Social policy

Checkmate

14/09/2022 by Australian Family Party

During 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

01/09/2022 by Australian Family Party

As 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:

The ‘tax and control’ agenda – including opposing 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.
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.

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

03/08/2022 by 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.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner

13/07/2022 by Australian Family Party

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.