Empowering Indigenous Australia Jacinta Nampijinpa Price 39

ContributorThe .

A journal of articles published by the Policy Committee of the Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division)

Policy Committee: Chairman Sherry Sufi, Jeremy Buxton, Alan Eggleston, Christopher Dowson, Joanna Collins, Murray Nixon, Dean Wicken, Christopher Tan, Daniel White, Claire McArdle, Jeremy Quinn, Steve Thomas MLC, Zak Kirkup MLA, Peter Katsambanis MLA and Ian Goodenough MP.

The intention of this document is to stimulate public policy debate by providing individuals an avenue to express their views on topics they may have an interest or expertise in.

Opinions expressed in these articles are those of their respective authors alone. In no way should the presence of an article in this publication be interpreted as an endorsement of the views it expresses either by the Liberal Party or any of its constituent bodies.

Authorised by S. Calabrese, 2/12 Parliament Place, West Perth WA 6005.

Printed by Worldwide Online Printing, 112-114 Mallard Way, Cannington WA 6107. If Liberalism stands for anything … it’s for the passion to contribute to the nation, to“ be free, but to be contributors, to submit to the discipline of the mind instead of the ordinary, dull discipline of a regimented mass of people.

- Sir Robert Menzies 27th July 1962 Contents

3. Foreword Sherry Sufi 4. The Break-Up of Australia Keith Windschuttle 8. Feminism and the Unholy Trinity of Lies Daisy Cousens 11. The Anti-Israel Agenda Alex Ryvchin 14. National and Even Civilisational Decline Tony Abbott 16. Achieving Strong Border Protection Philip Ruddock 19. Republic of Australia: Is it Time Yet? Martin Drum 21. Immortal Lessons of the Forgotten People Aiden Depiazzi 23. Why we must leave the Paris Climate Accord Ross Cameron 26. Christian Foundations of Freedom and Democracy Lyle Shelton 29. Challenges for an Ageing Australia Robyn Nolan 32. Rediscovering the Art of Politics Nick Cater 34. Labor’s Politics of Envy Eric Abetz 36. Empowering Indigenous Australia Jacinta Nampijinpa Price 39. Trump’s South Asia Policy Rajat Ganguly 42. Restoring Our National Pride Caleb Bond 44. Defending WA: An Integrated Approach Neil James 46. Our New National Intelligence Agency Alexey Muraviev 48. Letters to the Editor Foreword

As members of the Liberal Party, we preselect candidates for Parliament, we help raise funds for campaigns, we volunteer hours of our lives letterboxing, waving corflutes, handing out how-to- vote-cards and scrutineering. We devote our time and effort because we are committed to ensuring that the right policies with the best interests of the Australian community are implemented in Federal and State Parliaments across the nation. If our judgement is good enough to choose the right candidates, then surely our judgement is good enough to choose the right policies. And who would doubt that good policies come from smart ideas, which result from free and frank debate, which is why we have this journal. The Contributor was established three years ago by our Policy Committee as a modest attempt to help foster a culture of free and frank debate in our Party. Articles published in previous editions have helped kickstart vital debates on many significant issues. I am confident this edition will do the same. In the face of disagreement, our political opponents too often succumb to the temptation to attack the arguer instead of the argument. As Liberals, we must never stoop to that level. We must respect our right to disagree with each other as much as our opponent’s right to disagree with us. In producing this publication, I have kept my editorial intervention to a minimum. Any stats, facts, assertions and quotes contained within these articles remain the sole responsibility of their authors. If you find yourself in strong disagreement with a view put forward by one or more of our authors, then feel free to make a submission for a future edition mounting a case against that view and let the battle of ideas flourish - as it should - in the spirit of democracy. I am grateful to the eminent authors who submitted their articles for this edition, to the members of the Policy Committee especially Jeremy Buxton for his regular feedback, to the readers for your on-going interest in the journal and to the staff at Liberal Party HQ for their assistance. Enjoy the read and be sure to get in touch on [email protected] with your feedback.

Sherry SufiBA DipIS MA MHist Policy Chairman Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division)

3 The Break-Up of Australia By Keith Windschuttle

The recognition of indigenous people in the constitution has a hidden agenda that, so far, no one wants to discuss. On the one hand, our political leaders believe recognition will contribute to national reconciliation, that it will finally bring Aboriginal people into the political fold. In 2013 Opposition Leader Tony Abbott argued: “We have never fully made peace with the first Australians. Until we have acknowledged that, we will be an incomplete nation and a torn people.” As Prime Minister a year later, Mr Abbott said his objective in holding a referendum was not to change the Constitution but to complete it, so that we can make our country “whole”. On the other hand, when members of the Aboriginal political class discuss this issue among themselves in books, academic papers, and speeches to Aboriginal conferences, they take a quite different view. They don’t say their aim is to make the Constitution complete or the nation whole. Indeed, ever since their success in gaining native title in 1992, they have sought to go one big step further. As well as getting their land back, they now want to get their country back too. As the title of a recent book by Aboriginal academics Megan Davis and Marcia Langton says, “It’s Our Country”. To these activists, recognition of Aborigines in the Constitution would simply be one more step towards their real objectives: political autonomy, traditional law and values, and sovereignty over their own separate state or nation. They see themselves as “first peoples” whose ancestral status gives them ownership and jurisdiction over Aboriginal land. They do not regard the existing Australian nation as their true country. They describe the Australian nation as no more than a recently arrived “settler state” whose rule, according to Aboriginal filmmaker Rachel Perkins, they have endured with a “burning resentment” ever since 1788.

4 The concept of sovereignty has been absent from Kimberley. Other activists, such as Noel Pearson, the mainstream media’s reporting of constitutional talk in terms of a number of Aboriginal states, recognition but it has long been the principal based mostly on the territories now controlled by objective of the Aboriginal political class right Aboriginal land councils. Warren Mundine agrees. across the spectrum—from gradual reformists He advances a strategy to recognise all existing to radical agitators. They argue that because Aboriginal clan associations and language groups Aborigines never ceded sovereignty in the colonial as “first nations”, with the Commonwealth making era, because they signed no treaties and were separate agreements with each one. never actually conquered, as the first land owners How much land would a black state or states have? they remain the continent’s sovereign people. According to the National Native Title Tribunal, as They claim that, in restoring land rights in the at 31 March 2016 no less than 30.4 per cent of the Mabo decision, Australian courts recognised that Australian continent is already held under native traditional Aboriginal society was governed by title. Once all the claims now before the Native its own laws. The existence of a legal system, Title Tribunal are processed, this will add another they argue, logically entails the existence of 31.7 per cent of the continent to native title. All up, Aboriginal sovereignty which was supposedly native title will soon amount to more than 60 per never extinguished by the British Crown’s own cent of the Australian continent. declaration of sovereignty in 1770. This outcome is bound to test the complacency of There is nothing new about the demand for voters in some of the states affected. It would mean sovereignty. The concept dates back to the 1970s that more than 80 per cent of Western Australia will and to the Aboriginal Treaty Committee, a body be under native title, plus more than 70 per cent of white Canberra activists led by former Reserve of both Queensland and South Australia. These are Bank head Nugget Coombs. This committee enormous amounts of land to give to such a small looked forward to the day when an independent number of people. It means the 140,000 people Aboriginal government, or governments, could now living on traditional Aboriginal lands will be stand alongside state and territory governments the owners of 60 per cent of the entire continent, before the Commonwealth Grants Commission while remaining 24 million of us are left with less (now COAG) in their own right. than 40 per cent. Since then, all major government-funded federal If it was put to the Australian people that bodies of Aboriginal people have supported this sovereignty over this much of Australia was the objective, from the National Aboriginal Conference outcome Aborigines want from the constitutional in 1982, which declared: “In pursuing the Makarrata referendum, the chances of it passing would (Treaty) we assert our basic rights as sovereign be slim, to say the least. But of course, it is not Aboriginal nations who are equal in political status being promoted that way. For example, the with the Commonwealth of Australia”, to 2012 when Recognise website of the government-funded a survey by the National Congress of Australia’s body Reconciliation Australia quotes an article by First Peoples, the successor to ATSIC, found 88 Galarrwuy Yunupingu published in 2009 saying per cent of its members identified constitutional that he wanted constitutional recognition “to bring recognition and sovereignty as the top priority of my people in from the cold, to bring us into the Aboriginal people. nation”. It is true he did say that, but in the same The objective of the Aboriginal political class is that, article he also wrote: once a vaguely worded constitutional referendum “The clans of east Arnhem Land join me in was passed recognising their prior occupation of acknowledging no king, no queen, no church the continent, they would be able to successfully and no state. Our allegiance is to each other, argue for sovereign status before a friendly High to our land, and to the ceremonies that define Court, headed by a sympathetic chief justice like us … These ceremonies record and pass on the former Chief Justice, Robert French. laws that give us ownership of the land and of Where would their sovereign nation be located? the seas, and the rules by which we live.” The more optimistic members of the Aboriginal The Recognise campaign quotes that part of political class like Michael Mansell believe it might be Yunupingu’s article saying he wants to bring his possible to unite all the land now held under native people in from the cold, but completely omits his title into one almost continuous state stretching statement that he does not recognise the Australian from Gippsland all the way to the Pilbara and the Queen, the Australian state, or Australian laws.

5 In other words, this government-funded body born in a British colony had the same right. After is deceiving the Australian people about where the passing of the Commonwealth Franchise Act Yunupingu’s true loyalties lie. 1902, Australia became the second country in Moreover, there has long been a sustained the world (after New Zealand) to give the vote to campaign by university-based lawyers to pull women, and this included all Aboriginal women in the wool over the eyes of the Australian public the four respective states. about constitutional recognition. Ever since the In fact, in the decade before Federation, right referendum was announced by Julia Gillard in across rural Australia, the Aboriginal vote was 2011, they have been arguing that the Australian a crucial factor in electing representatives to constitution was founded in an era of racism, colonial parliaments. There is plenty of evidence and it is still tainted by racism. They claim the that Aborigines not only voted, but were courted Constitution still contains racist clauses that need by political parties from both the conservative to be repealed by referendum. side and the Labor political movement. Had Davis For instance, Megan Davis, Professor of Law at the or Williams bothered to read any of the par- University of NSW, claims our founding fathers liamentary debates accompanying colonial or bequeathed to us a constitution that was tainted federal electoral bills — once an essential routine with “racism, sexism and xenophobia” (her words). for proper legal scholars — they would know this. “In determining whether to fuse the separate The only places where Aboriginal people had colonies into a unified federation,” Davis writes, restricted voting rights were in the then sparsely “women, Indigenous people, Chinese and Kanak populated colonies of Queensland and Western labourers were all denied the right to vote and Australia. Each allowed Aborigines to vote, but only thus excluded from the collective, ‘the people’.” if they possessed £100 worth of property, which She wrote this in 2010 and the following year very few did. In the rest of Australia, all Aborigines Julia Gillard appointed her to the expert panel on could vote, even those who were illiterate and had constitutional recognition. no money or even no fixed address. Yet this claim is completely false and only reveals What’s more, at Federation in 1901, the Constitution Davis’ complete ignorance of Australian electoral granted all people who had previously been history and how democratically advanced this enrolled to vote in the colonies the right to vote country was at the time. Unfortunately, she is not for the Commonwealth parliament. Section alone. Gillard’s expert panel repeated the same 41 of the Constitution said everyone who had fiction, citing an article by Davis’ colleague, George the vote in the colonies before Federation, or Williams, another professor of law at the University anyone who acquired the vote in the same states of New South Wales, who claimed Aborigines after Federation, could vote for the Australian were denied the right to vote for the constitutional parliament. As the former NSW Premier and conventions in the 1890s that led to Federation. minister in the Barton government, Sir William However, the truth is that in the colonies of New Lyne told the first Commonwealth parliament: South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania “They [the Aborigines] do vote in New South before Federation, there were no ethnic barriers or Wales. I have seen them voting … those who now property qualifications for voting for parliament, have the right cannot, under the Constitution, for voting for the constitutional conventions of have that right taken away from them.” 1897 and 1898, or for voting to approve the final Yet today, George Williams, who brags on his draft of the Constitution itself in 1899. Megan Davis university website that he is “one of Australia’s and George Williams completely misrepresent leading constitutional lawyers and public Australian electoral history. commentators”, has written: “The founders of Throughout the nineteenth century, colonial liberals the Australian nation saw no place for Aboriginal pursued the principle of manhood franchise, “one and Torres Strait Islander peoples … One of man, one vote”, which they won in New South Wales the first acts of the new parliament was to in the Electoral Reform Act of 1858 (some 56 years exclude Aboriginal peoples from the franchise.” before the same rights were won in Britain in 1914). This is patently untrue. Thanks to Section 41, it By the 1890s, Aboriginal adult males in New South was constitutionally impossible for the federal Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania had parliament to exclude from the franchise any of the the same right to vote as everyone else. Resident indigenous people of New South Wales, Victoria, Chinese males and people of any other ethnicity South Australia or Tasmania. During the debates

6 in the House of Representatives and the Senate on would only gain the power to make laws “in the the Commonwealth Franchise Bill of 1902 everyone best interests” of aboriginal people. However, who spoke, acknowledged this was so. according to George Williams and Julia Gillard’s The reason Professors Davis and Williams expert panel, the 90 per cent of us who voted Yes perpetuate their myth is because they want for this amendment did the wrong thing because to persuade the Australian people that their we “deliberately” put into the Constitution a clause constitution is such a racist document it badly that allows racial discrimination. needs amendment. This is a misrepresentation These critics claim that in the 1998 case over invented for purely political motives, to dupe the Hindmarsh Island, the High Court actually decided Australian public into unwittingly conceding the that Section 51(xxvi) could be used to disadvantage demands of the Aboriginal political class. Aboriginal people. The truth is, however, that High Their complaints about other constitutional Court did not decide any such thing. It was evenly sections are just as deceptive. For instance, divided on that particular issue: two judges for, and George Williams says Section 25 “acknowledges two judges against. And yet Aboriginal activists, the states can disqualify people from voting due including Labor’s Linda Burney are happy to repeat to their race.” However, Section 25 was put there the myth that the High Court’s failure to produce for the very opposite reason. The framers of the a majority judgement was actually a clear-cut Constitution wanted to put pressure on Queensland decision that the Constitution “even has sections and Western Australia, where, as I noted, there was that allow for discrimination based on race”. a property qualification for Aborigines to vote, to In fact, this has now become the central argument bring them into line with the other states where the Aboriginal political class makes to generate there was no such qualification. support for a constitutional amendment. Two In fact, Section 25 was borrowed directly from the members of Gillard’s expert panel, Megan Davis and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Marcia Langton, have said the question they want United States, which after the American Civil War the referendum to put to the Australian public is: was designed to penalise those states that still “Do you want to remove racist provisions from our refused to enfranchise African Americans. Section Constitution?” If the public failed to approve, they 25 says that if a state disqualifies any members say: “the loss would brand Australians to the world of one race from voting, then the state cannot as racists”. This is clearly ethnic blackmail: vote count any members of that race to determine its for us, or we will trash your country’s international quota of representatives in the federal parliament. reputation. This meant that, at Federation, Queensland and The claim that the Australian Constitution ever Western Australia each lost one member from had, let alone continues to have, racist provisions the House of Representatives it would otherwise is false. The central argument in the campaign for have had. It is a gross misrepresentation to portray constitutional recognition is bogus. No voter in Section 25 as a “racist” clause. any referendum should believe it. If the proposed The myths spread about Section 51(xxvi) are constitutional referendum goes ahead, those of us even more outlandish. George Williams claims: opposed to recognition should join ranks to mount “Section 51(xxvi) was deliberately inserted into a nationwide campaign to point this out, and to the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to put the case why the Australian people should discriminate against sections of the community on vote No. account of their race.” Yet this is the Section that Keith Windschuttle is a renowned Australian was amended after the famous referendum of 1967 historian, author and Editor of the Quadrant when 90 per cent of the Australian people voted Magazine. This article is based on his new book to allow the Commonwealth power to make laws ‘The Break-up of Australia: The Real Agenda Behind for Aboriginal people. Before 1967, that power was Aboriginal Recognition’ now available for purchase reserved only for the states. at http://quadrant.org.au/shop and selected When the referendum was put to the Australian bookstores. people, all the media publicity and even handout material at polling booths reproduced a joint statement by Prime Minister Harold Holt, Opposition Leader Gough Whitlam and Country Party leader John McEwen that the Commonwealth

7 Feminism and the Unholy Trinity of Lies By Daisy Cousens

Feminism was once a noble ideology. The tireless efforts of its courageous key players were responsible for one of the crowning glories of Western civilisation – the emancipation of women. Thanks to the tenacity of the fearless suffragettes, women achieved the vote, and thus a well-deserved influence in how the society that governs them is governed. It was the stoic second wave feminists who gained women equality of opportunity, not to mention introducing no-fault divorce, and the concept of reproductive rights. It was these brave women, and the men who supported them, who allowed women to play the varied and vibrant societal role they do today. However, in the early twenty-first century, second wave feminists, satisfied with the extraordinary leaps they had made decades prior, relinquished the reins to their Generation X and Millennial successors. These particular women, riding on the achievements of their foremothers, were focussed on semantics and attitudinal problems facing women. A worthy cause, after all, sexism did not disappear with the washboard. In their quest to combat sources of discomfort for women such as sexist jokes in the workplace, catcalling, and the unwanted groping, attitudes to women began to change for the better. There is now a hyper-awareness of sexual harassment at work and on the street. Women have more and better representation in the media and Hollywood. And girls are encouraged from an early age to enter any profession they choose, regardless of how traditionally ‘male’ it may be. As such, in winning these hard-fought battles, third wave feminists inadvertently ran out of things to complain about. However, rather than celebrating this as a victory, feminist leaders started to think up increasingly histrionic ways to insist women are still ‘oppressed’ in Western society.

8 This new-age feminist ideology is based on purely because of the expenses saved by paying lower middle class concerns. If we are to believe what wages. As such, the so-called ‘gap’ in question is is presented to us in the cultural mainstream, the not a comparison of salary, it’s a comparison of most insidious issues facing women today are the average earnings of men and women over the not genital mutilation, or underage marriages, course of a year. or sexual slavery. They are ‘manspreading’, The calculation of the gender pay gap does not ‘mansplaining’, and ‘micro-aggressions’. These take into account factors such as women leaving made-up, anecdotal issues resonate with nobody the workforce to bear and raise children, or the fact outside the bourgeois ladies of the inner cities. women often eschew higher powered, higher paid Their doctrine is no longer based on equality. positions in order to prioritise their offspring. It Third-wave feminists have instead adopted the also does not take into account women on average concept of retribution as their primary objective, work less hours in a day than men. For example, and encourage women to cry ‘misogyny’ at every according to the American Time Use Survey in 2015 missed opportunity or criticism. for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, among full time In other words, the narrative modern feminists push employees, men worked 8.2 hours a day, whereas is designed to absolve women of any responsibility women worked 7.8 hours. Therefore, the pay gap is for anything wrong with their lives. There is no joy not some gross global inequality, rather it is simply in their gospel, no empowerment, no recognition the manifestation of the different choices men and of potential, only bitterness, resentment, and women make, based on their inherent biological above all, perpetual victimhood. Without realising differences. it, third wave feminists perpetuate the image of Undermining the idea of the gender pay gap women as fragile, delicate, and prone to hysteria, a further is according to the BLS, childless women in stereotype akin to the couch-fainting ingenues of their twenties in the USA make eight percent more the 1850s. per year than men of the same description. The It’s easy to wonder why, in a society where women situation is the same in the UK, where according have, by law, every opportunity available to men, to the Office of National Statistics, women in along with a cultural disdain for and a court their twenties working full time, and not counting system that punishes rape, sexual harassment, overtime, earn on average 1.1 percent more than wage disparity, gender discrimination, domestic their similar male counterparts. The same is true violence, and other atrocities, there is a contingent of UK women in their thirties, who out-earn men of women who believe they are still, somehow, an by 0.2 percent. These figures are supported by a oppressed class. However, it is surprisingly simple survey by the Press Association, which discovered for feminists to promote the myth of oppression women aged 22 to 29 earn £1,111 more than male by pushing the ‘apex fallacy’. That is, the idea rivals in a year. that the experiences of those at the top are the Secondly, feminists fervently insist the issue of experiences of all. domestic violence is at peak epidemic levels in As men make up the majority of powerful, highly Australia. They say it affects one in three women, paid positions, it is all too easy to fool gullible, and their wild opining would indicate it happens in insecure women into believing all men are every second household. This is not true. The most somehow ‘privileged’. Feminists weave this web of recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics misplaced victimhood by telling an unholy trinity Personal Safety Survey show only 1.06 percent of lies – the gender pay gap, the domestic violence of women are physically assaulted by their male alleged ‘epidemic’, and male privilege. However, partner or ex-partner every year in Australia. In upon observing the data, a very different narrative addition, the one in three figure indicates a lifetime is revealed. victimisation record, and refers to all violence, not Firstly, the gender pay gap is billed by feminists as just domestic violence. That is, whether the violent evidence women are paid less for the same work act occurred yesterday, or fifty years ago, it’s all as men. This notion has been debunked many included in that particular number. While these times. It is illegal to pay women less than men for numbers are still too high, domestic violence the same work, and has been for several decades. in Australia is clearly not the all-encompassing If employers could pay women less than men, epidemic feminists claim it to be. the workforce would be dominated by women, Finally, the third falsehood in the unholy trinity

9 of fallacies is male privilege. This myth is the battle, and unlike women, they are not afforded embodiment of the apex fallacy, and is rooted any concept of reproductive rights. And as for the in the idea that because the majority of CEOs, men who are, in fact, at the top end of the highest politicians, and other highly paid positions in paid professions, with money and power come the workforce are held by men, all men must responsibility, anxiety, and the perpetual weight somehow be ‘privileged’. Through the lense of of the highest expectations. All of which cause a middle-class, money-centric woman who has astronomical levels of stress and strain. little interest in motherhood, this argument could Upon eliminating this trio of feminist lies, it is not possibly be made. However, it ignores the fact that hard to see the modern feminist narrative of female most men are not on the top rung of society, as victimhood is at best, flimsy, and at worst, fake. well as the host of issues affecting men that are Women are not the bewildered, couch-fainting largely glossed over, or demonised, in the cultural snowflakes third-wave feminists unwittingly insist mainstream. For example, according to the ABS, us to be. We are formidable, complex creatures, 95 percent workplace deaths are men, and over 99 with our own vested interests and pursuits, and percent of military deaths are men. Globally, more we do not need to be accosted by a noisy faction women graduate from high school and university of miserable women (and the deluded men who than men, and benefit from a workforce that is capitulate to them) who insist on telling us just how desperate to hire them in order to appear more terrible we should believe our lives are. There has ‘diverse’. never been a better time in history to be a woman. Men work on average longer hours than women, Until modern feminists cease their hysterical and in all the most physical, dangerous jobs. For hand-flapping and realise this, their movement is example, the 2010 BLS data found over 99 percent doomed to obsolescence. of boilermakers, brick masonry and stonemasonry Daisy Cousens is a political commentator, workers, septic tank servicers, sewer pipe cleaners, columnist and freelance journalist who writes and trash collectors are men. Male suicide rates for The Spectator and Quadrant. She has made are higher, men pay more tax, and take less out of appearances on ABC’s Q&A, Paul Murray Live, The the welfare system in not only child support, but Project, Mark Latham’s Outsiders, Jones and Co, age pensions, as women tend to live longer. Men The Bolt Report and The Drum. are more likely to lose their children in a custody

Anyone who believes you can’t change history has never tried“ to write his memoirs.

- David Ben-Gurion

10 The Anti-Israel Agenda By Alex Ryvchin

To observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2017 has been a year of major anniversaries. It is the centenary of the charge of the Light Horsemen at Beersheba which precipitated the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and with it the end of its colonial hold on Palestine. Two day later, the British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour issued a note declaring British support for a Jewish return to the land and the reconstitution of their national home. 2017 also marks the 80th anniversary of the Peel Commission, the first formal recommendation for a two-state solution to the problem of competing Jewish and Arab claims to the parcel of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The proposal was accepted by the Jewish leadership and spurned by the Arabs. It is the 70th anniversary of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in favour of partition of the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. A proposal again accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. Perhaps most notably, 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War by which Israel took possession of the eastern parts of Jerusalem and its surrounding villages, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. The Six Day War was highly significant for expanding the territory under Israeli control and demonstrating how in a mere twenty years, Israel had developed a military prowess and home-front of sufficient steel to withstand all that its neighbours could throw at it. But in a greater sense, the war altered little. The war was borne out of unremitting intra- Arab rivalries as much as an animosity towards what they all agreed was an illegitimate state of interlopers that had to be made temporary. Each Arab state was suspicious of the regional designs of the others. Their leaders skillfully manipulated the feeling of the “Arab street”, placating their masses with promises of conquest to preserve their own popularity, and they brawled for the prize of leader

11 in the cause of pan-Arabism (a socialist, nationalist from territories lost in 1967, while the recognition alternative to the caliphate). Israel mattered only of Israel by Egypt was an explicit rejection of the as a convenient scapegoat periodically prodded Khartoum doctrine and the principle of permanent to provide respite from domestic frustrations and and total war against the Jewish state. regional unrest. Eventually, the Arabs went too far Facing the prospect of being relegated to a in their provocations of their Jewish neighbour, peripheral issue in regional affairs, the Palestinians and paid a heavy price for it. sought about internationalising the conflict with But the more things were changed by the Six Day Israel to achieve their aims. A year after the Yom War, the more they stayed the same. Just a few Kippur War, Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation months later, the Arabs rushed off to Khartoum, Organisation (PLO) secured recognition as the Sudan to convene a meeting of the Arab League sole representative of the Palestinian people at at which they formally codified their relations an Arab League summit in Rabat. The year after with Israel as “no peace, no recognition, and no that, the Palestinians were granted observer status negotiations.” In other words, maintaining the at the United Nations. This marked the entry of status quo. The war may have temporarily redrawn the Palestinians onto the world stage both as a boundaries, shifted power and caused intense loss cause and as a coherent and increasingly effective of face, but the underlying condition of rejection political actor, whose ability to extract sympathy and belligerence remained unaltered. would soon permeate every theatre of government This was evidenced by the resumption of war just and civil society. six years later. In 1973 (45 years ago next year), the The motives for securing a seat at the table were sides fought a bruising, grinding confrontation, immediately evident: to relieve the Israelis of which shattered any sense of Israeli invincibility theirs. “We have entered the world through its after the heady days of 1967 and brought home the widest gate,” declared Arafat, “now Zionism will terrible toll of war. The Yom Kippur war, so named get out of this world.” because the Arab invasion came on the solemn A year later, using their new diplomatic status, the Jewish Day of Atonement, shook the Israelis but Palestinians scripted an infamous chapter in the did not topple them. history of the United Nations. On 10 November The significance of the Yom Kippur War was that 1975, the United Nations General Assembly passed it proved that Israeli superiority in 1967 was no a resolution deeming the national liberation aberration and that its existence was permanent, movement of the Jewish people (Zionism) to be a particularly in light of its new frontiers, which now form of racism. The US representative at the United included the strategically vital Golan, Jordan Valley Nations called it an “assault on the principles of and Sinai, the high ground around Jerusalem, and liberal democracy” and “a great evil” that had a more generous Israeli “waistline” achieved by “given the appearance of international sanction … the capture of the West Bank. to anti-Semitism.” The lesson of the 1973 War was that what was lost The passing of the resolution and the events that by the Arabs in 1967 could not be recovered by followed provided the blueprint for the political force. war on Israel that has been waged ever since. In This necessitated a substantial rethink of Arab March 1977, the Palestinian desire to “get Zionism attitudes towards Israel. Egypt adopted one path, out of this world” metastasised from the corridors securing the return of territory lost in 1967 by of power to the university campus. Student offering peace and recognition in exchange for unions at four British universities expelled Jewish land, a formula contained in UN Security Council societies from their campuses on the basis that Resolution 242. Jordan followed suit in 1994, “they are Zionist and therefore racist.” The trade extending full diplomatic recognition to Israel, in union assembly, the Church synod, the Party a peace accord that, like the Israeli-Egyptian deal, conference, and the town hall would all soon follow has held ever since to the mutual benefit of the suit. Discussion of Israel’s basic legitimacy was parties. Both treaties still serve as key planks of becoming a standing agenda item in every sector what limited stability exists in the Middle East, and of civil society and every branch of government. exemplars of Israeli-Arab coexistence. It would occupy a prominence in NGO statements and media reports out of all proportion to the Yet for the Palestinians, 1973 was a disaster and lethality of the conflict, invariably at the expense 1979 was a monumental betrayal. The Yom Kippur of other territorial disputes and human rights invasion failed to conquer Israel or even drive it

12 concerns elsewhere. its toll, striking at the morale of Israelis and their In May 2017, Norway’s largest trade union adopted ability to freely interact with the world around a complete boycott of Israel. In January, Spain’s them, and corroding institutions of great moral Valencia region adopted an official policy of and political influence that have fallen captive to boycott of Israel, declaring itself “a space free of the Palestinian cause. Israeli apartheid”, joining over 50 other Spanish A consequence of the Yom Kippur War was the regional authorities in boycotting Israel. In July, the signing of the Camp David Accords, between Mennonite Church USA voted to begin divesting Israel and Egypt. The treaty was and is remarkable from Israel. for bringing peace, mutual recognition and an end Veteran US diplomat Dennis Ross observed that to all material disputes between Israel and an Arab “the Palestinian National Movement more than state. The accords were signed 40 years ago next anything else has been an historic preoccupation year. with symbols, not substance.” Indeed, each It is these events that are deserving of wider political victory on a university campus or in a acclaim and awareness and which unlike the 1967 UN agency, while momentarily satiating the lust War, entirely transformed alliances, ended conflicts for the demise of Zionism, changes little on the and reshaped battlefields in the Middle East and ground. But such is the character of this political the international arena. war. The victories are small, the advance creeping, Alex Ryvchin is the Director of Public Affairs at the means non-violent but the ends are anything the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. His new but. One activist described the tactic as “forcing book is The Anti-Israel Agenda: Inside the Political Israel into a perennial state of existential anxiety.” War on the Jewish State (Gefen Publishing House, In spite of Israel’s resilience, creativity and 2017). enterprise, the political war on it continues to take

Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed“ pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another. - Milton Friedman

13 National and Even Civilisational Decline By Tony Abbott

A well-known commentator recently observed that Australians are in “a bad mood”. We are indeed downcast and we have much reason to be. We have a wonderful country and we are, at our best, a great people, but we sense that collectively we have let ourselves down. We have the world’s largest readily available energy reserves, for instance, yet we have the world’s highest power prices. We have land in abundance, yet house prices in Sydney and Melbourne rival those in Hong Kong. We have amongst the world’s highest labour costs, highest construction costs, highest telecommunications costs and biggest regulatory burdens. Yet knowing all this, we are still dismayed when our wages can’t keep up with our cost of living. This is not the first time in our history when we have been concerned that our children might be the first generation of Australians to inherit a lower standard of living than their parents. But this time we are far from the only country which seems mired in self-doubt and arguments that never seem to be resolved. Around the world are signs of national and even civilisational decline. The British establishment is dominated by those who have been dubbed “remoaners” and an outright socialist has come within a whisker of the UK prime ministership. In America, Donald Trump has had a chaotic start to his presidency and his good intentions could easily be swamped by ill- discipline and self-indulgence. The French and Canadian elections were won by candidates more noticeable for good looks and saccharine views than for long records of public service. In Germany, a well-regarded chancellor has exposed her country to what amounts to a peaceful invasion. Under President Putin, Russia has been more aggressive in Europe than the Soviet Union ever

14 dared to be after World War II. Under President until our infrastructure can cope and not until all Xi, China has emerged as a powerful strategic our recent migrants are well integrated. So let’s competitor to the United States just as it is poised cut immigration to take the pressure off housing to become the world’s biggest economy. And then prices and to demonstrate that we really do put there’s radical Islam which remains without its own Australia first. version of the Enlightenment leaving millions of The last thing I want is the persecution of extremists who believe, quite literally, in “death to vulnerable people, but let’s abolish the Human the infidel”. Rights Commission because it has become a kind Between countries and within countries, there is a of politically correct thought police. sense that the established order is changing fast. I’m not one to neglect an opportunity for job Top dogs are becoming under dogs. Values that creation, but let’s finally have a look at nuclear- were unquestioned for generations are literally powered submarines, that might not be built in ridiculed today. Institutions that were revered for Adelaide, but would certainly strike fear into the generations are openly mocked today. It’s not just hearts of any potential enemy. our jobs that are being disrupted but our certainties too, so many of the Western political class seem to The last thing I want is an unaccountable executive believe, for instance, that climate change is more government, but let’s reform the Senate so that dangerous than Islamist extremism. we can have government, not gridlock, so that the elected government can actually deliver its It’s not a very reassuring world. I’m reminded of promises and be in power, not merely in office. It Woody Allen’s famous Cold War quip: nuclear was John Howard who proposed, in 2003, that we annihilation on the one hand, he said, versus change the Constitution so that, when the Senate communist enslavement on the other, I just pray to blocks a bill twice, three months apart, you could God we make the right choice! Yet we did resolve have a joint sitting without the need for a double what seemed an existential threat, because great dissolution first. men and women like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II – plus millions less If we are indeed to change the Constitution, let’s celebrated – had the self-belief, the wisdom and not abolish the Crown. Let’s make the Senate once the strength to win through. more a house of review rather than a house of rejection. We should not let today’s difficulties obscure all that’s been achieved under the influence of None of these are impossible changes. They’re Western ideals. In 1980, for instance, half of the just common sense. And because they’re common world’s population had no access to safe drinking sense, they will eventually happen because water. Today, more than 90 per cent do. In 1990, someone who’s prepared to do them will actually 30 per cent of the world’s population lived in get elected. We need to remember that good absolute poverty. Today, it’s under 10 per cent. And values don’t triumph because they have the the world’s gross domestic product has increased numbers. They have the numbers because they by more in the past quarter century than in the have the appeal. previous 2500 years. All of us need to speak out more with our workmates, Here in Australia, Bill Shorten, is dead wrong. We with our friends, with our family members, and with are a considerably more equal society now than everyone interested in public life so that others forty years ago. And yes, more tax on our most will appreciate that decent values and traditional productive people might make us even more equal institutions continue to have their adherents. Our but only at the price of far less prosperity. challenge is not to fall silent, because a majority that stays silent does not remain a majority. For Not that much is needed, actually, to transform our my part, I can assure you that I hope to remain a mood and to change our country for the better. vocal MP for as long as Liberal-conservative values I’m all in favour of reducing emissions but not if it’s need a strong advocate. destroying jobs and making us poorer. So let’s have Tony Abbott was Prime Minister of Australia from no more subsidised, unreliable and intermittent 2013 to 2015. This article is based on a recent energy. And let’s keep the lights on by building a speech he gave in Victoria. new coal fired power station. I’m all in favour of a bigger population but not

15 Achieving Strong Border Protection By Philip Ruddock

It is not by accident that Australia is cited by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull as the most successful multicultural nation in the world. Australia has settled people from all over the world and the latest Census indicates that some 26% of our population is overseas born, increasing to more than 50% overseas born if parents are included. Immigration is nation building and every migrant settled permanently in Australia creates a crucial building block for the future. Other than indigenous Australians, each of us has an immigration story to tell. The generations who have settled here have often been in conflict with each other in their places and countries of origin. That we have successfully built a harmonious society from diverse races, religions, ethnicities, cultures and ways of life does not just happen. It is the result of a structured and carefully implemented immigration program underpinned by border protection. In modern Australia each migrant has the capacity to help grow the Australian economy or impose costs on fellow Australians. Careful selection to balance those parts of the program that contribute to economic growth with those likely to be welfare dependent is germane to measuring public confidence in immigration. A study of opinion polls over decades demonstrates that public support for immigration can ebb or flow. Changes in public opinion tend to reflect the success or failure on the part of Government to maintain integrity in immigration selection. When the Howard Government was elected in 1996 the restoration of public confidence in the immigration program was a priority. Under the Hawke/Keating Governments the program had been heavily skewered towards family reunion rather than skilled migration and border security was being challenged by people smuggling activity mainly from Fujian Province in China as well as Cambodia and Vietnam.

16 The electorate was marking down the merits of required to meet first, before applying for a visa. immigration. Engagement with culturally diverse Separate interviews were conducted in high Australia and maintaining social harmony needed risk source countries. Multiple marriage partner recalibration at the same time as the new Howard sponsorships were denied. Some did not seem Government was forced to make significant very successful at making their marriages work. expenditure savings across government agencies One Australian sponsor was known to have including a considerable reduction in immigration sponsored 9 wives! Sponsored marriage partners numbers. were given temporary residence for the first two The Howard Government’s restoration of public years and were unable to divorce their Australian confidence in immigration provides a narrative partner and sponsor a new partner in that period. about the importance of integrity measures, in The number of applications in this family reunion particular two aspects: category fell by 50% almost immediately. • First, it is fundamentally important to ensure At the same time the refugee and humanitarian that selection criteria deliver skills needed for program numbers were capped for both onshore Australian businesses and through that, the and offshore arrivals. For every successful onshore economy. asylum claim a place in the offshore resettlement program was correspondingly reduced. Managing • Secondly, it is essential to maintain control of irregular arrivals was a key priority. our borders. A failure to do so means selection criteria become irrelevant. Public opinion started to warm to the benefits of immigration. It was possible to increase the Selection criteria immigration numbers steadily and by 2007 The Howard Government restored confidence in programmed arrivals totaled 180,000. The Howard immigration by ensuring that skilled migration Government was rigorous in maintaining integrity comprised 60% of permanent migration places, in immigration selection. family reunion amounted to 30% and the refugee Significant integrity shortcomings emerged when and humanitarian program about 10%. That result Labor resumed office between November 2007 was not easily achieved. When Labor lost office in and September 2013. 1996, skilled migration was less than 30%. Some Labor members now argue for a return to such a Labor opted to accommodate a resurgence in policy outcome under the guise of a population family reunion in absolute numbers by increasing policy. the total program rather than recalibrating the numbers away from skilled migration. In one Those who had already migrated wanted access to year a total of more than 300,000 arrivals was Australia for parents, brothers and sisters as well programed. That was more than a 300% increase as cousins and the like. Many of these parents were from the early years of the Howard Government. without resources, of pensionable age, unable to work and unable pay taxes. Other family members Invariably some immigration agents look to were often without recognised skills and English exploit any weaknesses in the selection criteria language competency. to secure positive outcomes for more marginal cases. We have seen problems with the “skills in The introduction of caps in family reunion, last demand” program under Labor where there was remaining relatives and special need relative a failure to review what was happening in the programs evoked considerable criticism of the 457 visa program. A fairly hard lever has recently Howard Government from those adversely been pulled to address the problem. Continuous affected. integrity testing would have obviated the need for Accommodation of life partners and dependent such action. children is a given. That said, if marriage or a de Important national interest programs such as the facto relationship is contrived for a migration overseas student program provide significant outcome, family reunion assumes a far higher income and contribute positively to our balance of proportion of the total program than it should and payments. These programs however need constant challenges the integrity of the program. oversight. Failure to do so can have a major impact Early in the Howard Government a number of on our reputation as an education provider. For important changes to marriage and de facto example, the failure to supervise private colleges partners visas were introduced. Parties were under Labor encouraged students to take up places while not undertaking studies or attending

17 classes and in many cases working in breach of clear that this could not continue and Labor their visa conditions. Now that these abuses have attempted to pick and choose from the measures been addressed there is more public confidence in successfully implemented in the Howard years. that aspect of the program. When Manus Island and Nauru were eventually reopened, it was done with new conditions, Border protection intended to be more favourable to those It is said that the nation welcomes those who come governments. These included employment of their through the front door and not the through the nationals in guarding, policing and servicing the window. Border protection is difficult public policy detention facilities, generally inexperienced local though absolutely in the national interest. A failure staff. That lead to the management issues pursued to maintain control of our borders means selection by the advocates in Australia and abroad. criteria become irrelevant. With the return of the Coalition Government in We have now seen some 65.5 million forcibly 2013 all the earlier measures implemented by the displaced people worldwide, comprising 22.5 Howard team were back in place. The outcome has million refugees and 10 million stateless people. been clear. Sound border protection equals few, if Resettlement of refugees in structured programs any, unauthorised arrivals. Unfortunate tragedies to largely developed countries provides little more of loss at life at sea have come to an end. than 100,000 places a year. Australia provides more than 15,000 places a year. Harmony Enter the people smugglers. People smugglers An important footnote in the Howard Government exploit those who are free enough to travel immigration narrative is its Living in Harmony and have money. They sell them passages to campaign introduced in 1998 and now part of the Refugee Convention countries to press asylum Australian lexicon. Celebrated around Australia in claims, whether worthy or not. Countries party schools and communities on 21 March each year to the Convention are precluded from returning Harmony Day acknowledges our modern, diverse refugees to persecution by sending them home. and accepting nation which celebrates shared Porous borders are easily exploited, for example values and respect for differences. Hand in hand in Europe. Inevitably those in most need of safety with the success of Living in Harmony has been the and security are denied a resettlement outcome. integrity of the immigration program underpinned by border protection. At times our opponents have understood the need to act. The Keating Government introduced Philip Ruddock was Minister for Immigration mandatory detention for unauthorised arrivals. and Multicultural Affairs from 1996 to 2003 and That alone was not a deterrent to the people Attorney-General from 2003 to 2007 in the Howard smuggling industry. Other measures like the Government. introduction of temporary protection visas were needed. The thinking behind that measure introduced by the Howard Government was that if circumstances changed, a refugee could then return home to safety and security. Another measure implemented by the Howard Government was to return people who arrived without valid visas whether by air or sea. Australia returned people to Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Vietnam from time to time. Removing the optics of a successful arrival in Australia, albeit unlawfully and in detention, through the mechanism of offshore processing in Nauru and Manus Island was also an effective deterrent. Labor’s most serious error under Rudd was to close offshore processing and abandon temporary protection visas and mandatory detention. The outcome was a dramatic increase in the number of irregular boat arrivals totaling more than 70,000 people in a little more than 18 months. It became

18 Republic of Australia: Is it Time Yet? By Martin Drum

The idea of a Republic has been placed back on the agenda once again. This time, on account of a pledge by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to hold a plebiscite on the idea by the end of his first term as Prime Minister if elected. Let’s be clear, I like the idea of a Republic. I suspect many other people in the community do, including many people in the Liberal Party. I have nothing against the British royal family or the UK in general, but the very idea of a monarch seems to me to be elite and undemocratic. I like the idea that I have a say (direct or indirect) in the election or appointment of our political leaders. I also think many people like the idea of someone entering office on merit, rather than nepotism. All political leaders should be accountable to the public. Such principles are central to classic liberalism, even if not all liberal thinkers have been Republicans. The fact that we have a “Queen of Australia” who is British is especially ironic given the current furore over dual citizenship. We have a bizarre situation where you can’t be an elected representative in our national parliament if you are a British citizen yet we have a Queen who is British (so much for avoiding dual allegiances!). Perhaps even stranger for the average Aussie is sitting in front of the box and watching Australia’s future monarch cheering on the Poms against us in the Ashes. But the notion of a Republic is complex. The biggest single problem is what model. Republicans themselves remain very much conflicted on this. If the most ardent supporters of a concept can’t spell out how it would work, how can they convince a majority of Australians? The models most often trotted out are the option of the public directly electing a President and the option of having parliament appoint one (presumably only with a large majority of MPs in support). The former option, whilst meeting the notion of democratic

19 accountability, would profoundly alter the nature Government pushing the cause of a Republic risks of our democracy, since the individual elected making the issue a partisan one. If this were to would have the moral authority to speak out on happen, the proposal would be dead on arrival. all manner of issues, regardless of how specific his Malcolm Turnbull recently argued that the best role was spelt out within our constitution. The latter chance of a Republic was when the current Queen option could see an appointed President slot into a passed away. Of course, the cause of a Republic similar role to the current Governor-General, but is should have nothing to do with who currently vulnerable to the claim that we would be creating occupies the position of “Queen of Australia”, as a “politician’s Republic” rather than giving the we are talking about the office and not about any people a say. This was the model that was voted one individual. But in terms of realpolitik, perhaps down handsomely in the 1999 referendum. the Prime Minister has a point. Many Australians Speaking of 1999, we are entitled to wonder look at the office through the prism of the office- whether public opinion has actually changed holder, and there’s no doubt that Prince Charles is significantly since that time. Several polls over the not nearly as popular as his mother. past year have shown that support may be as high In short it’s unlikely we would see a plebiscite or as 53% (ANU electoral study and Newspoll) but a referendum on a Republic in the first term of a this is not nearly high enough to be confident of Bill Shorten government. We periodically hear of a successful outcome, as the bar for constitutional promises of plebiscite or referenda but it’s usually reform is high. And who knows how much this much easier to talk about these things than make support might plummet depending on the model them happen. which is proposed? Nor are many people likely to be swayed by a concerted campaign. Most Martin Drum is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and Australians are focussed on economic issues at the International Relations at the University of Notre moment, and the issue would only gain traction Dame in Fremantle, Western Australia. if there were no budget deficits to worry about. Don’t expect that to change anytime soon. And then there’s the problem of a proponent. Clearly the sitting Prime Minister would need to be in favour and history shows us that referenda in Australia rarely succeed unless support is bipartisan. Both the current Liberal and Labor leaders are known to support the concept but this in itself is by no means bipartisanship. Malcolm Turnbull famously led the Australian Republican Movement in 1999 but is so busy putting out other spotfires at the moment that he is unlikely to risk more division by moving on this issue. His opponents within the Liberal party would regard it as an indulgence given that there are many serious day to day problems which are unresolved. What of Bill Shorten? It’s common knowledge that there is more support on the left of politics for a Republic than there is on the right. But there are two problems with his idea. The Labor Party might be polling well but Bill Shorten is not himself popular, and he would be expected to personally lead the charge. Even if this were to change if he won an election, he would certainly attract criticism for making this issue a priority over other more pressing ones. And is he really the right person to win over conservatives sceptical of a Republic? In line with the “Nixon goes to China” argument, I’d argue that a conservative leader would fare better in making the case than a Labor one. Any Labor

20 Immortal Lessons of The Forgotten People By Aiden Depiazzi

Much has been said and written in recent times about what the Liberal Party stands for. In a world increasingly gripped by unprecedented disruption of the political establishment, it is right to re-examine those things that live at the heart of Australia’s greatest and most successful political party. Fortunately for Liberals searching for philosophical guidance, our Party’s founder took to the airwaves some 75 years ago with the answers. Confined to the political wilderness after his first stint as prime minister and seeking to reinvigorate the antisocialist side of Australian politics in a time of tremendous unrest, Robert Menzies could hardly have anticipated that his Forgotten People broadcasts would form the foundations of a political force that would continue to thrive decades later. In the simplest terms, Menzies founded the Liberal Party to serve his ‘forgotten people’. In his words, the “salary-earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers, and so on” whom he described as being: “…for the most part unorganised and unself- conscious. They are envied by those whose benefits are largely obtained by taxing them. They are not rich enough to have individual power. They are taken for granted by each political party in turn. They are not sufficiently lacking in individualism to be organised for what in these days we call ‘pressure politics’. And yet, as I have said, they are the backbone of the nation.” Menzies saw this demographic as being critical to the prosperity of Australia through two lenses: what they had at stake, and what they could offer. In the first respect, Menzies believed that the “real life of this nation” lived in the “homes of people who are nameless and unadvertised.” Menzies spoke of homes material, homes human, and homes

21 spiritual. The first captures the innate significance of more ‘leaners’ than ever before. of property rights as the fundamental building Much of the current woes are the handiwork of the block of a peaceful society, in which citizens can previous Labor Government. True to its socialist freely work for an income with which they can roots, it set Australia on a course of economic acquire, and defend, property of their own. The mediocrity, charting a path for the State to grow at second captures the value of the family as the an unprecedented pace and funding unnecessary fundamental societal unit: because his forgotten programs for cynical political purposes. people were essentially motivated to impart upon their children a better life than they themselves So what would our Party’s founder think? had experienced, society would continue to grow Menzies would not have stomached an economic and improve generation to generation. Finally, as situation in which an increasing share of the regards homes spiritual, Menzies argued that “the incomes of ordinary people, hard-won and harder- greatest element in a strong people is a fierce saved, were being snatched by government and independence of spirit,” which in turn gives rise to used to fund excessive spending. He would have self-sacrifice and an implicit unselfish responsibility baulked at the idea that today’s spending can be to one’s fellow citizens. put on tomorrow’s credit card. His forgotten people In the second respect, Menzies described the strove to impart to their children a life better than forgotten people as the providers of the “intelligent their own, not one saddled with ever higher levels ambition” that drives human progress more than of debt. any other factor. Menzies recognised that the And he would have thoroughly rejected the false millions of random and unrelated decisions taken solution of hiking taxes as a means of paying down by ordinary people, driven individually by a desire debt or funding reckless spending. Like Churchill’s to improve their own condition and that of their man “standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself families, was the root cause of prosperity – not the up by the handle,” Menzies understood that no expansion of the State. nation could tax itself into prosperity. In concluding his first broadcast, Menzies warned The Coalition Government is to be congratulated that policies that discouraged enterprise and for taking an axe to company taxation and for suppressed the freedoms of individuals would granting some income tax relief to households. But bring about “a fellowship of suffering,” at the mercy there is more to be done – spending growth must of an “all-powerful State on whose benevolence be arrested and the size of government reduced. we shall live, spineless and effortless.” Taxes must be cut further, freeing up capacity for Ultimately, Menzies saw the fate of the forgotten businesses to create employment and individuals people as being intertwined with the fate of the to invest their savings with confidence. And the nation: if the aspiration of individuals and families debt must be paid down with haste, lest the next to build better lives for themselves was inhibited generation of Australians be condemned to the too harshly by the State, then the nation would “fellowship of suffering” that Menzies feared. drift sluggishly into decline. If instead individual Around the world, faced with social upheaval and enterprise was encouraged, if households were economic decline, too many on the centre-right of left to keep greater shares of their income – and politics are tempted by the political convenience in turn to save, to invest in business, to create and popularity of socialist policies, despite their employment for others – then the nation would sordid track record of misery and failure. Faced prosper. with such temptation, Liberals need only look to These lessons are as important today as they were Menzies and the immortal lessons of The Forgotten 75 years ago. People. Consider the current state of government finances. Aiden Depiazzi is an economist and the current Since the end of the Howard years, commonwealth Federal President of the Young Liberal Movement government spending has exploded by 37%. In of Australia. the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, revenues have dwindled. Large cash deficits are the new normal, funded by government debt that is set to exceed $600 billion in the coming years. We have a historically low proportion of the population paying net tax, consequently funding the lifestyles

22 Why we must leave the Paris Climate Accord By Ross Cameron

1. Paris is dead When Donald Trump announced on 1st June 2017 “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh not Paris” he knew that he was destroying the Paris Accord. It was lethal because of its combined effects - withdrawal of US cash lets the US economy off the leash and spikes the idea of “accord” by exempting the strongest player from its rules but leaving the weaker bound. The US exit creates powerful incentives for others to follow suit, which they will do over time. As each one leaves, the cost to the remaining rises in both cash and competitive terms. The Trump withdrawal means the same for Paris as Brexit means for the EU. It bells the cat. Paris is a dressed up corpse being shuffled around like a Weekend at Bernie’s. It is often the case that a relationship dies before it is formally ended but a range of factors conspire to keep it going, like the force of habit and inertia, the desire to preserve an earnings stream, reluctance to admit money spent so far has been wasted, the embarrassment of failure. The forces of the status quo are arrayed like a standing army ready to attack any sign of doubt among citizens, determined to disqualify reason as the basis of decision. The US contribution to the UN Climate Fund under Obama was more than double the next biggest pledge. Take the US out and it’s a completely different deal. It’s not the deal we signed up for. That deal is dead. 2. You don’t have the money The Commonwealth of Australia spent about $45 billion more than it raised in the last budget. There are a range of fiscal adventures a country may consider if it can afford to. If we had hundreds of billions in a sovereign wealth like Denmark, or at least had fully funded the various Commonwealth public sector superannuation schemes, if we could afford public sector wage rises without hurting

23 pensioners or produce a regular surplus with problem for Australian Climate Change policy is competitive tax rates we might consider making that no lever exists to turn an interest of .006% a $1 billion donation to the UN Climate Fund and into a useful policy tool. So the Coalition proposes maybe a generous tip for the Clinton Foundation. to splash $1 billion cash over five years in a purely Alas, we don’t have the coin. Five prime ministers symbolic gesture. The cash donation is dwarfed by in sequence have shown that the state is addicted on-costs to industry and lost investment, fuel costs to debt. You need an intervention. The spending soaking up wage growth and cold homes in winter ratched is set to move in only one direction. It was for millions of older Australians. We prefer scarce not pleasing to find the first Liberal Treasurer in tax dollars to earn more than “virtually no effect”. six years move quickly to lift the Commonwealth 4. ‘tis better ‘twere done quickly debt ceiling. Liberals had the idea that our leaders would reduce indebtedness. We are suffering The first question to resolve is should we be in credit downgrades because agencies worry about or out? If we resolve to get out, our interest is in sovereign risk for the first time. The most recent getting out quickly. If a loss making enterprise data from BAEconomics suggests that subsidies must be exited, it is better to do straight away, for Australian renewables already exceed $3 rather than drag out the emotional stress and billion annually with much of the costs being met throw more money and time down the drain. The by increased power bills which cut across rich United States is already enjoying huge benefits and poor like a grim reaper. Citizens are skeptical from turning off the tap on Climate Inc. and the about the merits of borrowing money to fund UN morality police - most immediately in business recurrent expenditure. Citizens are hostile to confidence. Learning from mistakes is a much borrowing money to make donations. Better for more efficient process than creating new earnings public servants and politicians to make donations streams. It is hard for a species to survive if doesn’t with your own money. pluck the low hanging fruit. Alexis de Tocqueville argued that “The greatness of America lies not in 3. Low gain per dollar spent being more enlightened but rather in her ability to When Bjorn Lomborg offered to establish an repair her faults”. Donald Trump says we should Australian Consensus Centre to study the cost- “Always try to learn from other people’s mistakes. benefit ratio of various forms of environmental It’s much cheaper.” When the French, British and spending, and the Commonwealth offereddominion troops landed at Gallipoli, on the wrong $4m for set up costs, not one of 40 Australian beach, bunched too tight and too far apart, facing “universities” would act as host. The return to fortified cliffs, repelled on day one, some realised taxpayers for Climate Change spending seems to that their plan could not be executed. The deal be the question that must not be asked. According had changed between conception and execution. to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change General Hamilton was influenced by news that an (IPCC) humans contribute 3% of the carbon Australian submarine had pierced the Dardanelles dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. That 3% is said to and sunk a ship. Emotion replaced reason. Instead be causing the temperature to rise but computer of “evacuate” he ordered the Anzacs to “..dig, dig, models have proven of low predictive value. Of dig..” Eight months later the error was corrected that supposed anthropogenic 3%, Australians are the but not before 142,000 men in their prime said to produce one part in 50 - or 2% of 3% - of were dead or wounded. Citizens are forgiving of an invisible gas that feeds plants and pours out mistakes but unforgiving when the state learns so of a million subsea volcanos. The problem for slowly. any policy targeting .006% of a global problem is 5. Win an election what to do about the 99.994%? According to Alan Finkel, Chief Scientist, in sworn evidence to the A Paris withdrawal offers the Coalition an unusually Senate Estimates Committee, reducing Australian high electoral return by a simple law of scarcity. Our emissions to zero, turning the whole continent main political opponents, Labor and the Greens, into North Korea at night, would have “virtually both support a war on the weather with a purity that no effect” on global temperatures. According to the Coalition will never emulate because (I guess) Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, observed sea more than half of the Liberal and National party level changes on Kiribati are “minuscule” - yet her rooms are openly or secretly rational. We are told Government would make every Australian into a 24% of Coalition voters support Malcolm Turnbull flagellating monk. Archimedes understood the on Climate Change. That kind of opportunity to power of a lever in the Third Century BCE. The win back your base and secure your leadership

24 comes rarely. No Liberal or National candidate for new fabulous deal, e.g. Australia will compete with the House of Representatives or the Senate, will the United States for dominance as an energy super ever win a single vote from Labor or the Greens power, complete neutrality between renewable by virtue of Malcolm’s superior devotion to and fossil fuels, no impediments or subsidies to Climate Change. Right now, the Coalition is fatally either, no carbon taxes. Plentiful cheap energy. compromised on power bills by the 22% RET so Slogan: Labor declares war on the weather, carries all of the electoral costs of fighting the Liberals declare war on power bills. The largest weather but none of the benefits, which all go to morning breakfast radio audience is getting a daily Labor and the Greens. Coalition commitment to dose of hard core hostility to climate spending. A Paris gives One Nation an easy gain because there commitment to abolish the Renewable Energy is no competition for the votes of the majority on Target and withdraw from Paris would produce an energy policy. We know from the CSIROs research immediate win in News Poll. Sentiment has shifted. 54% of Australians are not convinced that humans Take the votes on offer. are the dominant cause of Climate Change. That Ross Cameron is a domestic and foreign affairs number will rise with blackouts and power bill contributor at Sky News Australia where he co- shock. That means the electoral fields are white hosts the show Outsiders with Mark Latham and for harvest for any political party that delivers for appears as a panellist on Paul Murray Live. He was the 54%. A commitment to leave Paris would allow Federal Member for Parramatta for three terms the Coalition to go into the election leading the during the Howard era serving as Parliamentary case for lower power bills and warmer Australian Secretary to Treasurer Peter Costello. homes in winter. Paris is a very bad deal for the Coalition which could be replaced by a sparkling

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how “do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin. - Ronald Reagan

25 Christian Foundations of Freedom and Democracy By Lyle Shelton

Political debates on euthanasia and same-sex marriage have unleashed vitriol towards Christianity that should concern all Australians. But is the trashing of Christianity a case of ‘be careful what you wish for’? Are we unintentionally hacking away at the roots of what has become such an attractive society that half the world wants to come here to live? Let’s return to these questions in a moment. It is important to say that none of us should mind robust debate. We live in a democracy and all citizens, religious or not, should be free to participate passionately. But there is a difference between robust debate and the all-too-common resort of those without an argument to slurs and name-calling. Bigot, hate group, or homophobe have been used as weapons to create fear in the hearts of anyone who would even question the claims of the rainbow political movement. The demonisation of Christianity is now becoming pernicious. Whether it is celebrity euthanasia campaigner Andrew Denton telling Christians to “butt out” or same-sex marriage leader Rodney Croome accusing an Archbishop of spreading “hate”, certain debates have become toxic for people of Christian faith. Of course, all of us who claim devotion to Christ are shamed by the revelations of sexual abuse of children by priests and the cover-up of this by some in church hierarchy. Like all fair-minded Australians, we welcome the work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the on-going dispensation of justice to victims and punishment of perpetrators.

26 But the despicable evil of some is being leveraged Christians are watching all this hostility with to kick the church – particularly our Catholic concern. friends – while it is down. Some are talking of retreating to what is being Whether it is the trial by media of Cardinal George dubbed the “Benedict Option” – withdraw from Pell or the false claims by ABC journalist Julia society and preserve the faith within the confines Baird that churches encourage women to stay in of modern monasteries - churches, homes and violent relationships, there seems to be a targeting Christian schools. of Christianity that doesn’t apply to other religions Leave secular society to continue on its road to or minority groups. perdition, many are saying. All of this is on top of the latest census figures But thoughtful commentators – the few that have which show the number of Australians identifying not succumbed to historical and cultural dementia as Christians has dropped from 62 percent to 52 are having a ‘wait a minute moment’. percent. The Australian’s Paul Kelly and Jennifer Oriel are Aggressive secularists and atheists have been two who have recently warned against rubbing quick to use the census to declare Christianity’s Christianity out. place in our society should be over and government funding for its charities and good works such as Kelly argues that the decline of Christianity has school chaplaincy should be withdrawn. resulted in a decline in civic virtue and trust in our institutions. I want to say that Christianity has no proprietary right to privilege but its ideas and its social The founders of the first great experiment in programs should be judged on their merits, like modern democracy, the American republic, knew those of any other group. that without Christianity, this would happen. But even this seems too much for those prejudiced Founder after founder said freedom and against Christianity. democracy would not work unless there was a virtuous population who could first of all govern Croome told a recent Senate inquiry into same- themselves by bridling their own passions and sex marriage that allowing Christian wedding appetites. celebrants legal protections so they would not be compelled to violate their conscience on marriage “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and amounted to enabling prejudice. religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” said John Adams. Christians in Australia watching Croome call for Hobart Archbishop Julian Porteous to be reported Thomas Jefferson was probably more a deist than to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission a Christian but he knew what was at stake when for spreading hate literature were alarmed. he asked “can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm Porteous distributed a gently written booklet basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that explaining the church’s teaching on marriage and these liberties are the gift of God?” why children, wherever possible, should be allowed to experience the love of both biological parents. They knew that freedom depended on politicians knowing that God was God and that they were not. It is becoming more and more difficult to gain access to polite society without the shibboleth of When man becomes the ultimate authority, support for gay marriage. anything goes. To refuse to salute the rainbow flag is now the Os Guinness, a Christian philosopher and author, ultimate act of dissent. postulates from the writings of the American founders that they knew that for freedom to exist, But the merchants of medicalising suicide are just virtue must be present in the people and that as intolerant. virtue came from Christianity. When St Vincent’s Catholic Health announced Guinness calls this troika the golden triangle of it would not perform euthanasia, should it be freedom. legalised in Victoria, advocates were incensed. We forget that Australia was one of the first How dare a Christian hospital group defy the will nations on the planet to borrow from the American of the Parliament and refuse to kill its patients. founding and set up a truly representative self-

27 governing democracy. Menzies knew what the American founders knew. For 116 years we have been spectacularly successful Christianity is actually indispensable to modern but cracks are showing. democracy and freedom. As the Liberal Party fights over the legacy of Sir Societies founded on atheism (think atheistic Robert Menzies, it seems he was only too aware German fascism and Soviet and Chinese that faint and virtue are necessary for democracy communism) and other religions (think the world’s and freedom to flourish. Islamic states) have never produced anything like the freedoms enjoyed by the historically Christian The Menzies Research Centre has just released a Anglosphere. book of lost speeches of the great man entitled “The Forgotten Speeches”. Of course. But today we are in danger of another experiment and that is expecting democracy to work in the In his 1954 “Education and Moral Character” absence of virtue influenced by the light and salt broadcast, Menzies said: “The most important of the Christian faith. thing in the world, may I say for myself, is man’s relation to his maker: his relation to the divine and Lyle Shelton is Managing Director of the Australian spiritual law. The second most important thing is Christian Lobby. man’s relation to man.”

Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as“ pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

28 Challenges for an Ageing Australia By Robyn Nolan

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the population in Australia in 2017 is just over 24.5 million people. The population aged over sixty five (65) is about 15% of the population. However it is predicted that the population aged over 65 will increase to over 25% of the population by 2045 with over two and a half million people over 80 years of age by the same time. Currently Tasmania has the oldest median age of all the states and territories followed by South Australia with Western Australia not that far behind. The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have the youngest median age. As at 30 June 2016 there were 175,989 people receiving permanent care in residential aged care in 2669 care facilities and 949 residential care providers. Multiplying the ratio by projected population indicates that the number of residential aged care places will need to be in the vicinity of 460,000 by 2045. What does this mean for Residential Aged Care? For Federal Government funding for residential aged care, likely residents and for the community is the unknown, many in our community now consider the provision of quality residential aged care as the next big challenge. The Federal Budget indicates that the Federal Government currently spends $16.2 billion on ageing and aged care services, with 11.4 billion of this financial spend on residential aged care. However the challenge for future government funding for residential aged care is significant, given the predicted population increase of older Australians. In 2011 the Productivity Commission released a report “Caring for Older Australians”. It made recommendations looking at funding in isolation and ignoring quality care issues. In my view there is now an urgent need to hold a House of Representatives Committee of Inquiry into Residential Aged Care addressing a range of issues including quality care issues. Many in the community are also calling

29 for an inquiry as we continually hear of horrific numbers of these people stay in an acute care complaints about care in residential care facilities. facility (hospital) for months on end. Significant The Federal Government controls the level and additional cost to government! composition of supply of residential aged care Other challenges currently for residential aged places through the accreditation and place care facilities include resident’s age, gender, allocation process. The residential aged care health status, cognitive status and care needs. Is places are filled through the ACAT (Aged Care it important that residential aged care facilities Assessment Team) system and the price structure have a balance of male and female residents? through subsidies and maximum fees. Funding for Should residential aged care facilities have young residential aged care facilities is calculated using people with severe physical, mental or intellectual the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) Using disabilities as residents? Where else can these the ACFI a residential aged care facility will assess young people receive care? A recent Senate the care needs of residents requiring permanent Committee inquiry reported on the adequacy of care. Not all residential aged care facilities existing care arrangements for these residents are government funded however the Federal and uncovered some horrific stories regarding the Government is the predominant funder. quality of the care. Changes to the ACFI were introduced in January The impact of dementia, a broad term used to 2017 for new appraisals or reappraisals. These describe loss of memory, intellect, rationality, changes followed government consultation with social skills and body functioning, in Australia is the sector and it introduced adjustments to the a significant challenge with more than 413,000 previously announced 2016-2017 Budget measures Australians living with dementia with an expected to ACFI. Are the changes effective? At the time increase to 536,000 Australians in less than ten of writing more time is needed to evaluate the years. It is my understanding that more than half of changes. residents in Federal Government subsidised aged Depending on a person’s physical, medical, care facilities have dementia, more with some form psychological, cultural and social needs permanent of cognitive impairment. care is offered at two levels high care or low care. Other challenges for residents in a residential aged Unfortunately the low care-high care distinction care facility can include ageism. It is not uncommon for aged care facilities was removed in July 2014. for a resident (or a resident’s family member) As a result of removing this distinction aged to be told by the facility GP that a referral to a care facilities can have low care residents living consultant or specialist is not necessary because alongside high care residents. The challenge is that of the resident’s age. a considerable number of former low care facilities The number of deaths in residential aged care are taking on more high care residents without an by other that natural causes is alone cause for increase in staffing or putting in place mechanisms concern. Between 2006 and 2012 there were over to deal with the more complex care needs of high 2000 cases of external cause of death or deaths care residents. resulting in incidents in residential aged care Does Federal Government controls result in various facilities. The report compiled by Eva Saar National inefficiencies or challenges in residential aged Coronial Information System “Deaths resulting care? Does rationing resources which can result from Incidents in Nursing Homes in Australia” in waiting lists mean that some people may miss provides alarming statistics and demonstrates out on obtaining a residential aged care place in there are significant care challenges in residential a residential aged care facility? The geographical aged care facilities. location of aged care facilities (ie less aged care There is no doubt that I have only scratched the facilities located in regional and rural Australia) surface regarding the challenges in residential may also contribute to some people missing out aged care facilities. There are a range of other on a residential aged care place. Trends indicate issues that I have not even mentioned including that there is emerging a two-tiered system in staffing arrangements, skill mix and qualifications. residential aged care with a geographic split in However in my view the most important and the service provision between rural and remote significant challenge ahead is quality of care Australia and the capital and larger city locations. provided for residents in aged care facilities. An There is also the challenge of diversity of those inquiry into care in residential aged care facilities people seeking care including their socio- in now very much overdue. economic status and their cultural and linguistic Robyn Nolan is President of National Council of background. What happens when a person has Women (WA), Former Federal Women’s Committee a high care needs assessment however is unable President, President of LWC (WA) and an advocate to obtain a residential aged care place. Currently for better care in Residential Aged Care facilities.

30 To me the Liberal Party of Australia has always been the custodian of both the conservative“ and classical Liberal traditions in the Australian polity. That is its special strength. It does best when it demonstrates that duality. It should be wary of those individuals or groups who parade the view that only one of those two philosophical thought streams represents ‘true’ Australian Liberalism. - John Howard Rediscovering the Art of Politics By Nick Cater

Let’s put our political loyalties aside for a moment and admit it. This has not been the most glorious decade in Australia for public policy, and the electorate knows it. The consequences of Labor’s blunders in government between 2007 and 2013 are only now becoming apparent. The National Broadband Network, Renewable Energy Target, unfunded National Disability Insurance Scheme, school funding revisions, demand-driven higher education, the list goes on and on. The pattern is the same. Policies of noble intent were implemented with limited scrutiny, driven by political imperatives rather than prudent governance. The accumulated cost of these policies runs into the tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions. The frustrated attempts of two Coalition prime ministers to correct Labor’s errors show that bad policy, particularly when it involves the distribution of public money, is insidious. The smallest attempt to recover rashly awarded government assistance is easily portrayed as reactionary and uncaring, when in truth it is the very opposite. There are few forces more savage in a responsive democracy like ours than a rent-seeker spurned. It is tempting to succumb to the notion that poor public policy is the new normal and that the age of reform is over. Governments must simply manage as best as they can, the argument goes, acting within the parameters of an unforgiving electorate and resurgent populism. Pragmatism, tempered only by expediency, is the order of the day. There are many reasons why we must reject this argument, not least because giving in to fatalism is not an election-winning strategy. We have been here before, and we know the drill. When policy inertia takes hold, as it has done not infrequently in Australian political history, it requires a leader with

32 courage and conviction to inspire the electorate. 1980s and the 1990s initially garnered stronger Contrary to elite wisdom, Australian voters are not support from the Coalition than they did from the fools, nor are they complacent. Australia may be in Labor base. its 26th year of unbroken growth, but that is not Yet Keating’s nerve prevailed. Economic reforms how it feels around the kitchen table. Inflation and not dissimilar to those championed by Ronald interest rates are at historic lows, yet the cost of Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher keeping a roof over your head - large mortgages, in Britain were wrapped up by Keating with a high rents, spiralling energy bills - is feeding a Labor bow. It was an example in how good policy sense that it is harder than ever to get ahead. can also be good politics. The drift to third party candidates, despite the For Labor under Hawke and Keating, the hard road hollowness of their promises, reflects a popular of reform led to a record 13 years in government. mood of disenchantment with established politics. It ended when parliamentary leadership started A circuit breaker is needed to get things back on drifting into La-La land, focussing on sectional track, and let us pray it is not the next recession. causes rather than national gain. It is time to rediscover what Robert Menzies called It was beaten soundly by a serious-minded the art of politics. In an essay on the subject opposition led by a conviction politician who had published in 1958 Menzies described the secret of more than once been declared unelectable. politics as the art of persuasion. The first task for a Victory in such battles is seldom swift. It may political leader was to assess where the country’s well take more than one electoral cycle to win best interests lie. The second task is to persuade the a mandate for the party, and even longer for public of the merit of the public policy response. its leader to become popular. Sustaining the We live in a very different world to that of the debate and building an argument over several Menzies period. How Menzies would have coped years requires consistent line and length. Or, to with the vituperation of social media and 24 hour put it another way, we must be clear about our electronic news cycle is anyone’s guess. Yet the fundamental principles. fundamentals of public policy have not changed. The importance of remaining faithful to Liberal It remains, as Menzies said, “to convey political values cannot be overstated. It is a philosophy, ideas to others… to secure the acceptance of those rather than an ideology, a set of principles that ideas by a majority” and “to accustom people to provide the grip needed to traverse the shifting thinking, not only of the immediate present or of sands of the political landscape. the next election, but of the future in a long-range The revival of interest in Menzies on the 75th and comprehensive way.” anniversary of his Forgotten People radio address We don’t have to go back to Menzies to see how is a measure of the enduring strength of his Australians can be persuaded to support long- philosophy, clarity of thought and mastery of the term reforms that initially seem unpalatable. art of politics. The GST debate is a good example. To go to the It offers an antidote to the divisive politics of identity, polls promising to slap 10 percent on the price of illiberalism and irrationalism that bedevil us today, almost everything in the shops, albeit with trade- and is an example of the conviction required to offs, seemed to many to be political suicide. Labor propel Australia forward in a challenging century. naturally opposed it, even though in their saner Nick Cater is Executive Director of the Menzies moments, its leadership knew it made sense. Research Centre and a columnist for The Australian. The first attempt to secure a mandate for this important reform was lost in 1993. Yet ground was made in the task of persuasion, and lessons were learned in the manner of persuasion. Five years later John Howard won an election, albeit narrowly, on a platform for a GST in the face of a virulent campaign by Labor. Perhaps Menzies would have recognised Paul Keating, despite his many flaws, as a master in the art of persuasion. Labor’s economic reforms of the

33 Labor’s Politics of Envy By Eric Abetz

Envy is a negative, corrosive and unattractive characteristic. It corrodes the being and poisons the soul of the person harbouring the envy. And to those observing the envy or the butt of the envy it is highly unattractive. That is why Labor’s deliberate plan to run an election campaign based on envy is so corrosive and unattractive for our nation’s well-being. Sure, Labor disguises its campaign with the slogan “equality”, but make no mistake if Labor were honest, it would be calling it “envy”. “Equality” is like “working families” – everyone finds it easy to identify with the description. Labor is good at sloganeering and propaganda. The wealthiest merchant banker to the lowest wage earner considers themselves to be “working”. So too, everyone likes “equality” – when it’s not defined. Liberals believe in equality – equality of opportunity, which is so fundamentally different to Labor’s socialistic determination for equality of outcome. Equality of outcome stifles, if not destroys, human motivation. It denies excellence. It refuses to reward determination, hard work and self-reliance, all underpinnings of our society and its progress. Socialism has always failed. It fails as soon as it runs out of other people’s money to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher. The most recent world examples are the abject poverty of the starving North Koreans and the debacle that is Venezuela – one of the richest nations turned to poorest in a matter of years on the promise of “equality”. Labor’s so-called “equality” campaign is about envy – tearing down the tall poppies. As Liberals we salute success, we salute hard work, reward for effort – virtues which have built our country in all its facets.

34 Not everyone who goes to war gets a VC. Not pension system so much greater. everyone who plays cricket gets a baggy green. And of course, the campaign to change the And for the record, not every Labor Party member millennia tried and tested requirement of marriage gets endorsed or life membership. Indeed its being between a man and a woman is also falsely leader Bill Shorten gets paid a lot more than his dressed up as “equality”. Equality for whom? backbenchers (Yes, it’s sad to think he is their Definitely not for children who do so much better best). with the security of knowing their biological The simple fact remains that irrespective of the antecedents and the diversity of a male and female task given to any group of people, one will perform role model to socialise them. Bizarrely, many who the best and one will perform the worst. campaign for quotas (“equality”) for male and female representation in our Parliaments, boards, As Liberals, we believe that equality of opportunity etc. do so because of the different perspectives means everyone should be given a chance in life that men and women bring to issues. Yet when and not held back because of race or lack of wealth. it comes to the most important task for society – That’s why we had the successful Commonwealth the socialisation of the next generation – this is air Scholarship system which allowed people from brushed aside as if the two perspectives are of no less well-off family backgrounds to compete and consequence. Go figure. Marriage is the one social go to University. Some better known beneficiaries institution that got equal representation of the were Sir John Kerr and John Hewson. sexes right from the get go. We don’t build our Nation, our institutions, our The Left’s crafty and dishonest hijacking of professions, our trades or our communities by “equality” and contorting it to mean its exact pulling down those that succeed or work harder. opposite (envy) requires men and women of Indeed, these virtues need to be encouraged as character to stand up and be counted to expose they are what builds and increases the pie for all. the fraud. That is why people who make financial sacrifices to Ask the North Koreans. Ask the Venezuelans. prepare for their retirement, or their health needs Hopefully after the next election people won’t be should not be seen as privileged, but actively adding Australia to the list. encouraged. Let’s remember these truths: That is why negative gearing on residential housing 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by should not be condemned. To negatively gear a legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. person foregoes life-style and expenditure today for a better tomorrow. And the overwhelming 2. What one person receives without working for, number of negative gearers are people with modest another person must work for without receiving. incomes with only one investment property. These 3. The government cannot give to anybody people deserve our encouragement. anything that the government does not first Similarly, people that pay for their children’s take from somebody else. education from after tax dollars. Their contribution, 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! indeed sacrifice, saves their fellow Australians 5. When half of the people get the idea that they billions of dollars per year which allows more do not have to work because the other half is funding to go to the State education system. going to take care of them, and when the other As it is with health. People that privately insure half gets the idea that it does no good to work for their health needs allow the public system to because somebody else is going to get what be better equipped for those in need. We should they work for, that is the beginning of the end unambiguously encourage these traits in our of any nation. people, traits which develop resilience and self- 6. Socialism fails when it runs out of other people’s reliance whilst ensuring those genuinely in need money! have more resources available to them. Let’s remember the principles on which the Liberal Increasing taxation on our banks is seen by some Party was founded and advocate its virtues. as equitable. But let’s not forget about 75% of bank profits gets distributed as dividends. Eric Abetz is a Liberal Senator for Tasmania who Therefore shareholders, the vast bulk of whom served for five years as Leader of the Coalition in are superannuants and self-funded retirees, will the Senate. receive less thus making reliance on the public

35 Empowering Indigenous Australia By Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

We often fail to say it out loud, Indigenous Australians are people first and Indigenous second. We are all the same species and citizens of the same nation. Indigenous affairs is everyone’s business. As long as Indigenous Australians are diminished, all Australians are diminished. Just as our lives are defined and understood in 3-D, so too Indigenous affairs are best understood within a 3-D framework not within the cartoonish one dimensional framework that’s usually applied leading to a warped, biased, and incomplete view of Indigenous people. We need a new framework that will create the necessary mindset for understanding Indigenous Australians as completely human before being able to discuss solutions to the complex problems we face. Indigenous ancestry does not automatically bestow expertise, wisdom or special authority when discussing Indigenous affairs. Non-Indigenous people should not have to ask permission to express an opinion on matters affecting their Indigenous fellow citizens, they should feel free to discuss unpleasant topics in and criticise, without fearing being branded racist. This will shock the Indigenous industry gatekeepers but their time is up. They should move on and find another, more useful purpose in life. The push for referendums and treaties comes from the separatist mindset, it distracts discussion from the real problems and divides us unnecessarily. Now more than ever, an increasing number of Indigenous Australians are beginning to speak out against this mindset. Other than myself, Wesley Aird, Dallas Scott, Kerryn Pholi and Anthony Dillon are all proud Indigenous Australians that are fed up of the manner in which we are represented by the Indigenous industry gatekeepers. These Indigenous voices should be heard with the same respect as any other group of Australia’s diverse citizenry. Many of us are happy to be represented by individuals in parliament, but less happy with the idea of a national Indigenous representative body. As many of us have long tried to point out, the cry “They

36 need a voice in parliament!” simply reinforces the ‘us- Indigenous body when many Indigenous people them’ separatist mentality. The assumption is that are living happy and successful lives? It distracts Indigenous people are vastly different from others, from the more important issues facing us: violence that we are all the same and can only be understood and child abuse, poverty, appalling health problems, by other Indigenous people. Yet it must be said, chronic unemployment, unsafe communities, and more and more of those identifying as Indigenous so on. We can go a long way towards solving these are indistinguishable from their neighbours culturally, problems by investigating how so many Indigenous linguistically and physically. There are vast differences Australians have managed to lead successful lives. I among those who identify. think most of us know the answers already. As my The idea of a treaty further promotes separatism. fellow Indigenous Australian friend and colleague What would a treaty look like? How would it play out Anthony Dillon has long argued, the answers go in practice? What benefit would it bring to Indigenous something like this: people that they could not gain under current laws? • Don’t segregate yourself from society. Which Indigenous leaders could Indigenous people • Treat others with respect and see them as equals. trust enough to define the terms and details of an You’re not special. agreement? If a treaty leads to reparations (and it will), the issue “Who is Indigenous” will become • Pursue an education, formal or informal. much more contentious than it already is. Who will • Learn to speak, read and write the national sign the treaty, or treaties? Would Warlpiri speakers language as well as keep your own. be happy with a treaty signed on their behalf by a • Go to where the opportunities are. Tiwi, Yolngu Matha or English speaker? And what about families like my own, those proudly of mixed • Make valuable contributions to the community in culture and heritage. Around 70%, of Australians which you live. who identify as Indigenous produce children with • Be a role model for others to emulate. those who don’t. Will a treaty divide rather than • Don’t make yourself feel good by making others unite? What effect would it have in the family court feel guilty. when it comes to the custody of children, sharing of property, and so on? • Make healthy choices. Some argue that under current laws, many • Reject violence as a solution to anything. Indigenous people are suffering and some action • Learn from the past but live in the present and is needed. There is already a mechanism in place look to the future. to change laws that aren’t working. The percentage • Adhere to a personal moral code. of Indigenous members of the NT government my mother was part of reflected the percentage of our Government’s role is to create opportunities that population that is Indigenous. Four of those members encourage people to make these choices and support spoke a traditional language as a first language. Now them when they do. only one member of the parliament does and he is These rules will be seen, by some, as promoting an independent. At present there are five members ‘assimilation’. No, they are about finding solutions to of the Labor government out of 21 who identify new problems, to finding an Indigenous way to solve as Indigenous but they all speak English as a first these new problems rather than desperately trying language. Labor worked hard to remove the bush to preserve a way of life that leads to ignorance, mob, as we call them, from the parliament. That is poverty, violence and an early death and calling it how political correctness works in practice, it mostly ‘culture’. It is about enabling Indigenous people to be disadvantages those who are struggling to keep the best that we can be, and that should always be what is left of their language and traditional culture. our goal. Moving forwards, it is this next generation I have seen first hand, the reason why Indigenous of Indigenous voices, who no longer wish to be people are still suffering disproportionately is partly represented by the Indigenous industry gatekeepers, because of the failure by too many in power to that will ultimately make the greatest difference to embrace a 3-D framework – get the framework right help foster a more inclusive Australian society for all. and the true causes of problems and their solutions Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a Warlpiri/Celtic woman are more easily identified. The politically correct and Alice Springs Councillor. Jacinta has worked as a mindset is based on three main principles: Indigenous Cross-Cultural Consultant for twenty years, currently people are still suffering from the past, Australia is operates a small Production Company, is a research deeply racist, and government must fix everything. associate for the Centre For Independent Studies and Any solutions coming from this mindset can only Vice President of the Country Liberals Women in the make problems worse for Indigenous Australians, Northern Territory. and for race relations in general. Why should we be chasing a treaty or national

37 I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for“ withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson Trump’s South Asia Policy By Rajat Ganguly

In July 2017, the US Congress voted for three legislative amendments to the $651 billion National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA). These three legislative amendments imposed tougher conditions for the disbursement of defence funding to Pakistan. The amendments now require that any US defence funding to Pakistan is contingent upon the Secretary of Defence certifying that Pakistan is taking concrete steps and showing satisfactory progress in the fight against terrorism. When Secretary of Defence James Mattis informed Congress that he was unable to certify that Islamabad has taken appropriate and stringent actions against terrorist organisations operating out of Pakistan, particularly the Haqqani network, the US decided to stop a $350 million payment in coalition support fund to Pakistan. The US decision to suspend defence payments to Pakistan comes at a time when the Trump Administration is undertaking a comprehensive review of America’s South Asia policy. As part of that review process, President Trump and his key advisers have mentioned that they are considering adopting a hardline stance towards Pakistan’s encouragement and support to terrorists who have masterminded and launched attacks in neighbouring countries, particularly India and Afghanistan. This development seems to indicate that America is finally coming around to the viewpoint, expressed for many years from New Delhi and Kabul and tacitly supported by US generals serving in Afghanistan, that Pakistan has played a duplicitous game in the name of joining the war on terror. To understand this Pakistani duplicity, one must look back at the pages of history. Pakistan was established as a state in 1947 after the British decided to partition the subcontinent on the basis of the argument put forward by the Indian Muslim League and its leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah that

39 Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims formed two the ISI switched its support to the Taliban, an separate nations and could not therefore coexist insurgent force comprising of mostly students peacefully in one state. From the moment of its trained at Islamic seminaries or madrassas in inception, Pakistani leaders adopted a policy of Pakistan. In 1996, the Taliban seized power in encouraging non-state armed militants to infiltrate Afghanistan with considerable assistance from the into neighbouring regions to further the interests ISI and the Pakistani military. of the Pakistani state. With active encouragement In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when President and support, an armed invasion by Afghan tribals George W. Bush gave Pakistan a clear ultimatum was launched into neighbouring Jammu and regarding joining the war on terror and supporting Kashmir, which was the largest of the princely the American war effort in Afghanistan, President states in British India and had acceded to India. Musharraf had no choice but to agree. However, The tribal invasion eventually led to a war between it is now fairly clear that while Pakistan paid lip India and Pakistan, as a result of which Jammu service to fighting terrorism, in actual practice and Kashmir was de facto partitioned. The policy it continued to support groups like the Taliban, of infiltrating armed militants into Indian Kashmir Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network. The world’s to stir up trouble was tried again in 1965, which most infamous terrorist, Osama bin Laden, found led to another war between the two states. The safe sanctuary in Pakistan, from where he was infiltration policy towards Afghanistan started in eventually captured and killed in 2011. The Taliban’s earnest in the early seventies, when Prime Minister supreme leader, Mullah Omar, ran a government in Zulfikar Bhutto ordered the opening of ISI cells exile from Quetta in Pakistan until his natural death (the Inter Services Intelligence or ISI is Pakistan’s in 2013. His successor, Mullah Mansour was killed premier military intelligence organisation) in Kabul in an American drone strike inside Balochistan in the aftermath of the overthrow of the monarchy. in Pakistan. Several US and NATO commanders Pakistan’s transition to an incubator of modern have gone on record to suggest that the principal terrorism happened in the 1980s under the military reason why the western state building effort in dictator Zia ul-Haq. Zia came to power through Afghanistan is failing is Pakistan, from where the a coup in 1977 and used a compliant Supreme Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network have Court to hang the person he deposed – Prime now re-emerged in more potent form. Minister Zulfikar Bhutto. To consolidate his rule Against India, the ISI and the Pakistani military’s and bolster his fragile legitimacy, Zia empowered approach have been more brazen. While the and channeled funds obtained from Saudi Arabia Kashmir Valley has continued to see terror attacks and other Arab countries to religious parties in against Indian security personnel, government Pakistan. He also gave a free hand to the ISI to officials and pro-India politicians, in recent years build ties with and help Afghan warlords who these attacks have expanded beyond Kashmir were resisting the occupying Soviet forces in into other parts of India. In November 2008, the Afghanistan. American supplied weapons and Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out a spectacular and Saudi money were channeled into hands of the deadly suicide attack in Mumbai, India’s commercial Afghan mujahideen through the Pakistani military and financial hub. More recently, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the ISI. Pakistan also offered sanctuary to the militants carried out attacks against Indian military Afghan militants, while religious organisations camps in Uri and Pathankot, leading to retaliatory provided a steady stream of committed fighters. Indian military strikes across the Line of Control Once the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan (LOC). In the Kashmir Valley, along with the Hizb- in the late 1980s, the ISI turned its attention to the ul-Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba, Al Qaeda Kashmir Valley, where a local student movement presence has grown in recent years. had transformed into an armed insurgency for Why has the sponsorship of terrorism against independence from India. Pakistan based terror neighbouring countries such as India and organisations such as the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Afghanistan become such an integral part of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad became Pakistani state policy? The sponsorship of terrorism active in the Valley. Very soon, slogans for azadi against neighbouring states provides Pakistan with (freedom) became silent in favour of slogans a highly effective but low cost option of tying down for jihad. The ISI played a similar game in the enemy’s forces into long-drawn, unpopular and Afghanistan. It initially backed Pashtun warlords costly counterinsurgency and counterterrorism such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar against the Afghan operations. Zia ul-Haq once famously said that his government. When the warlords proved unreliable, aim was to make India “bleed from a thousand cuts”.

40 In the Kashmir Valley, Indian security forces have So far, the Australian government has been been fighting an insurgency-counterinsurgency silent in its condemnation of Pakistan’s links with war for almost thirty years now, and there seems terrorist organisations and active support to to be no end in sight. In Afghanistan, the Pakistani terror campaigns. Canberra has also failed to call military and the ISI’s main game plan seems to Islamabad’s bluff that instead of being a sponsor be to install a compliant and dependent “client of terrorism, Pakistan is actually a “victim of regime” in power in Kabul. This is strategically terrorism”. The Australian government’s cautious important to the Pakistani military in order to keep approach has certainly not helped the cause of the restive Durand Line (the Pakistan-Afghanistan our Diggers, who together with US and NATO border) quiet and to be able to concentrate troops forces, are now facing a much more powerful on the Indian border, which it considers to be the enemy in Afghanistan. And Canberra’s reluctance main threat. This objective was achieved with the to forcefully condemn Pakistani sponsorship of installation of the Taliban regime in Kabul in 1996, terrorism has certainly not endeared us in India, but then the US invasion and occupation upset a country that is going to be a key strategic and the applecart. The ISI and the Pakistani military economic partner for Australia in the years to will therefore continue to play a duplicitous game come. in Afghanistan, and encourage terrorist groups Rajat Ganguly is Academic Chair for Security, operating against India to continue to carry out Terrorism and Counterterrorism Studies at Murdoch brazen attacks. University. What should Australia do in this scenario? Should Canberra follow Washington’s lead and come out with more forceful condemnation of Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism against its neighbours?

If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything“ at any time, and you would achieve nothing. - Margaret Thatcher

41 Restoring Our National Pride By Caleb Bond

I count myself as one of the luckiest people in the world. I was born into an exclusive club. In a world of 7.5 billion, it has only 24 million members. Honestly, what were the chances I would be born in Australia? Those of us born here won the lottery of life and those who have migrated here have bought into one of the best investments money can buy. There is no greater country for opportunity. There is no greater country for what we have – in our typical colloquial style – termed “a fair go”. The fair go is central to how Australia has operated for all its existence. The idea that anyone, no matter what school you went to, how much money your parents had or what town you grew up in, can make a go of things if you so choose. It is one facet of what makes our country so great and there are many. I challenge anyone to name a greater country in which to grow and prosper. And if you can, perhaps you should move there. This should be enough for us to recognise that our country is worth defending. But in these turbulent geopolitical times, we run the risk of losing our greatness before we realise what’s happening. The threat of Islamic terror has sent shockwaves through every Western nation. Australia has been no exception. We watched in horror as the Lindt Cafe siege unfolded. We watched the fallout from the murder of Curtis Cheng outside the NSW Police headquarters. And there could well be more. We are now seeing our behaviours change as a result. Bollards have been erected in public places to protect people going about their everyday lives. It is a sign that we feel threatened, and understandably so. The object of terrorism is not always to physically threaten or kill, but to scare. The ultimate goal is to damage our culture, and that of the rest of the

42 West, and replace it with hardline Islamic law. It is Those who came before us worked tirelessly to clearly anathema to everything a liberal-thinking build Western Civilisation, and Australia has been person stands for. a beneficiary. It is the only reason we can enjoy Yet we see an unwillingness from many on the Left the sort of freedoms we, as Australians, take for to stand up to the cultural threat of terror. They granted. have formed an unholy alliance with Islamists, But those who degrade our culture create, finding a shared objective of bringing down the deliberately or not, the circumstances for Islamists pillars of Western culture. Every time someone in to breed. It sends a message that we are not sure of Australia mounts an effort to damage our culture, ourselves. And if not even we respect our culture, they make the job of Islamists easier. then why would anyone else? Much has been said and done about the physical It should not be controversial to assert that we are threat of terror. We must now fight not only to one of the best nations on Earth. We should, at defend our borders, but our culture. The culture every opportunity, celebrate and understand our wars, as they have been termed, must be fought cultural pillars. hard and must be taken to the mainstream. In times of turbulence, people look to leaders On a local front, we have seen many attempts for direction. It is incumbent upon us, as leaders to slowly degrade Australian culture. Take the in the political and public sphere, to reaffirm the continued debate over Australia Day, for example. importance of our culture and the impact it has had We must, supposedly, change the date because to in building successful lives for millions of people. our indigenous population, it represents a great We must arrest the cultural slander the Left likes to deal of hurt. Invasion Day, we are repeatedly told. perpetrate upon us and reassure Australians that But what would we achieve by moving Australia Day they do in fact live in a just nation. from January 26th? Would it save one Aboriginal Above all, we have an obligation to give coming child from being abused? Would it change the fact generations a fair go at growing up in a strong, that Aboriginal women are 34 times more likely liberal, Western nation. That is, after all, a significant than other women to be hospitalised for domestic part of our culture. violence related injuries? We must ensure today’s children have instilled in Of course not. Because it’s not about creating them a sense of national pride. Indeed, patriotism any material change for groups in need. It is an is not a dirty word. Always remember, we have opportunity to damn our culture. We are meant to much to be proud of and it’s one of our most feel ashamed about who we are. important weapons in the fight against terror. These kinds of debates consume our discourse. Without it, there will be no Australia left to defend. Every year, without fail, someone suggests we Caleb Bond is a News Corp journalist and columnist. change the Australian Flag. The Union Flag in the As Australia’s youngest newspaper columnist, he corner is a symbol of colonialism and every atrocity writes regularly in The Advertiser and The Daily ever committed on these lands. The national Telegraph, bringing a young person’s perspective anthem has to change. So on and so forth. on the issues of the day. He is also a reporter for In another sign of our cultural decay, South Messenger Newspapers. Australia recently scrapped Australian History from its Year 12 syllabus. This is getting serious. If the next generation do not understand what came before them, and the foundations on which this great nation were built, then how can we expect them to protect our values? The most important parts of any nation are not physical. They are culture, customs, values and laws, the building blocks on which every country relies. If you remove these, you have no country. You simply have inhabited land, an empty shell, devoid of life or meaning.

43 Defending WA: An Integrated Approach By Neil James

Defending Australia is a geo-strategic and geopolitical function. It always needs tackling with a holistic, not regional or local, focus. Our defence capabilities are also essential national infrastructure to counter against general strategic risk over a largely unpredictable long-term future. They are not a matter of discretionary investment, nor one that can be based on specific “threats” as they are perceived, unrecognised or ignored at any one time. Australia’s strategic security depends on securing our national sovereignty. This includes our territory and its people, our enduring national interests and the rules-based international system that we have thrived under, especially since the UN Charter came into force in 1945. Mainland Australia is the world’s only island- continent and the Commonwealth of Australia has a further seven external territories: four in the wider Indian Ocean (Heard & McDonald Islands, Cocos Islands, Christmas Island and the Ashmore and Cartier Islands), one in the Southern Ocean (Australian Antarctic Territory) and two in the Pacific Ocean (Coral Sea Islands and Norfolk Island). Together with all the territorial waters, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and search and rescue zone responsibilities the total area comprises about ten per cent of the Earth’s surface. Australia is also the only continent wholly the territory of one country and one sovereignty. In geo- strategic terms, this unity has been a giant advantage throughout our history and economic development, and preserving it remains a key strategic priority. Mainland Australia is big (7,600,00 square kilometres) and our major cities and towns are distant from each other in comparison to most countries. Five of our external territories are over a thousand kilometres from the mainland. We are also the second driest continent after Antarctica. Around 80 per cent of the continent is desert or arid and consequently sparsely populated.

44 For all these reasons, key characteristics of ADF challenged. A focus on perceived “threats”, rather weapon platforms and equipment focus on range than consideration of general strategic risk, is always and adaptability to widely varying terrestrial and a telling symptom. climatic conditions. Discussion about the dispositions of the Australian Our relatively small population, particularly in Defence Force (ADF) exemplify these difficulties. comparison to the other populated continents, lives Particularly misconceptions about the difference close to the coast. Most of it is clustered around between where the ADF needs to operate, and where five large urban centres of 1-5 million people and a it needs to be based, to operate most effectively. dozen or so between 100,000 to a million. Canberra It’s also why the deterrent value of the ADF needs to remains the only large inland city and it was created be maximised to be truly credible. Penny-packeting and is sustained artificially. the ADF around the country in widely dispersed small Our economy and therefore our standard of living groups is counter-productive to both operations and whole way of life is heavily based on primary and and deterrence (and to their sustainment). service industries. Our international trade is largely ADF basing must instead be based on overall seaborne (99.7 per cent of our exports by volume strategic utility. As well as strategic, geographic, and around 75 per cent by value). Our national oceanographic and operational capability factors, culture, however, has been largely continental, not this also involves considerable matters of logistic, maritime in its history, focus and mythology. We industrial and personnel sustainability and therefore tend to value the “bush” and the beach but not the economic efficiency. sea. This is why the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) The large oceans surrounding Australia are two-way has three airbases in WA but only deploys units at highways for commerce in enduring peacetime and one of them on a day-to-day basis. Similarly, the strategic risk at other times. They are not somehow Royal Australian Navy (RAN) chiefly operates from a moat that can isolate us from developments in the Garden Island because its the only suitable harbour rest of the world. for a large naval base between Albany and Darwin. Defending Australia and securing our future is Its also why the navy utilises commercial facilities in therefore never a matter of territorial or offshore Broome to support patrol operations from vessels resource security on its own. Our national interests based in Garden Island and Darwin, rather than have always been heavily involved with making permanently locate them in Broome where the sure the wider international system works in legal, harbour and supporting industrial infrastructure is commercial and strategic stability terms. This is unsuitable for a larger base. why, for example, our participation in both world wars was so strategically necessary for Australia. Some Australian cities and towns are prone to demand an ADF base, or fight the closure of a Western Australia is one-third of the mainland and redundant one, through sheer rent-seeking. If a base large part of Australia’s export-driven economy. is located in a marginal electorate, or a very safe WA is particularly dependent on offshoreone, consideration of strategic or fiscal efficiency resource exploitation and seaborne trade of bulk is usually driven out the window by electoral commodities. expediency. Yet most Western Australians take this for granted. As a WA example, a Mayor of Albany recently called Few, for example, now think deeply about why for a naval base there. While Albany provides one and how the sea-lanes carrying our commerce are of the very few places around the whole Australian and need to be secured. Even fewer contribute to coast with anywhere near a suitable harbour for such informed strategic debate accordingly. a base, it meets few or none of the other support Strategic-security advocacy groups, think-tanks requirements. Even if ignoring that our second- and defence industry bodies in WA now generally largest naval base is located in the strategically struggle to attract interest and support at either optimal place on our continent’s west coast anyway. an individual or corporate level. Similarly, the ADF Informed debate is an integral part of sustaining reserves in WA struggle to recruit in general. Australia’s strategic security. But we call it the Buttressing this complacency are understandable Department of Defence, and not the Department and enduring cultural perceptions driven by the of National Development, for good reason. I look physical distances separating most Westralians forward to more Western Australians taking more from their fellow Australians. of an interest in strategic security issues. A particularly unhelpful result of this general Neil James is Federal Executive Director of the indifference or uninformed approach to strategic Australia Defence Association, founded in Perth in security matters is a tendency for simplistic or 1975. He has served in the Army for 44 years. parochial views to emerge without being adequately

45 Our New National Intelligence Agency By Alexey Muraviev

The Australian national intelligence and security capability is about to embark on its most significant strategic transformation it has ever seen over the past sixty or so years. To date, the government has stated an intent with the fine detail yet to come. What is clear though is that the new ‘Super- Department’ will bring under its arm the bulk of the intelligence and the national-level law enforcement capability, among them the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), elements of the Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Security Intelligence Agency (ASIO), the Australian Border Force (ABF), the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), the Office of Transport Security (OTS) and the Australian Transcaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC). According to official commentary, the new ‘Super- Department’ will ‘oversee policy and strategic planning and the coordination of the operational response’ along the broad spectrum that forms current national security agenda. At present, it is clear that key stakeholder Commonwealth agencies that will come under the umbrella of a new organisational structure will retain autonomy for their own management. But the aim of this bold move by the current government is clear: To consolidate national intelligence and force response capability in the area of counter-terrorism (CT), border control and policing, and serious and transnational organised crime. Australia finds itself in a regional geopolitical system (Indo-Asia-Pacific) that is fluid and constantly evolves. The threat spectrum changes rapidly and requires a rapid and often bold response. Over the next ten to fifteen years the nation will continue facing the following national security challenges: Globalised terrorism. Australia will continue to

46 face the imminent threat of terrorism, posed by will be more adaptive to the increasingly volatile both domestic radicalised elements as well as nature of our global environment. perpetrators who may try to infiltrate the nation. It is still early stages to determine how effective this Over the next ten years globalised terrorism is likely bold reorganisation will be. Still, there is ground to be more affected by the deepening civilisational for some optimism. Retaining operational and crisis, intensifying power competition, and the managerial autonomy of key agencies may ease growing effects of climate change. Canberra is some nervous reaction to the proposed move by likely to be confronted with the aftermath of a some national security experts, as well as criticism massive flow of ISIS-inspired and trained militants, that anything ‘bigger may not be necessarily who will be returning to their countries of origin, better.’ including Southeast Asia and Australia. The new ‘Super-Department’, if well-resourced and Pressures on national borders. Continuous well-governed by a board of senior management geopolitical instability and wars, climate change of should allow the federal government to execute growing shortage of fresh water and agricultural more effective preventive, pre-emptive and produce are among other factors, which are likely consequence management activities. to accelerate cross border movements of people. Australia will remain an attractive safe haven for There may be a space for reducing some duplicative political asylum seekers and a lucrative destination administrative structures within agencies, which for economic refugees. At the same time, an will now be operating under one strategic umbrella. effective response to transnational organised Released resources could then be reallocated crime, including narco-cartels, will keep our main towards further bolstering core intelligence points of entry (airports and seaports) in the gathering and force response capability, including spotlight. towards enhanced maritime and aerial border patrol assets, human intelligence and other. A Strategic Intelligence and Counter-intelligence. coordinated effort towards procurement and The current emphasis on CT should not obstruct sustainment can also enhance national intelligence other security challenges we are facing now and capability. are likely to be facing in the foreseeable future. The escalation of geopolitical rivalry, including the Yet a word of caution is needed. Any savings for the challenge of US-backed rules-based order by the sake of savings may end up doing more collateral strategic rise of China and Russia will again place damage to our national security community, like Australia in the security spotlight, in a different giving a lead to one Commonwealth agency within context. One of the main threats that Australia the new ‘Super-Department’. faced in the Cold War was the ongoing threat of By this time next year, it will be clear what covert intelligence gathering by foreign agencies, the Government has in mind and if the new popularly known as espionage. In recent years superstructure is the best fit for a current and ASIO has reported of increased covert activities by emerging national security priorities. But what is China and Russia. Consequently, the nation should clear right now is that the Turnbull Government retain and enhance a robust counter-intelligence has made a bold move to meet bold challenges capability, also in line with our allied security that we are facing today. obligations. Alexey Muraviev is Head of Department of Social Similarly, Canberra should be able to deploy an Sciences and Security Studies at Curtin University. effective independent comprehensive intelligence He is a Coordinator of the International Relations gathering and analysis capability, which should and National Security programs and the founder cover the entire spectrum, ranging from signals and Director of the Strategic Flashlight forum on and electronic intelligence to the human element. national security and strategy at Curtin. Canberra’s strategic decision-making should leverage off an effective and accurate strategic forecasting, which can be delivered by an enhanced Office of National Assessments (ONA). So, the expectation of such a bold strategic move is clear – to provide the nation with a robust, restructured, rebalanced, fully capable and well- resourced national intelligence capacity, which

47 Letters to the Editor...

Dear Editor,

When it’s nobody’s responsibility to clean the communal workplace kitchen – it just becomes one giant mess. The last federal budget announced a half billion dollar reversal of the Medicare rebate freeze. In 2015, we witnessed the rise and fall of the ‘GP co-payment’ model. The newly floated billing reform, Health Care Homes, is currently being rolled out in 200 GP practices around the nation - including my own. This is confusing enough, without getting to the core problem – the division of responsibility of both the funding and modelling of our health system. Australian hospitals are funded 60% by our states, and 40% the Commonwealth. By comparison, primary health (GPs, allied health etc) are primarily funded 75% by the Commonwealth, and 25% the states. This division of responsibility is a practical disaster. Reducing spending in the hospital system and taking the pressure of the states’ budgets, requires investment in primary care, which is funded primarily by the Commonwealth. See the problem? These divided responsibilities do not make for great incentives for efficiency. It’s time responsibility was handed to one governing body. We are headed for nearly a double in the Medicare budget over the coming decade. We need one body to take all the reigns to avoid our health system looking like that workplace kitchen. It would be appreciated if your Committee could look into this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Georgia Frew Fremantle Division

48 Letters to the Editor...

Dear Editor,

I write to congratulate you on the great success that the WA Liberal Party’s Policy Committee has enjoyed since its re-constitution last October. On behalf of the WA Young Liberal Movement, thank you for giving our members – and those in the Party more broadly – the opportunity to engage in a range of important debates. Young Liberals from across the state continue to attend and find value in the functions that the Policy Committee holds. I’m pleased to advise that the Young Liberal Movement has also maintained a packed policy calendar of its own. Our quarterly policy forums continue to enjoy strong support, offering members the chance to raise, debate and pass motions on a broad range of policy topics. At the time of writing, we have hosted a forum featuring guest speaker Mr Matt O’Sullivan of GenerationOne, and are shortly set to host one with Mr Martyn Iles of the Human Rights Law Alliance. Outside of our fora, the Movement continues to encourage robust debate at meetings of State Council and, shortly, State Conference. As always, our focus remains firmly on matters of constitutional conservatism, economic freedom and national security. Thank you again for your Committee’s strong efforts to engage with the Party’s youth wing.

Yours sincerely,

Liam Staltari President, WA Young Liberals

49 WE WANT YOU This journal belongs to you. WE So write an article or a letter! WANT YOU Email [email protected] to find out more. ln Australia, its people and its future. ln the innate worth of the individual, in the right to be independent, to own property and to achieve, and in the need to encourage initiative and personal responsibility. ln the basic freedoms of thought, worship, speech, association and choice. ln equality of opportunity, with all Australians having the opportunity to reach their full potential in a tolerant national community. ln a just and humane society, where those who cannot provide for themselves can live in dignity. In the family as the primary institution for fostering the values on which a cohesive society is built. ln the creation of wealth and in competitive enterprise, consumer choice and reward for effort as the Proven means of providing prosperity for all Australians. ln the principle of mutual obligation, whereby those in receipt of government benefits make some form of contribution to the community in return, where this is appropriate. ln the importance of voluntary effort and voluntary organisations. ln parliamentary democracy as the best system for the expression and fulfilment of the aspirations of a free people. ln the separation and distribution of powers as the best protection for the democratic process. ln a federal system of government and the decentralisation of power, with local decisions being made at the local level. ln a constitutional head of state as a symbol of unity and continuity. In Government being sufficiently responsive so that it can meet its proper obligations to its citizens. ln Government keeping to its core business and not competing with the private sector. ln the rule of law and justice, giving all citizens equal rights under the law, responsibilities to maintain it, and the freedom to change it. In Australia playing a constructive role in the pursuit and maintenance of international peace in alliance with other free nations and in assisting Iess advantaged peoples. ln Liberalism, with its emphasis on the individual and enterprise, as the political philosophy best able to meet the demands and challenges of the 2lst century. WE BELIEVE. Capitalism works better“ than it sounds, while socialism sounds better than it works.

- Richard Nixon Notes

If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led,“ like sheep to the slaughter. - George Washington

ContributorThe .