Australian Family Party

Family Matters

Australian Politics

New Year 2023

by

horse-racing-new-year-2023As we embark on a new year, I am reminded of the story of Lawrence – later to become St Lawrence – who was the Deacon of Rome in the 3rd Century. As deacon, it was Lawrence’s job to manage the material goods of the church and distribute aid to the poor.

When a vicious new Roman Prefect was appointed to the city, he visited the church and demanded that, within three days, Lawrence bring him all the treasures of the church.

On the third day, Lawrence arrived at the Prefect’s door accompanied by all the poor and destitute of the city and declared, “Behold, the treasures of the church!”

The Prefect was so angry at Lawrence’s actions that he immediately had him arrested, tortured and executed.

Having been martyred for his faith, Lawrence was canonised by the church and became one of the church’s most venerated saints.

‘Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”, says the gospel of Matthew.

Lawrence wasn’t being a smart alec when he went to the Prefect. He believed every word of his declaration, knowing full well the consequences of his actions.

How different to today’s politics where it is said, ‘If it’s honesty you want, stick to horse racing’.

As a nation, Australia started well enough. In the 1890s, as the States and Colonies came together to form a single nation, a number of Constitutional Conventions were held to draw up an Australian Constitution. Throughout those Constitutional debates, God and the Bible were referred to no less than 50 times. For example, the following statement was recorded: “That in the practice of the Federal Parliament, there be a recognition of God, and that power be given to the Governor-General to appoint days of national thanksgiving.” This followed the age-old, God-ordained principle, that the people obey the leaders, and the leaders obey God. That was the deal. The people obey the king – provided the king obeys God! Remove God from the equation and the deal falls apart.

After recognition of God, the family was appointed to be at the forefront of a civilized society.

As we know, society relies on three levels of protection against harm. Level one is a person’s own conscience; level two is the family to keep its members in check; and level three is the police. Nurturing the conscience starts in infancy where childhood connection is vital. More incentive for parents to look after their own children and less emphasis on government-subsidized childcare, please!

For a free society to prosper, people have to be able to control themselves. Teaching self-control starts with the family. The family cultivates within a child the right way to view life and the world around us.

Former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson said recently, “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.”

To address this and other political challenges facing us, I have been invited to write a series of articles for the influential blog ‘Political Itch’. Readers can view my first contribution, ‘The Shrinking Forest’, here.

Happy New Year everyone and thank you for your support.

Abraham Lincoln

by

abraham-lincolnOne of Abraham Lincoln’s favorite riddles goes like this:

Question: ‘How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?’

Answer: ‘Four’.

Explanation: Calling a tail a leg, does not make it a leg.

Nice one, Abe.

Applying Lincoln’s riddle to the recent Victorian election, the one glaring lesson for the Liberal Party is that you can’t call yourself a ‘a party of freedom, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law, property rights, free markets and smaller government,’ and then campaign promising the complete opposite of those things and expect to be taken seriously.

Being authentic is still a valuable commodity in politics.

As for the minor parties who, by and large, do genuinely believe in ‘family, faith and freedom’, some hard-headed decision-making might be in order.

Like the art of war, politics is about three things – strategy, tactics and operations. Strategy is the big picture (policy) destination, tactics is about local smarts (candidates, polling, preference arrangements) and operations is the day-to-day mechanics of running a political party and an election campaign. For minor parties, all three are essential – particularly preference arrangements where group voting tickets still exist, as in Victoria.

Using interstate preference agreements, I was elected to the Senate twice –  in 2013 and 2016 – despite having a lower primary vote than some other minor parties. Even at the recent 2022 Federal election, I was the Liberal Party’s first preference after the Liberal and National Party candidates. I wasn’t elected, but having the resources of a major party handing out how-to-vote cards with your name featured in such a prominent preference position is invaluable.

If the right-of-centre minor parties are to counter the left-of-centre minor parties and pseudo-independents, they need to work more closely together. They could, for example, agree to each party being assigned a state or region, with all the other parties agreeing to sacrifice their local chances to ensure, depending on their level of the primary vote, that one or two prizes for each party are achieved.

As for reforming the major parties from within, I do not share the view espoused by the few conservatives left in the Liberal Party that the answer is for more conservatives to join the Party. Reforming from within is flawed for the simple reason that it contradicts basic human nature – the immutable law of self-interest.

How many MPs do you think would be prepared to withstand the threats to their seat from activist lefties? The answer is ‘very few’.

Once elected, MPs get captured. They like being Members of Parliament and they like being liked. They also like the socialising; they don’t want to be ostracised or booed on the ABC for making a stand or championing a cause – especially a moral cause like abortion or euthanasia or transgenderism or challenging the climate change/renewable energy orthodoxy.

In other words, I would argue it is not possible to ‘break-through’, you have to ‘break-with’, and force the major parties’ hands through the brutal reality of balance-of-power politics.

In his very timely book, Democracy in a Divided Australia, Matthew Lesh writes:

‘Australia has a new political, cultural, and economic elite. The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers. This divide is ripping apart our political parties, national debate, and social fabric.

Inners are highly educated inner-city progressive cosmopolitans who value change, diversity, and self-actualisation. Inners, despite being a minority, dominate politics on both sides, the bureaucracy, universities, civil society, corporates, and the media. They have created a society ruled by educated elites – that is, ruled by themselves.

Outers are the instinctive traditionalists who value stability, safety, and unity. Outers are politically, culturally, and economically marginalised in today’s graduate-dominated knowledge society era. Their voice is muzzled in public debate, driving disillusionment with the major parties, and record levels of frustration, disengagement, and pessimism.’

Jordan Peterson said recently that we have allowed the left to ‘forget its original goal of supporting the poor’, who are paying the most in what he described as the ‘completely fabricated energy crisis in Europe’ caused by the region’s heavy dependence on unreliable renewables.

‘Hiking the price of basic commodities like energy will precipitously knock a large number of people who are hanging on to the edge of the world with their fingernails into the pit. And that’s exactly what’s happened in Europe.

This is something for conservatives to beat the drum about. You want to serve the poor? It’s very straightforward – make energy as cheap as you possibly can. Why? Because energy is work and work is productivity and productivity raises people out of poverty, and we’ve been very good at raising people out of poverty.’

Personally, I would argue the left’s goal was never about ‘supporting the poor’, but rather using the poor to gain power. The poor have long since been abandoned by the left who have now found other ways to gain power – like racial division, Covid-19, and climate change (and its bagman renewable energy).

Will it take a catastrophe to bring voters to their senses?

Perhaps.

In the meantime, here at the Australian Family Party we continue to refine our own ‘strategy, tactics and operations’.

In closing, it has been a very eventful year with the party contesting both State and Federal elections. Thank you for your support throughout the year, particularly our candidates, volunteers and donors. I look forward to continuing the battle in 2023.

Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year to everyone.

And thank you again.

Postcard from Nepal

by

Nepal-ashramA fourth-year medical student had just finished top of his class at university.

His parents were so proud of him they gave him a holiday in Nepal for a month-long trek to clear his mind and prepare him for his next year’s study.

While in Nepal the young man met an Indian guru who told him of the futility of Western society and culture – always striving for success and being dependent on someone else’s failure so you can be successful. “That will never make you happy”, the guru told him. “Give up all this competitiveness and come and live with us in a community where we all love each other and where no-one is trying to take anything away from anyone else.”

The young man had finished five years of private schooling and four years of university and was ripe for this kind of influence.

He rang his parents from Kathmandu and said he was dropping out of Medical School and going to live in an Ashram.

You can imagine how pleased they were to hear this.

Six months later they received a letter from their son:

“Dear Mum & Dad, I know you weren’t pleased with me for dropping out of medical school, but I can’t tell you how happy I am. For the first time in my life, I feel good about the way I’m living. I’ve got the poison of competitiveness out of my system. This new way of life is so in harmony with the essence of my inner being in only six months I’ve become the No 2 disciple in the whole Ashram, and I reckon I’ll be No 1 by the end of the year.”

Irony and self-awareness were clearly not the lad’s strong suits.

The Late Rabbi Sacks wrote, “Those who are naïve about human nature find themselves disappointed again and again.

“Revolutions, protests, and civil wars continually take place because people think that removing a tyrant or having a democratic election will end corruption, create freedom and lead to justice and the rule of law. People are surprised and disappointed when it does not happen. All that happens is a change of faces in the corridors of power.”

After the French Revolution, Napoleon was more dictatorial than Louis XVI. After the Russian Revolution, Stalin was far more brutal than the Czar, and after the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao was more autocratic and murderous than any of the Emperors of the Chinese dynasties.

Each of these tyrants – Napoleon, Stalin and Mao – as well as fomenting anti-sovereign hatred – also held a deep hostility towards God:

“We will never be free until we strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest.”  – Diderot

Like the young man in the Ashram, what the people who supported these tyrants naïvely overlooked was the inability of human beings to prevent the abuse of power and position once it has been attained.

The threat to our nation, and the Western world, is not a virus or climate change, it is the slow takeover of every aspect of our lives by those who seek more and more power. We are witnessing the ascension of a new authoritarianism. ‘The long march through the institutions’ is nearing completion.

“Know everything in order to control everyone,” said Adam Weishaupt.

Technology and mass surveillance will allow governments to do just that – know everything.

For example, kill-switches are now fitted to many makes of motor vehicles – rental cars in particular. These switches can be accessed remotely or programmed to activate if the vehicle approaches a certain geographical area. Legislation was passed recently in the US mandating that by 2026 a kill-switch must be included within the operating software of all new motor cars (see Biden kill switch by 2026).

We’ve already seen freedom of speech and communication curtailed, freedom of movement will be next.

In England, zone restrictions have been introduced in cities such as Oxford preventing motorists from driving from one part of town to another.

In Holland, banks are tracking what people spend their money on with a ‘carbon emissions summary’ – from food to airline tickets to petrol – noted on their receipts.

In Australia, smart meters can now be used to control a home’s power usage – or disconnect the power completely. No need to physically visit homes that might have locked gates or uncooperative homeowners.

What you buy, what you say, where you go, how much power you use …

A quotation often attributed to GK Chesterton (but actually coined by Belgian writer Emile Cammaerts who was studying Chesterton at the time) puts it in a nutshell, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.”

Sig Samuel wrote, “This is religion minus all the God stuff. These atheists are more religious than Christians.”

The state, presided over by its gurus and high priests who are every bit as dogmatic and dictatorial as you’ll find in any sect or cult, has become the new religion.

We must stand firm. We must not yield.

This is not easy. Please support us in our efforts to monitor and report what is happening. Thank you.

Note: I will be joining the Panel at the forthcoming ‘Church & State’ Conference in Adelaide on 5 November. For further information click here.

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.

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.