Australian Family Party

A recent 4-Corners program titled ‘Going, Going, Gone …’ asked the question, “What is driving Australia’s property frenzy?”

“Across Australia”, they reported, “property prices were going through the roof, pushing the total value of residential real estate to a staggering nine trillion dollars.

“When the pandemic hit in 2020, there were fears the property market would collapse. Instead, house prices have risen at the fastest pace in at least three decades. 

“For many people, the housing market has become unaffordable and it’s creating a generational divide. Home ownership among those under the age of 45 has plunged to levels not seen since the 1950s.

“There’s a sense of despair and disillusionment from many who have worked and saved, only to see their dream slip out of sight.

“For my generation it means a lot less home ownership. I feel it’s very unfair,” said one home hunter.

“I did everything right. I did everything that every politician has ever told us to do. The situation’s left me feeling completely defeated,” said another.

“As the divide between the haves and have-nots grows, housing experts warn there will be consequences.”

First, let’s get one thing straight, Australia does not have a ‘housing’ affordability problem, it has a ‘land’ affordability problem. As most people know, over the past 20 years the cost of building a new house in Australia has hardly moved. Land prices however have skyrocketed. By restricting the amount of land available on the urban fringe, state governments have sent the price of entry-level housing through the roof. State governments have used urban planning laws to restrict the amount of fringe land available and then drip fed it through their land management agencies to a land-starved housing industry at inflated prices. A few years ago, I asked a former cabinet minister why the government didn’t release more land to keep up with demand for housing. The former cabinet minister replied, “We needed the money”.

Throughout history, there have been times when surges in demand for goods and services appear out of nowhere but then equally out of nowhere, increases in supply meet that demand to keep the supply/demand equation in balance. A good example of this was the massive increase in demand for digital TVs, laptops, tablets and smart phones. And yet despite this surge in demand, prices fell. Why? Because supply was able to match – even exceed – demand. With housing, they wouldn’t allow the supply (of land) to meet the demand.

First home ownership is about getting a start in the housing market and in a modern, growing economy, that can really only happen on the urban fringe. The rising price of inner suburban houses is caused by growing demand from a growing population and a growing economy for a finite supply of goods – that is, lots of people all wanting to buy the same houses. There is little governments can, or should, do about the price of goods that are forever increasing in demand. But there’s a lot they can and should do about fringe development – entry level housing – where there’s an infinite supply of land available and a housing industry ready, willing and able to put good quality houses on it at very low prices.

A point made by one of the 4-Corners commentators was the amount of new housing supply required ‘to bring down house prices’.

This should not be the objective.

Increased supply does not need to bring down the average house price, only the entry level house price.

We shouldn’t care if house prices in inner suburbs cost over $1m as long as the entry level is around $250,000. Which it could be.

It’s the same with the job market. What does it matter if highly skilled people earn $1m a year, as long as the entry level is low enough for people to get a foot on the employment ladder?

Once on the housing or employment ladder, the only way is up.

For more on the Australian Family Party’s housing policy, click here.

The story is told of Joseph of Arimathea, the wealthy businessman who donated his own tomb for Jesus’ burial. When news of his generous gesture spread amongst Joseph’s business colleagues, a number of them went to see him. “Joseph, are you sure you know what you’re doing, giving your tomb to this Jesus of Nazareth? Tombs are very valuable and yours is the best in the cemetery,” they implored.

“Oy Vay”, Joseph replied, “don’t be concerned, it’s only for the weekend.”

Joseph of Arimathea was a hero of the faith. Practical faith. Confident faith. Legend has it that Joseph travelled far and wide throughout the Roman Empire – even to Britain – spreading the gospel.

To many of his followers, Jesus’ crucifixion was a disaster. His life had ended in failure. Not to Joseph. Or to people like Australia’s Les Murray:

But back to Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph was an experienced businessman who would have had his fair share of losses and failures. He would have agreed with Winston Churchill (pictured) that, ‘success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm’. Or Henry Ford’s ‘failure is simply the opportunity to begin again; this time more intelligently’. Or Noel Coward’s ‘the secret of success is the capacity to survive failure’.

Some places of the soul can be reached only through failure and suffering. It’s during difficult times that God reveals many of His truths. The Jesuits teach that ‘those whom God loves the most, He allows to suffer the most’. He draws them close.

Of all the disciples, Jesus chose Peter to become the leader of his new church. It was Peter who preached the first gospel message at Pentecost establishing the Christian church. Yet it was Peter, who on the night before Jesus was crucified, denied three times that he even knew Jesus. Jesus did not choose the disciple closest to him, John the Divine, who wrote both the magnificent Gospel according to John and the Book of Revelation; or the brilliant intellectual and academic Paul who wrote most of New Testament theology. No, to head up the church, he chose Peter, the one who had failed him.

The Old Testament’s Saul became king of Israel without going through suffering. His character never developed and he became an envious, shallow man. David on the other hand, spent years in suffering and heartache. When he finally became king, God said David was ‘a man after my own heart’.

We should not resent or despise failure or suffering. They develop character like no other.

They say it’s the grit that forms the pearl. Suffering, difficulties, trials are the grit that leads to the pearl.

Our lives will be an inspiration to those who watch us face the trials that come our way.

What we lose in the flames, we find in the ashes.

For instruction on how to regulate society it’s hard to go past the 10 Commandments. By comparison, according to Thomson Reuters’ Legal Encyclopedia, Australian governments have enacted over 40,000 Commandments. So when God distils everything down to 10, and then applies 2 of them to the protection of people’s property – do not steal (Commandment No 7) and do not covet your neighbour’s goods (Commandment No 10) – it’s reasonable to assume it is an important subject.

Commandment No 7 – ‘Covet’, the old-fashioned word for ‘envy’ – wanting what someone else has – is a sin. Not to be confused with ‘jealousy’ – not wanting someone else to take what you have – which is not a sin. Envy and jealousy are not the same, in fact they are the exact opposite of each other.

Laws that say, ‘do not steal’ clearly imply there are things which belong to other people that you are not permitted to take. It is their property and they have a right to keep it. This principle clearly pre-dates governments. Property Rights became one of the key features of the Magna Carta (1215) the world’s pre-eminent document on Human Rights.

Over the centuries, after both the 10 Commandments and the Magna Carta were instituted, two schools of thought evolved regarding the basis of power in society – ‘people first, government second’, and ‘government first, people second’. In other words, did people have intrinsic rights first – freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom to enjoy their property, etc – and then establish governments to protect those rights or does the state come first and have the power to grant (or withdraw) the above rights and freedoms?

It’s an important question, particularly in a democracy like ours where we say ‘the majority rules’. But does the majority have the right to do whatever it wants to a minority or to an individual? Can ‘the majority rules’ principle, for example, be used to create a society of say 1^st and 2^nd class citizens who can be denied their ‘freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of property’?

‘Might is right’ or ‘the tyranny of the majority’ were expressly rejected by the Magna Carta and rights were therefore entrenched into English law.

Phrases like ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ might sound OK – until it results in overbearing constraints on minorities and individuals or, for example, in arbitrary arrest and/or search.

No society could survive for long with such laws – even if the majority agrees.

Story Number One

In the 1920s Al Capone virtually owned Chicago. He was notorious for corrupting the windy city with everything from bootlegging (illegal liquor) to prostitution to murder.

Capone had a lawyer nicknamed ‘Easy Eddie’. Eddie was Capone’s lawyer for a good reason – he was very good. In fact, Eddie’s skill at legal maneuvering kept Big Al out of jail for a long time.

To show his appreciation, Capone paid Eddie very well. Not only was the money big, but Eddie and his family occupied a fenced-in mansion with live-in help and all of the conveniences of the day. The estate was so large that it filled an entire Chicago city block.

Eddie lived the high life of the Chicago mob and gave little consideration to the atrocities that went on around him. But Eddie did have one soft spot – a family he loved dearly. Eddie saw to it that his young son had clothes, cars and a good education. Money was no object. And, despite his involvement with organized crime, Eddie even tried to teach him right from wrong. Eddie wanted his son to be a better man than he was. Yet with all his wealth and influence, there were two things he couldn’t give his son – a good name and a good example.

One day, Easy Eddie reached a difficult decision – he wanted to rectify the wrongs he had done. He decided he would go to the authorities and tell the truth about Al Capone. He decided he would clean up his own tarnished name and offer his son some integrity. To do this he would have to testify against The Mob which he knew would cost him dearly.

Not long after he testified against them, Easy Eddie’s life ended in a blaze of gunfire on a lonely Chicago Street. In his pockets were a rosary, a cross, a religious medallion, and a poem clipped from a magazine. The poem read:

“The clock of life is wound but once and no man has the power,
To tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour.
Now is the only time you own so live and love and toil with will,
And place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still.”

Story Number Two

World War II produced many heroes. One such man was Lieutenant Commander Butch O’Hare, a fighter pilot assigned to the aircraft carrier Lexington in the South Pacific.

One day his entire squadron was sent on a mission. After he was airborne, he looked at his fuel gauge and realized that someone had forgotten to top off his fuel tank. He would not have enough fuel to complete his mission and get back to his ship. His squadron leader told him to return to the carrier, so he reluctantly dropped out of formation and headed back to the fleet.

As he was returning to the mother-ship he saw something that turned his blood cold – a squadron of Japanese aircraft was speeding its way toward the American fleet.

His colleagues were away on a sortie, and the fleet was all but defenceless. He couldn’t reach his squadron and bring them back in time to save the fleet, nor could he warn the fleet of the approaching danger. There was only one thing to do, he must somehow divert them from the fleet.

Laying aside all thoughts of personal safety, Butch dived into the formation of Japanese planes with wing-mounted 50 calibre guns blazing, attacking one surprised enemy plane after another. He wove in and out of the now broken formation and fired at as many planes as possible until all his ammunition was used up. Undaunted, he continued the assault diving at the planes, trying to clip a wing or tail in the hope of damaging as many as possible, rendering them unfit to fly.

Finally, the exasperated Japanese squadron took off in another direction.

Deeply relieved, Butch O’Hare and his tattered fighter limped back to the carrier. Upon arrival, he relayed the events surrounding his return. The film from the gun-camera mounted on his plane told the tale and showed the extent of Butch’s daring attempt to protect his fleet. He had destroyed five enemy aircraft.

This event took place on February 20, 1942. For that action Butch became the Navy’s first Ace of WWII and the first naval aviator to win the Medal of Honor. A year later Butch was killed in aerial combat at the age of 29.

His hometown would not allow the memory of their hero to fade, and today O’Hare Airport in Chicago is named in tribute to his courage.

So, the next time you find yourself at O’Hare International Airport, give some thought to visiting Butch’s memorial displaying his statue and his Medal of Honor. It is located between Terminals 1 and 2.

So what do these two stories have to do with each other?

Butch O’Hare was Easy Eddie’s son.

In studying family policy around the world, Poland caught my attention recently as being right up there with the very best of them in terms of fundamental objectives.

In a refreshingly frank interview, the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, outlined his country’s family policy:

“For the first time since 1989 (the fall of communism), we have embarked on resolute and vast pro-family action.

“When I was running for President in 2015, I made a pledge that we would start a pro-family policy. We announced during the campaign that we would introduce a program called ‘500+’. We decided that starting from the second child in a family, every month, parents would receive 500 zlotys towards raising their children.

“It turned out to be revolutionary. Never before had families, particularly families in difficult situations received such help, especially families with many children.

“In Poland, salaries are not equal to Western Europe or the United States but some products are more expensive than they are in the United States or Western Europe which meant the living standards for many families was quite low. It was very difficult for them to make ends meet. So it was a revolution for them when they received the money. The program worked so well we amended the law so now parents of every single child receive 500 zlotys a month starting from the first child, even families with one child get the 500 zlotys.

“We did not expect the program to have such a wonderful effect – poverty among children has been reduced by 90%. It was the best social program we have been able to introduce.

“As a politician, speaking openly, I have always considered myself a conservative and have always been frank about my views. I am a Christian, a practicing Christian, I pray, I am not ashamed of that whatsoever. To me the value of family is priceless. I support families, I am pro-life, I defend life, I believe that life is sacred, I believe it should be guarded, and families supported as strongly as they can because the family is the foundation of every nation. Everything is based on family, therefore the support which we offer families from a political perspective is of key importance”.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

Many years ago, a wise old friend said to me, “If you’re interested in world events, keep your eye on Poland”.

That was 50 years ago.

How right he was. The collapse of communism and the end of the Cold war – one of the most significant events of the 20^th Century – began in Poland with Solidarność (Solidarity) union leader Lech Walesa and Polish priest Karol Wojtyła – Pope John Paul II.

If Poland’s ground-breaking family policy approach becomes a benchmark, this tenacious country will, once again, have done the world a great service.