Australian Family Party

Family Matters

South Australia

The Seven Deadly Sins

by

vineyardWe are all familiar with the story of Jesus overturning the trading tables and driving out the moneychangers from the temple.

Following this outburst, Jesus was confronted by the chief priests and elders demanding to know by what authority he was doing these things.

He responded by asking them their opinion of John the Baptist and then telling them a parable:

There was a man who had two sons. The man went to the first son and said, “Son, go and work today in the vineyard.”

“I will not,” the first son answered, but later changed his mind and went.

The father then went to the other son and said the same thing, “Son, go and work today in the vineyard.”

“I will, father,” he said, but did not go.

‘Which of the two sons did what his father wanted?’ Jesus asked the Pharisees.

‘The first!’ they answered.

He then rebuked them, telling them that although they acknowledged the first son was the good son, they were more like the second son – saying one thing but doing another:

‘Truly I tell you, tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God before you will.

‘John came to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did’.

Proverbs and axioms such ‘Actions speak louder than words’ and ‘I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do’ have for centuries reinforced the link between personal and public morality. You simply couldn’t get away with saying one thing and doing another.

Sadly, it appears that rule no longer applies.

In today’s world, the second son gets the free pass if he mouths the right platitudes.

What he does no longer matters. It is the first son, the one who spoke the wrong words but did the right thing, who is now the villain.

Remember the seven deadly sins?

They are not quite as well known as the Ten Commandments, but they are equally important in theological terms.  They are:

  1. Anger
  2. Greed
  3. Sloth
  4. Pride
  5. Lust
  6. Envy
  7. Gluttony

What is noticeable about these seven deadly sins?

Or rather, what are they not?

None of them are actions. Murder is not there, adultery is not there, stealing is not there.

One would think that murder was a deadly sin. The same goes for adultery. But no.

The old theologians had it right, the deadly sins are not about the ‘what’, they are about the ‘why’.  Why people do what they do.

One of the most fundamental differences between Judaism and Christianity, is Judaism says God divides people into good and evil, whereas Christianity says God divides people into believers and non-believers.

Which brings us to the South Australian by-election for the seat of Dunstan, caused by the retirement of former Liberal Premier Steven Marshall.

In 2022, then Labor Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas went to the SA State election with one overriding campaign pledge – to fix ambulance ramping at Adelaide’s new $2.3bn hospital.

He won in a landslide – 27 seats to the Liberals’ 16.

Two years later, ramping is now worse than it was under the Liberals, and yet Labor retains a significant lead over the Liberals in the opinion polls.

Actions, it seems, no longer speak louder than words.

In fact, these days it appears to be just the opposite. No-one is punished for lying anymore, but lots are punished for telling the truth!

Former Premier Marshall’s left-leaning colleague, Deputy-Leader Vickie Chapman, retired in May 2022.

It was the actions of Marshall and Chapman (in particular) on issues such as euthanasia and abortion that led to the establishment of the Australian Family Party.

Launched in October 2020 as ‘Family First 2.0’ in the wake of the Liberals’ profound anti-life policies, the Party’s membership grew quickly, and the Party was registered the following year.

Inaugural letterbox flyer from 2020

One Liberal MP, however, who refused to go along with Vickie Chapman’s ghastly legislation was the Member for Black, David Speirs.

Interestingly, Speirs is now Leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia.

Accordingly, as a vote of confidence in his leadership, the Australian Family Party will preference the Liberal candidate in Dunstan at the forthcoming by-election on 23 March.

Our candidate is Dr Nicole Hussey. A former research scientist who now teaches biology and chemistry, Nicole has had a wide experience in the medical/scientific sector and has direct knowledge of our education system. Nicole would make a great Member of Parliament.

If you would like to help Nicole in the by-election, please let me know here (choose Federal Director from the button list).

And for those interested in the ongoing ‘church and state’ debate, this year’s Church & State Conferences – now in their 7th year – will be held in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart and Launceston. These conferences are excellent. For more details, visit their website Church & State.

Thank you for your support.

Christmas 2023

by

Christmas 2023In our Newsletters this year we have covered everything from the Voice bomb to the atom bomb, from Israel to industrial relations, from Gough to the Gulags, from federalism to forgiveness, from taxation to Truman, and from housing to Hamlet – and a whole lot more in between.

With so many highs and lows this year – regrettably, mostly lows – how should we end the year?

Let’s start with a couple of anecdotes.

In 2006, I was heading to a Liberal Party function at the Adelaide Hilton and pulled into the then brand-new Grote Street Car Park in the city only to be confronted by a ‘CAR PARK FULL’ sign.

Not wanting to be late for the event, I stopped my car in front of the sign and wound down my window to speak to a burly-looking guy in a high-vis vest who was sitting on a stool nearby.

“No parks?”, I called out.

“Are you disabled?”, he shouted back.

I said, “I’m with the Liberal Party!”

“That’s close enough”, he said. “Park over there.”

Shortly after, Andrew Evans rang me and invited me to join Family First.

The second anecdote concerns the Spanish patriot leader Navarez who, on his deathbed, was asked by the priest if he had forgiven his enemies.  “I don’t have any enemies”, said Navarez, “I shot them all.”

They say that everything rises and falls on leadership. It is the greatest need in the world today.

Leadership. We hear a lot about it, but what is it?  How does one become a leader in a particular field?  Do you have to shoot all your competitors to become one?

Former Western Australian MP John Hyde used to say, “Any lightweight can lead kids into a lolly shop, but it takes real leadership to lead them out.”

Bob Hawke was a good leader. As was John Howard. Not so, Anthony Albanese.

A recent poll showed confidence in political leadership was at an all-time low. The carpark attendant’s reaction shows that little has changed.

As we contemplate the events of 2023, we ask ourselves, What went right? What went wrong? Where are Australia and the world heading?

The world needs leaders who, like the ancient men of Issachar, “understood the times, and what needed to be done”.

Admitting more than 500,000 migrants into Australia this year – up from an average of 100,000 per annum in the early 2000s – but building only 175,000 houses; billions of dollars spent on renewable energy for no discernible change in either the world’s CO2 emissions or the world’s temperature; substantial increases in grocery prices and other cost-of-living measures – a promised $275 decrease in electricity bills has become a $1,000 increase; the newly-introduced Digital ID legislation – your driver’s licence, passport, medicare card, birth certificate and other personal IDs all rolled into one to ‘bring together government and industry’; and in a country having one of the shortest parliamentary terms in the developed world (three years), the Albanese government spent half of its first term obsessed with a referendum that everyone knew was never going to pass, leaving no time to fix any of the nation’s real problems.

That is not good leadership.

All these and more lie ahead to be addressed in 2024 and beyond.

And then there were none …

In our previous post we discussed Santos, the last remaining ‘Top 100’ listed company based in Adelaide. Well, guess what? It is about to be taken over by WA-based giant Woodside. All gone.

So, about 2024.

I want to keep churning out these Newsletters, as I think the topics we discuss are extremely important and very few, if anyone, is covering them.

In response, I trust you have enjoyed receiving them as much as I have enjoyed writing them – all of which are sent out and will continue to be sent out – free of charge. This enables anyone and everyone to access them and stay informed.

If, however, you are in a position to become a subscription member of the Newsletter at just $5 a month, it will ensure the ongoing viability of this important mission.

If so, please click here.

To all our members and supporters, have a wonderful Christmas and New Year, and thank you again for your support throughout 2023.

The Blame Game

by

blame-gameOn 1 July 2014, my first day as a Senator, Adelaide’s Advertiser newspaper published an opinion piece I had submitted titled, Shedding the ‘Bludger State’ tag, in which I implored the SA State Government to stop bludging on the other states and start standing on its own two feet.

Then Premier Jay Weatherill responded by calling me ‘an enemy of the state’.

Many South Australians can probably remember the time when more than a dozen of Australia’s top 100 listed companies had their head offices in Adelaide – News Ltd, Fauldings, Southcorp, Elders, Normandy Mining, Adelaide Bank, Adelaide Brighton, Standard Chartered Finance to name just a few. Today there’s just one – Santos (and even Santos is only headquartered in Adelaide because of some vague arrangement).

At the time of Federation, South Australia led the constitutional debates and had an influential hand in shaping the new Commonwealth of Australia. For decades after, Adelaide was Australia’s Number 3 city – bigger and more prosperous than either Brisbane or Perth.

Led by Tom Playford, South Australia prospered under the principle of ‘cheap land, cheap power, cheap water, and cheap labour’. Wages were lower than in Sydney and Melbourne, but despite the lower pay packets, South Australians’ quality of life and standard of living were higher than their interstate counterparts.

It was an example of genuine competitive federalism – not the pseudo competitive federalism of today in which state governments try to outdo each other enticing companies to set up in their states.

Since those halcyon days, South Australia has lost each of the competitive edges that made it prosperous.

First to go was cheap land – thanks to urban planning controls – then water, then centralised wage fixing (waiters, nurses, and factory workers across Australia all had to get the same pay).

As for power prices, they are now not just the highest in Australia, but some of the highest in the world.

Last year, the South Australian premier folded like pack of cards over nuclear power. The idea that he and his Labor colleagues would take on the urban planners, water barons and unions to make SA competitive again is laughable.

SA is destined to be a mendicant State for a long time to come.

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke once said, “We’re all Australians, whether we’re from Melbourne or Sydney”.

Where those from the ‘outlying States’ (as Paul Keating called them) belonged, was anyone’s guess.

When Australia came together as a nation in 1901, Sir Samuel Griffith, nailed it by saying:

“We must not lose sight of the essential condition that this is to be a federation of states and not a single government of Australia. The separate states are to continue as autonomous bodies, surrendering only so much of their power as is necessary for the establishment of a general government to do for them collectively what they cannot do individually for themselves.”

Those who spend the money should raise the money

The powers given to the Federal Government by the states in 1901 included trade and commerce, corporations, currency, banking, pensions, taxation, foreign affairs, communications, copyright, marriage and family law, quarantine, and defence.

There was no mention of hospitals, schools, disability services, pink batts, carbon dioxide emissions or many of the other things that federal governments these days decide they want to spend our money on.

Not surprisingly, the first area where the boundaries between state and Federal governments were tested related to tax.

In 1942, all income taxing power was handed to the Federal government for the duration of World War II under the ‘defence’ power of the Constitution. This was intended to be temporary and was to last until the end of the war. But as predictable as the sunrise, when the war ended the Feds did not relinquish their income tax collector role (not that the states wanted to resume income tax collection, but that is not the point).

Since then, the tax revenue balance has continued to move away from the states and towards the Feds. The imbalance which now exists is known as ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’.

Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federal country in the world. The Federal government raises over 70% of all government revenues – much more than is required to fund its own operations – while the states don’t raise anywhere near enough to fund theirs. The Feds then make up the states’ shortfall through Commonwealth grants.

This creates a perpetual blame game. Failures at the state level are blamed on the Feds’ lack of funding, and failures at the federal level are blamed on the states’ poor service delivery.

Duplication of health and education bureaucracies alone costs taxpayers billions of dollars, yet the Feds do not run a single hospital or a single school.

This cannot go on. State and Federal governments should only collect taxes for their own purposes, and taxpayers and consumers should be fully informed as to what is a state tax and what is a Federal tax. Those who spend the money should bear the responsibility of raising it.

This confusing power structure between the states and the Federal government – and between individual states – was emphatically exposed during Covid with many calling for the abolition of state governments and the formation of one national government.

But as Covid revealed, the Federal government doesn’t have the power it thought it had. The Feds may have the money, but it’s the states that have the power.

Oppenheimer

by

oppenheimerOn the 14th of August, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was interviewed by Neil Mitchell on Melbourne’s 3AW. Part of the interview went like this:

“Mr Albanese, if you were dictator, what’s the first thing you would do?”

“Ban social media”, he replied.

How telling.

That the Prime Minister would ban social media – our most popular means of communication – is brutally authoritarian.

It reminded me of a scene in the movie Oppenheimer in which nuclear scientist Robert Oppenheimer meets with President Harry Truman shortly after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2.

Following his successful testing of the bomb, Oppenheimer was known to have uttered the words, “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds”, a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, a holy scripture from Hinduism.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Oppenheimer told Truman he felt he had “blood on his hands”.

Truman angrily responded with the words, “The blood is on my hands, not yours. It was me who dropped the bomb, not you”.

With that the meeting was over and Truman said he “never wanted to see that man again”.

There’s more than a little Oppenheimer in Albanese’s view of himself and the world around him. Here’s why I think that.

There’s an old Greek proverb, “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows only one thing.”

Albanese knows only one thing – politics. It’s all he’s ever done.

But as we know, the world isn’t made up of just one thing, it is made up of a whole range of competing factors and trade-offs that differ for different people of different ages who live in different places and have different priorities.

Like the ‘crystallised intelligence’ vs ‘fluid intelligence’ paradigm. Crystallised intelligence employs experience and wisdom and knows how the world works. Fluid intelligence knows how to study, learn facts and pass exams. Foxes vs hedgehogs. We’ve all met them.

Harry Truman, a Democrat (a bit like the Labor Party here in Australia), was a very good President. Before entering politics, Truman was a soldier and then a shopkeeper. A better understanding of how the world works you wouldn’t get than by owning a shop! Harry was quite the fox.

But the story is told of when Truman was elected President, his former army buddy and shopkeeper partner, Eddie Jacobson, said to him, “O Harry, now that you’re President, everyone’s going to start telling you what a great man you are, when you and I both know you ain’t”.

Anyone who gets to the top needs an Eddie Jacobson in their lives.

Being knowledgeable on one subject can narrow one’s focus, lead to over-confidence and dismiss dissenting views. This can lead to self-deception, even delusions of grandeur. The Voice perhaps?

The world is a very dangerous place, and it is impossible to predict what will happen next. There are countless variables and factors. Foxes understand this innately, hedgehogs not so much.

For this reason, we have to stop letting the hedgehogs run the show. Let them be advisers, by all means, but do not put them in charge.

They may be fine leading other hedgehogs in a particular field, but the world is not parliament house or a laboratory or a hospital or a courtroom or a classroom or a police station. We can’t let scientists or police commissioners or judges who do not have to answer to the people run the place. Being answerable to the people forces you to understand how the world really works and how to assess the many trade-offs – as the Prime Minister will soon find out.

On a more celebratory note, next month marks the three-year anniversary of the launch of the Australian Family Party – and almost one hundred Newsletters!

Inaugural letterbox flyer from 2020

Our membership is strong and the response to the Newsletters, all of which are listed on our website, has been phenomenal – especially The New Gulag, The MATS Plan Re-visited, Black Hawk Down, Two Stories, One Lesson and of course Remembering Andrew Evans.

But, like the story of ‘the turtle on the fence post’ (if you ever see a turtle sitting on top of a fence post, what is the one thing you know? – It didn’t get there by itself!), if anyone wants to get to the top of the fence post in any field – sport, the arts, business, and yes, politics – you’re not going to get there by yourself. You’re going to need a lot of help from a lot of people.

In our case, that includes other minor parties.

As I outlined in The Shrinking Forest earlier this year, alliances with like-minded parties are essential for success.

More news about that in coming months.

Remembering Andrew Evans

by

Andrew-EvansAndrew Evans was elected to the South Australian Parliament’s Upper House (Legislative Council) in February 2002 with a primary vote of 4.0%. Not bad for a first-time candidate and a new party.

Before going into politics, Andrew had been the senior pastor at SA’s largest Pentecostal Church – Paradise Assemblies of God (AOG).

Andrew formed the Family First Party in 2001, and the party immediately became known for its Christian-based, social conservatism – particularly on issues such as abortion, euthanasia and the LGBT agenda.

At the 2006 State election, Family First added a second Upper House member (Dennis Hood).

In July 2008, shortly after his 73rd birthday, Andrew resigned his seat and former Liberal Party MP Robert Brokenshire was nominated by the party to replace him.

As it happened, also in July 2008, the Liberal Party was holding its controversial Mayo preselection contest following Alexander Downer’s sudden resignation from Federal parliament. I was a candidate in that preselection contest and resigned my 20+ years of Liberal Party membership as a result of that controversy.

The following day, Andrew rang me and invited me to join Family First and head up the party’s federal aspirations. I accepted and ran as the Family First candidate in the subsequent Mayo by-election gaining 11.4% of the primary vote. I was not elected as the Member for Mayo, which went to the Liberals’ Jamie Briggs.

Following the by-election, I became the party’s lead Senate candidate and was elected to the Federal Parliament in 2013 and again in 2016.

Andrew and I were able to unite the religious social conservatives and the free-market libertarians, an essential element in developing preference arrangements. As Andrew often said, ‘there’s no point having all these great ideas, if you can’t get yourself elected!’

On the social side, one of Andrew’s great political achievements was the removal of the statute of limitations for child sex abuse.

Before Andrew’s election in 2002, no person in South Australia could be prosecuted for a sexual offence if the offence had been committed before December 1982.

Andrew had this ban overturned.

The new laws operated retrospectively so that people who had committed certain sexual offences before December 1982 could be prosecuted.

As was said on the floor of the House at the time, ‘… in relation to the tolerance of such incidents, and the subsequent chain of events put in place by the Hon Andrew Evans, this will indeed be a significant lasting legacy of his contribution to this parliament’.

But the party wasn’t called ‘Family First’ for nothing. Andrew and I set about highlighting things that were important to establishing and maintaining healthy families. Our motto became ‘every family, a job and a house’. If every family had a job and owned a house, the benefits to the nation would be incalculable. Australia would be transformed. So why didn’t every family have a job and own their own home? In short, barriers to entry.

When it came to jobs and houses, Australia was not a free country.

For the low-skilled, or poorly educated, or socially disadvantaged, or for those who lack connections or self-confidence, the barriers to entry to getting a job are serious indeed.

As for barriers to home ownership, for more than a hundred years the average Australian family was able to buy its first home on one wage. The median house price was just three times the median income allowing young home buyers easy entry into the housing market.

As we know all too well, the median house price is now more than nine times annual income and home ownership is out of reach for most young families. Increasing supply through more broadacre land release became our mantra.

Then there’s the way the family is taxed. Family First strongly advocated income-splitting for single-income households and putting an end to price-gouging by state governments of water and power costs.

Andrew and I maintained our friendship right up to the end. We last spoke last year when he knew his time was limited. He was a friend and mentor. When it came to minor party politics and how to deal with a church-based membership, Andrew knew everyone and was able to get people to stand as candidates like no-one else before him.

Andrew passed away last Friday.

We have lost a great man.

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.

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.