

Knowing what they know now, how would today’s baby-boomers write housing and planning laws if they did not know, once the veil was lifted, whether they would be young or old?

In the event they found themselves in the ‘young’ category, it is beyond doubt they would want low-cost, low-entry level rules to get into their first home – as happened for them 40 years earlier!

As we know, low-cost, low-entry housing is not what first homebuyers are faced with in 2022. Entry-level housing is not three times the median wage like it was for previous generations. It is seven … eight … nine … even ten times the median income.

Regrettably, today’s laws are written more in the mode of ‘I’m alright Jack, pull the ladder up’ rather than, ‘What if I’m a young person trying to get a foot on the employment ladder or trying to buy a first home, or having to pay off a student loan?’

As previously described on this site, Australia does not have, and has never had, a ‘housing’ affordability problem. It has a ‘land’ affordability problem. The actual cost of building a house in Australia has kept pace with inflation and is low by international standards. The price of land on which to the build the house, however, has skyrocketed.

Land is the problem.

By restricting the amount of land available, lawmakers have sent the price of entry-level housing through the roof. Lawmakers have used urban planning laws to restrict the amount of fringe land available and have then drip fed it to a land-starved housing industry.

The ‘scarcity’ that drives up land prices is wholly contrived – it has been a matter of political choice, not geographic reality. It is the product of restrictions imposed through planning regulation and zoning.

Some of the claims used by lawmakers to stop urban growth are that urban growth is not good for the environment, or that it prevents the loss of agricultural land, or that it saves water, or it leads to a reduction in motor vehicle use or it saves on infrastructure costs for government. Although all of these claims are either false and/or misleading, they have become accepted wisdom. Few have had the courage or the insight to challenge them.

One of those few is Patrick Troy.

In his 1996 book The Perils of Urban Consolidation, Patrick Troy, Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University, and a leading thinker on urban planning, squarely challenged the assumptions on which the urban densification principles are based. He pointed to flaws in the figures and arguments which have been used over and over again to support what is speciously called ‘smart growth’ arguing that these policies will produce ‘mean streets’, not ‘green streets’.

Until the 1970s, the development of new suburbs was largely left to the private sector. The many leafy, liveable suburbs like Netherby or Colonel Light Gardens south of Adelaide or Tea Tree Gully in the north-east with their large allotments and wide streets are an enduring testimony to what suburbs looked like before planning laws were introduced. Compare these old suburbs with the packed-like-sardines stuff foisted on young home-buyers today!

leafy-dense

In last week’s Newsletter, we discussed opening up Adelaide’s northern plains to provide access to housing, employment, supply chains and tourism opportunities for the new $100bn maritime defence project based at North Haven.

The northern Adelaide plains are more than three times the size of metropolitan Adelaide – a city of over a million people that has taken over 150 years to get to where it is today. There is enough land in Adelaide’s north to last for centuries.

northern-plains

To enable first home-buyers easy access to housing – on quarter acre (1,000 sq metre) blocks if they want to kick a ball around and/or grow a few vegies, fruit trees and chickens – for around $300,000 and to permanently fix the ‘land’ problem, ensuring future generations do not have to suffer a similar fate, we need to do five things:

  1. Where they have been applied, urban growth boundaries or zoning restrictions on the urban fringe must be removed. Residential development on the urban fringe needs to be made a ‘permitted use’.
  2. Compulsory ‘Master Plan’ communities need to be abolished. If large developers wish to initiate Master Planned Communities, that’s fine, but don’t make them compulsory. This will allow smaller developers back into the market.
  3. Allow the development of basic serviced allotments – ie, water, sewerage, electricity, stormwater, bitumen roads, street lighting and street signage. Additional services and amenities – such as lakes, entrance walls, childcare centres, bike trails, etc – can be optional extras if the developer wishes to provide them and the buyers are willing to pay for them.
  4. Privatise planning approvals. Any qualified Town Planner should be permitted to certify that a development application complies with a Local Government’s Development Plan.
  5. Abolish up-front infrastructure charges and so-called ‘developer contributions’ by Local or State Governments. All infrastructure services should be paid for through the rates system – ie, pay ‘as’ you use, not ‘before’ you use – like it was for the boomers! First home-buyers should not be singled out and forced to pay up-front for Local or State Government infrastructure expansion given that existing homeowners were not required to contribute when they bought in.

Thank you for support.

MATS Plan Revisited

by

Part 1

MATS-map

Without doubt, South Australia’s biggest ever public policy failure was the abandonment in 1970 of the MATS Plan (Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study). The MATS Plan was a world-class road network for Adelaide’s future transport needs servicing a vibrant, emerging city. As a result of that ill-fated decision 50 years ago, SA has suffered incalculable cost, congestion and inefficiency due to its inadequate road system.

At that time, I was working for the SA Highways Department as a Laboratory Technician in the Department’s Materials, Research & Testing Laboratories at Northfield. Our then Commissioner Keith Johinke and all his staff were at the forefront of road transport planning and innovation. The excitement was palpable. Then came a change of government and the announcement that the MATS Plan was to be cancelled. It was an insane decision. All the land for the new road corridors had been acquired and the project was ready to go. So distressed was Commissioner Johinke by this announcement, he refused to sign the papers for the project’s cancellation, leaving it to an underling to carry out the Minister’s orders. The Department never recovered. Nor did Adelaide’s road transport system. I left the Department 5 years later to go into the private sector as did many others. In the 1980s the Department merged with a couple of other government departments and changed its name. A sad end to a once great institution.

Let’s not make that same ‘future planning’ mistake regarding the needs of the new submarine project which has just been announced. An industry sector this size is going to need a massive amount of support industries, including manufacturing, commercial, retail, education, housing, health, and other professional services.

In 1955, another great South Australian visionary, Sir Tom Playford, oversaw the growth and development of SA identifying that one key element for successful growth – cheap land.

The support industries for SA’s new maritime sector will need two things – affordable land, and easy ‘MATS Plan’ style access to the shipyards. Do not underestimate the importance of transport access.

Adelaide’s north can provide the land, and a new world-class gateway bridge over the Port River can connect the naval precinct with the northern Adelaide plains. Such a bridge and road system – perhaps even a rail line down the middle – would provide essential access to housing, supply chains and tourism opportunities – not to mention a ten-minute drive from the Edinburgh military air base.

The cramped suburbs around Port Adelaide are already under unsustainable pressure. Grand Junction Road is at maximum capacity. More traffic congestion, air pollution, the destruction of bio-diversity (bulldozing tree-lined streets and low-density housing) or increasing pressure on electricity, water, sewerage, or stormwater infrastructure, in other words more urban densification, would be a disaster.

One thing is certain, the new naval industry will need support systems. We don’t want to be spending countless billions of dollars retrofitting like South Road or the Southern Expressway debacle.

The Federal Government has given South Australia a new multi-billion industry. The SA State Government now needs to respond by opening up Adelaide’s north to supply this industry. Over the next 30 years tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs are there for the taking.

In 2013, I was elected to parliament on a platform of “every family, a job and a house”. If every family had a job and owned a house, I argued, the benefits to the state and the nation would be great indeed. Clearly, a lot of people agreed with me.

Adelaide as the new maritime defence industry capital of Australia has the opportunity to provide ‘every family with a job and a house’. Let’s not blow it.

Part 2

gateway-bridgeLast week in Part 1 of our MATS Plan Revisited report, we looked at connecting Adelaide’s new maritime defence precinct with the northern Adelaide plains via a new gateway bridge over the Port River. An industry sector this size we said was going to need a massive amount of defence procurement support, including manufacturing, commercial, retail, education, housing, health, and other professional services. In Part 2 of our proposal, we connect these support industries with long-haul freight infrastructure.

One thing is for sure – there will be a lot more freight and a lot more heavy vehicles on our roads as a result of this announcement.

“Fatal crash closes freeway”

This has become an all too familiar news headline in Adelaide.

Whether it’s taking children to school, taking farm produce to markets or long-haul interstate freight, road safety is paramount.

My first project when I began working at the SA Highways Dept in 1969 was the new SE Freeway. To be fair to the government of the day, when it designed the freeway, it did not expect the level of residential development to take place that has occurred since. The Adelaide Hills has become one of the fastest growing urban areas in the State and commuter traffic on the SE Freeway has increased exponentially. Long-haul freight transport has become incompatible with that level of commuter traffic. Truck drivers dislike the current SE Freeway situation as much as commuters.

A solution is available. A solution that takes trucks and semi-trailers off the freeway, off Portrush Road, off Hampstead Road, off Grand Junction Road and will get freight to the shipyards and new northern precinct quicker, safer and cheaper.

First let’s put things into perspective. Long-haul freight transport on the SE Freeway is mainly coming from Melbourne – a 740km journey. A new north-bound road from Murray Bridge, connecting to the existing Sturt Highway at the new $200m Truro by-pass would deliver freight to the northern Adelaide development precinct by-passing the SE Freeway and Adelaide’s suburban roads completely.

While adding approximately 70 kms to the overall journey – less than 10% of the distance from Melbourne – this non-stop route would not increase the journey-time. Adelaide’s suburban road congestion and approximately 30 sets of traffic lights between the Tollgate and Port Adelaide reduces freight transport to a snail’s pace.

According to the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (Report No 148), the cost of building new highways in Australia is approximately $5m per lane per kilometre. A new 90 km four-lane Murray Bridge – Truro highway would therefore cost around $2bn. The safety benefits of such a project however would be incalculable and the cost of building the road would be recouped through increased productivity, fewer accidents and less suburban road maintenance.

To summarise these two MATS Plan Revisited reports, the recent nuclear submarine announcement has changed everything.

This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reset the State will deliver tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs – significantly making up for the loss of Holden’s car manufacturing plant.

The new maritime defence project is a $100bn endeavour spread over the next 30+ years. Again, to put things into perspective, spending a small portion of that amount to ensure the project works properly makes good sense. A new gateway bridge and a new Murray Bridge to Truro connection, should be included in the overall cost of the maritime defence project.

As stated in Part 1 of this proposal, SA has been blessed with two great infrastructure visionaries in (former Premier) Tom Playford and (former Commissioner of Highways) Keith Johinke. Perhaps we could name the above infrastructure projects after each of them.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner

by

reaganIn his brilliant book ‘The Subversive Family’, British writer Ferdinand Mount argued that marriage and the family, far from being oppressed by the ruling class, are in fact the chief bulwarks against authoritarianism.

Former US President Ronald Reagan, in his farewell address following his successful eight-year presidency said, “All great change begins at the dinner table”.

Here in Australia, Gillian Triggs, the former president of Australia’s Human Rights Commission received a standing ovation at a (former Greens leader) Bob Brown event, for a speech which included the line, “Sadly, you can say what you like around the kitchen table at home.”

Western democracy was founded in Christianity and in the family. It’s why Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the co-authors of the ‘Communist Manifesto’, were determined to undermine both. Marx and Engels knew faith and family were the enemy. They did not like what families and people of faith people talked about around the dinner table.

Following the recent Federal election, the general agreement around this Party’s dinner table is that Australia is about to get mugged by reality. We’re heading for a recession. High mortgage rates, power blackouts, food and petrol shortages and price rises, and a housing affordability and rental crisis will lead, we conclude, to the collapse of the Albanese government.

For a glimpse of what we can expect, look no further than across the ditch to New Zealand. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s, unfettered, left-wing policies have totally failed that country. Whether it’s the health system, food and petrol price rises, five interest rate rises in a row, increasing crime, one of the worst housing affordability ratings in the world, numerous unfulfilled promises and a deliberate policy of dividing Kiwis along racial lines, New Zealand is Exhibit A. Once again, we are shown that just as there are physical laws that govern the physical universe, there are economic and social laws that cannot be mocked.

Political veteran Winston Peters, who once supported Prime Minister Ardern, says, “New Zealand is turning into a country we no longer recognise”.

New Zealanders have, however, finally woken up to Jacinda and, if she hasn’t resigned in the meantime, will comprehensively turf her out at the next election.

Here at home, whether the electorate will be ready to embrace a Peter Dutton-led Liberal Party following the failure of the Albanese government is another matter. Therefore, it is important that the electorate has some alternatives.

In our numerous internal post-election discussions along the lines of ‘What went right? What went wrong? and Where to from here?’ we need to first and foremost get the Australian Family Party’s name above the line! Being on the ballot paper is a good start and our Senate candidates’ names below the line is fine, but the blank box above the line was a major problem. To get our name above the line we need to lift our membership number past the 1,500 threshold and get registered federally.

Second, there were no less than seven ‘Faith, Family and/or Freedom’ parties and two well-known independents (Nick Xenophon and Rex Patrick) attracting a total of 16.0% of the primary vote. It is highly unlikely all will run again in 2025.

Third, on the policy front, as Ferdinand Mount stated, we need to be fierce advocates for the family as society’s key defender against tyranny. Accordingly, our Top 10 objectives are to STOP the following:

  1. The ‘tax and control’ agenda – including opposing any digital identity legislation.
  2. Fearmongering – climate change is not a threat to life on earth and nor is Covid.
  3. The money-making racket that is renewable energy.
  4. The indoctrination of children through the education system.1
  5. The undermining of faith-based schools and organisations.
  6. The mental health epidemic.
  7. Addictions to alcohol, gambling, drugs and pornography.
  8. The decline in home ownership and the associated rental nightmare.
  9. Social media harming the young.
  10. Bureaucrats running the country.

An example of that last point was the recent Census which revealed the not-so-subtle attempt to undermine or delegitimize the place of faith in society.

In 2016, ‘No Religion’ was moved from the bottom of the list of options to the top. How puerile.

But it worked for them. This year, ‘No Religion’ polled 39% and the accompanying reporting was nothing short of jubilant. The ABC, naturally, was first out of the blocks with, “So Friedrich Nietzsche was right, God is dead, and we have killed him.”

It also quoted Philosopher Charles Taylor who warned, “Modern civilisation cannot but bring about a ‘death of God’. We have seen the rise of an ‘exclusive humanism’. We have swapped God for a culture of authenticity, or expressive individualism, in which people are encouraged to find their own way and discover their own fulfilment”.

Yet, had the first question been, “Do you believe in God?” or “Do you have a faith?”, I dare say the results would have been very different. After all, who wants ‘Religion’? Not me. As the old joke goes, “A lot of people are abandoning religion and going back to God”.

We are witnessing, in real time, a concerted effort to undermine Western civilisation.

We must stand firm. We must not yield.

Thank you for your support.

1 “Pre-schoolers will learn about non-binary gender identity and become champions of reconciliation and sustainability under a proposed new curriculum for early learning.” – From national review of Early Years Learning and School Aged Care Frameworks, Federal Government, 2020.

The Great Australian Dream

by

great-australian-dreamWhen 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.

Benjamin Franklin said, “In this world nothing is certain except for death and taxes.” Will Rogers went on to say, “And the only difference between death and taxes is death doesn’t get worse every time parliament sits!”

Great friends, good job, nice car, see the world, live life to the fullest, save a few dollars, get married, buy a house, start a family, stay healthy.

This was the ‘Great Australian Dream’ for many young Australians.

It might still be the Great Australian Dream, but it’s getting harder by the minute.

Young people can’t afford to buy a house and start a family, and many are burdened with HECS debts.

Then there’s income tax, payroll tax, land tax, petrol tax, the goods & services tax (GST), stamp duty, power company dividends, water company dividends, the River Murray Levy, the Emergency Services Levy, the Regional Landscape Levy, the Solid Waste Levy, the Medicare Levy, Council Rates … local, state and federal governments tax us at every turn.

Not to mention, of course, pensioners who are unable to afford to heat their homes or water their gardens.

The Great Australian Dream and belief in ‘Family, Faith & Freedom’ need to be promoted and defended.

Which brings us to the results of the election.

In South Australia, the final 6th Senate seat went to the 3rd Liberal on the ticket – Kerrynne Liddle with 5.3% of the primary vote (total Liberal vote 33.9% minus 28.6% used for the 1st and 2nd Liberals, Simon Birmingham and Andrew McLachlan).

The ‘freedom’ parties of One Nation, Liberal Democrats, Australian Federation Party, UAP, Great Australian Party, IMOP and ourselves polled, between us, 10.9% of the primary vote – more than double the primary vote of the 3rd Liberal and enough to have secured that 6th spot.

Now whether a single ‘Family, Faith & Freedom’ Party would attract the same total is anyone’s guess – but it might. Especially considering that each of these areas will continue to be under attack over the next few years.

And whilst a combined 10.9% for the ‘freedom’ parties is a start, the reality is that nearly 90% of voters still voted for climate and covid/tax and control parties.

The new Labor government’s commitments – now with additional pressure from the Greens and Teals – to spend more on childcare, aged care, housing, the NDIS, PBS, and climate change, at a time of rising interest rates, high inflation, food prices, power prices, petrol prices and rent prices all going up, a mental health crisis among young people, volatile global events, and concerns over religious and personal freedoms do not bode well for the defenders of ‘Family, Faith & Freedom’. Recently tabled legislation in the ACT, for example – a sign of things to come perhaps? – further weakens protections for religious organisations. If passed, it will allow secular courts to intervene even in the internal workings of the church, including the ordination of ministers and who can, and who cannot, take communion.

So where to now for the Australian Family Party? How do we respond to all this?

As discussed in a previous post, the Party has a credible voter base, a solid membership list, a strong policy platform, a database of Newsletter recipients that runs into the thousands and we have just run two elections like clockwork. We have much to offer.

Two elections – State and Federal – hot on the heels of each other, has been quite an effort. Time now for some reflection on both. Your feedback would be most welcome here.

To our members and supporters who uphold us in so many ways, thank you for your support.

PS Thank you to all those who have contributed to our election budget. We’re nearly there, so any support to close the books on these two elections would be most welcome. Thank you.

No Books, No Wisdom, No Future

by

no-booksThe ancient story is told of Tarquinius, the last of the seven legendary Kings of Rome.

When the pagan goddess Sibyl offered to sell Tarquinius the nine books containing all the world’s wisdom for a high price, Tarquinius refused.

Sibyl then promptly burnt three of the books in front of Tarquinius and offered to sell the remaining six books for the same price.

Refusing to bow to Sibyl’s demands, Tarquinius once again said ‘no’, so Sibyl promptly burnt another three of the books.

Rather than be left with no wisdom to guide him, Tarquinius relented and paid the full price for the remaining three books.

As we know, there are those who continually reject what is on offer and end up with nothing – Palestinian leaders, some Aboriginal groups, the Greens in 2009.

There’s an old business principle that says you can’t grow a business out of trouble – I know, I’ve tried it, it doesn’t work. If a business is in trouble, you have to shrink to viability and re-grow from there. You salvage what you can and build up from there. But you do need something to work with. No books, no wisdom, no future.

As we await the results of the Senate election and survey the battleground, what can we salvage? What are the three remaining books of wisdom we can draw on to re-build?

First, as we said last week, ‘The Centre Cannot Hold’. The world is polarising like never before. It was once the case that each side would acknowledge that the other side wanted the same outcome, it was only the means of getting there that was debatable.

A good example of this was an initiative called ‘Common Ground’, a housing-the-homeless program.

I was invited to the 2006 Adelaide launch of Common Ground which was initiated by then ‘Thinker in Residence’ Rosanne Haggerty and chaired by Social Inclusion Board Member Monsignor David Cappo.

I argued that the solution to the emerging housing crisis – it is a lot worse now than it was then – was releasing more cheap land on the urban fringe and building low-cost, low-density housing. Yes, there were some downsides – public transport infrastructure etc, but at least it’s a start. Low-income people – even those on unemployment benefits – would be able to own their own homes meeting Common Ground’s central aim – ‘housing first’.

Others at the meeting, however, said that government-sponsored, higher density social housing in and near the CBD was the solution.

They didn’t take up my suggestion, but no-one doubted the others’ motives. I didn’t question their genuine attempts to solve the problem and they didn’t question mine. (I still think I’m right but that’s another matter, see ‘Going … Going … Almost Gone’.)

Today, however, if you disagree with the other side’s solution, it means you either don’t care about the problem, or worse, you are complicit. You are part of the problem.

The centre is disappearing. Public policy is becoming like a gym barbell with weights on each end and a long bar between them.

There’s an old Yiddish proverb, “If God lived on earth, we would break his windows”.

It means people would be offended by their Creator’s presence among them. His actual presence would not, as you might imagine, cause them to repent and obey. Human beings might be capable of great charity but they’re also capable of great malevolence.

There’s another saying, “Where’s there’s light, there’s bugs”.

It seems you can’t have one without the other.

The Centre Cannot Hold

by

centre-cannot-holdUK writer Hugh Rifkind once referred to politics as the only kind of fame which, once it’s over, is a relief. It’s the only form of fame that isn’t accompanied by adulation, he posited.

For many in professions other than politics, when their brilliant career is over and constantly being told how awesome they are is no more, it is hard to adjust. Suicide rates can be high.

However, if told every day you’re rubbish, and a moron, and a back-stabbing, self-enriching, egotistical fraud, then the eventual silence comes as a blessed relief. Suicide rates in politics are much lower than in other fame professions.

So we need not feel too sorry for all those MPs who lost their seats a fortnight ago.

As for the incoming government, boy have they got a hard row to hoe. I’m sure in their more reflective moments the Liberals are not entirely sorry they lost this one. They were going to lose eventually, and this was a good one to lose.

The next three years will be gruelling, and it is extremely doubtful that Labor and a Greens-dominated Senate will have what it takes.

There’s an old joke, ‘Optimists learn English, pessimists learn Chinese, and realists learn how to use an AK47.’

Labor and the Greens are none of the above.

As the English poet WB Yeats wrote:

“Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold …
… anarchy is loosed upon the world …
… and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

In the hundred years since Yeats wrote those words, little has changed.

Written just after the end of the 1st World War and during the tumultuous Russian Revolution, Yeats’ poem has been referenced in books, films, and world events from the apartheid struggle in South Africa to the Iraq war to the mass shooting in Texas last week.

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”.

If that line doesn’t sum up what’s wrong with the world at the moment, I don’t know what does.

There are the rare few who, according to American author and pastor Louis Albert Banks, “… have sailed through rough seas, carrying cargo and burdens as servants of God, and as helpers of others”, but so many of our best and brightest ‘lack all conviction’ and use their gifts to pursue self-indulgent lives, whilst the ambitious and power-hungry relentlessly pursue political power.

Speaking of which, when Kevin Rudd swept into office in 2007, people were saying this spelled the end of the Liberal Party and Labor would be in power for the next 20 years! A number of Liberals subsequently resigned from parliament not wishing to be in Opposition for years on end.

But Rudd so comprehensively stuffed things up, that within two years he was dumped by his own party and his successor had to rely on two disgruntled former National Party members to form minority government.

The next three years will be much, much harder for Albanese than it was for Rudd.

For a start, Rudd inherited from Prime Minister John Howard, Treasurer Peter Costello and Finance Minister Nick Minchin – the Treasurer controls the revenue, the Finance Minister controls the spending, and the Prime Minister gets the credit (for appointing them, and rightly so) – a budget surplus and zero government debt.

To quote Welsh singer Mary Hopkin, “Those were the days, my friend …”. 

By contrast, Albanese has inherited a one hundred billion dollar deficit and a one thousand billion dollar debt.

Not only that, Rudd had only five Greens Senators to contend with. Albanese has 12.

Tackling government spending (childcare, aged care, housing, NDIS), labour shortages, rising interest (mortgage) rates, the highest inflation in most people’s lifetime, food prices, power prices, petrol prices and rent prices all going up, a mental health crisis among young people, volatile global events, and of course energy policy, will be virtually impossible.

To repeat those lines from Yeats’ poem:

“Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold …
… anarchy is loosed upon the world …”

I predict that the Liberals will secure a comfortable victory at the next election.

Baptists & Bootleggers

by

baptists-bootleggersThe most conspicuous feature of this election was the presence of the powerful ‘Baptists & Bootleggers’ phenomenon.

The term ‘Baptists & Bootleggers’ was coined during the 1920s Prohibition era in America, when the makers of illegal liquor – ‘Bootleggers’ – found ways to finance the ‘Baptists’ campaign to have alcohol banned. The Baptists were successful, alcohol was severely restricted and the Bootleggers made a fortune. These days we might call those Bootleggers ‘rent-seekers’. Rent-seekers use the political process to extract money from taxpayers and consumers.

And they are everywhere – in energy, superannuation, pharmaceuticals, higher education, land development, indigenous groups, public transport, manufacturing – you name it. They are a scourge. They tarnish the political process, distort the market and in the case of so-called ‘renewable energy’, distort the entire economy. No matter what industry you are in, that pay-rise you thought you deserved has gone into the pockets of rent-seekers lurking in the corridors of parliament house.

One day the whole renewable energy racket will collapse under the weight of its own absurdity, and someone will write a book called ‘50 Years of Madness: How the World was Conned’.

Another fascinating feature of the election has been what I call ‘voter switch’.

Huge numbers of voters switched from the major parties to minor parties and independents. Labor voters switched to the Greens, and Liberal voters switched to the ‘Teals’ – independent candidates in wealthy electorates financed by renewable energy investors. Labor voters switched to the Liberals in Tasmania and Liberal voters switched to Labor in WA.

But by far the biggest switch has been the complete reversal of the traditional socio-economic paradigm. 15 of the 20 poorest electorates in Australia are now held by the Liberals, whilst 15 of the 20 wealthiest electorates are held by Labor, Teals and the Greens! And despite Labor winning the election with 32% of the vote (Labor under Kevin Rudd won with 42%), in the SA seat of Spence, the poorest electorate in the state, Labor suffered a 6% swing against it.  Go figure.

When nearly 70% of the electorate didn’t vote for the new government, you can bet it “won’t be easy for Albanese …”.

The under-30s, too, had a big impact on this election, by and large voting Greens.

But the most significant flow-on effect of the election was the Greens’ 30% increase in its Senate numbers. As we have been saying on this website for the past year, the 2016 Liberals/Greens deal to abolish Group Voting Tickets has seen the Greens pick up an extra three Senate seats, taking their number to 12. Again, the Liberals can rail all they like about the influence of the Greens, but they have only themselves to blame.

So why did Labor win the election – or more to the point – why did the Liberals lose? The Liberals’ Coalition partner, the Nationals, haven’t lost a seat in three elections.

During the pandemic, the government provided massive stimulus packages which kept thousands of workers in their jobs and thousands of businesses’ doors open. The unemployment rate was an incredibly low 3.9% and interest rates were at all-time lows. The government seems to have received no credit for this. There was also instability on the world stage – Russia and China in particular – all of which normally bode well for the Coalition.

So what happened?

Personally, I think as well as committing the nation to ‘Net Zero by 2050’ and racking up a one thousand billion dollar debt, the ‘Family, Faith and Freedom’ factor had something to do with it.

Family – cost of living was rated the No 1 issue of concern to voters. Faith – Scott Morrison failed to carry through on his promise to legislate protection of religious freedom. As a result, exemptions for faith-based schools in their hiring choices are now under threat. And Freedom – his appalling judgement in allowing State Premiers to introduce the most draconian, police-state lockdowns which confined people to their homes, closed schools, separated the elderly from their families, and coerced people into taking an unproven vaccine – all counted against the Prime Minister and his government.

As for what the outcome in the Senate will be, at this stage we have no idea whether I’ll be elected or not. It’s certainly not out of the question we could get a significant ‘below the line’ vote given that we didn’t have a party name above the line. As members would know, last year the major parties increased the minimum number of members a party needs in order to gain federal registration from 500 to 1,500. No below-the-line votes have yet been counted, so we’re not giving up just yet …

But regardless of who wins that last Senate seat in SA – be it us, One Nation, the Liberal Democrats, or whomever – standing at the polling booths alongside six other like-minded, centre-right parties – One Nation, Lib Dems, UAP, Australian Federation Party, Great Australian Party and the Nationals – a total of seven minor parties – made me think that there has to be a better way. Whichever minor party wins that last seat, there has to be a good case for the other parties to fall in with it. A policy council comprising all seven parties under the banner of the party who wins must surely be considered.

Speaking of standing at polling booths, can I once again say ‘thank you’ to all our volunteers. Manning a polling booth – a number of members stood for ten hours straight – is no mean feat. Installing and removing all the campaign posters is also a challenge (if you see a stray campaign poster, please report it here.) Thank you.

And finally, as discussed in our ‘Sitting Ducks’ newsletter a fortnight ago, we have one last invoice to pay in the amount of $5,000 for the how-to-vote cards. So far, we have raised $2,700 towards it. We want to finish well – the campaign has gone like clockwork – we just have that final box to tick.