Social policy - Australian Family Party

In 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!

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.

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:

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’.
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.
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.
Privatise planning approvals. Any qualified Town Planner should be permitted to certify that a development application complies with a Local Government’s Development Plan.
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.

In 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:

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