Shut Up, You White Males

Earlier this week news broke of a controversial workshop entitled "How privilege manifests in tutorials" run at the University of Melbourne by the Student Union's Environment ­Collective.  Those running the workshop argued that "white males" and students that look like "Liberal voters", should be discouraged from speaking to provide more space for women and non-binary people to contribute during tutorials.

The University of Melbourne failed to condemn this sort of racism.  A spokeswoman from the university has merely said "This is a workshop run by UMSU," and "What is discussed is not university policy."  This is a pathetic response.  If the student union preached discrimination against anyone else other than "white males" the university would treat this matter seriously and launch an investigation rather than merely ignore it.

What is worse is this is not the only example, we saw similar inaction from the University of Sydney when the union debating club released a system of quotas that actively discriminated against white male students.

Demanding that people "that look like liberal voters" must remain silent reveals the true intent of those running this workshop and pushing this agenda.  It is not a means to achieve equality or end discrimination, but rather a quest to silence political dissent, an attempt to quieten the rebels and iconoclasts pushing back against the enforced intellectual consensus prevalent on campus today.

Apart from being incredibly sexist and racist to white male students, it is hard to see how this identity politics is at all empowering to young women.  This policy is incredibly patronising and insulting to women.  This workshop, whilst in a rush to paint all white men and conservatives as the enemy, also implied that women attending higher education are so fragile, such sweet delicate flowers, that a male simply sharing their ideas in a tutorial would scare them into silence.  This is not empowerment;  it is condescending puritanical nonsense that belongs back in the 19th century.

The contradictions are also apparent.  The point of this "affirmative-action" style discrimination is to empower women, but what if a woman happens to look like a "Liberal voter".  Presumably that means that they must join their fellow white male deplorables in silence.  This would also be true of non-white Liberal voters, though the organisers probably view the world in such a blinkered and racist way as to not allow for the existence of such an individual.  Identity politics wants everyone to fit a stereotypical mold.

The workshop was organized by the University of Melbourne Student Union and forms part of a broader push to silence alternate views on campus driven by the National Union of Students.

The real outrage is these radical student activists are funded by an enforced tax on students in the form of the $294 Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF).  Introduced by the Gillard government in 2011, the SSAF amounts to a concealed form of compulsory student unionism.  It would have been politically impolite for Labor to reintroduce something as draconian as compulsory unionism, so instead they draped it in the legitimacy of a "services fee".  The pretense is only skin-deep, for the money is flagrantly appropriated to political purposes.

In 2017 at the University of Sydney student funds were used to purchase a giant inflatable rat for a protest attended by the more radical staff and students, the "service" being to push a divisive agenda many students disagreed with.  And in 2016, again at USYD, SSAF money was used to purchase 50 pizzas to "show solidarity" with the activists Place de Republique, in Paris.  The examples are endless, the radical left union spends student money with impunity, even using it to pay off parking fines for their higher ranking members, and they will continue to do so if we do not return to a system of genuine Voluntary Student Unionism.

The SSAF has led to a situation where white male students pay a fee for workshops that actively discriminate against them.  Conservative, Christian and Libertarian societies pay a fee to have the union ban or protest their events.  It is true that other groups can get access to the SSAF funds but not without the union's permission.  All clubs, groups, events that use shared spaces and funds for club events must be approved by the student union.  While they continue to make frivolous purchases.

This is not to say that student unions don't have every right to run workshops on whatever topics they choose, even if they are full of repugnant and discriminatory identity politics.  But not when these funds are taken from students compulsorily and then denied to those presenting minority opinions.  There is plenty of hope for the future as many students are pushing back against the enforced consensus, but we need to remove these artificial barriers so that the free intellectual debate that so enriches the university experience can be fought out on a level playing field.

Galileo Wins Court Case

"Vindicated.  The score is 17-nil, the judge's findings were damning.  It could not have gone better," Professor Peter Ridd explains shortly after the historic judgement in Ridd v. James Cook University was handed down in Brisbane last week.

This was a momentous occasion.  It came 1,082 days after this whole ordeal began when Ridd was first unlawfully censured by the university for sending an email to a journalist for criticising the reliability of science about the Great Barrier Reef and 511 days after Ridd was informed that he violated the university policies for an appearance on Sky News.

Judge Salvatore Vasta explains in the judgement that, in narrowest formulation, the case is a dispute under the Fair Work Act and "purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement".  However, the implications of this case for free speech at Australia's universities are broad.  There is now a clear legal precedent that protects the ability for academics to express controversial ideas in a forthright manner.  This is an absolute necessity for our universities to function, for academics to be able to separate good ideas from the bad in the pursuit of truth.  This is not just a left-right issue.  The precedent set by the Ridd case will serve to protect everyone, even radical left-winger Tim Anderson who is currently challenging University of Sydney for his sacking in the courts.

This case was never straightforward.  "It has been a very difficult time," Ridd says.  "I had felt like I was hunted down and fired and my reputation as a scientist tarnished."  The university came after Ridd time and time again, which required the raising of $260,000 from 2,405 donors across the world to mount a legal defence.  He was told to stop critiquing his colleagues' science.  His emails were searched and used against him.  He was instructed to remain silent about the disciplinary process, and not even speak about it with his wife.  On this last point, Judge Vasta described the university's actions as "quite frankly, appalling" and the lack of apology as "inexcusable".

This case ultimately came down to whether academic freedom, enshrined in section 14 of Ridd's Enterprise Agreement but a principle that pre-exists the establishment of JCU, had any real meaning in the context of university policies that require collegiality and upholding the university's reputation.  Properly constructed, the written words of the contractual agreement take precedence over the university policies.  If it went the other way around and the intellectual freedom provision was narrow in its application, as the university asserted, it would render the intellectual freedom protection completely meaningless.

JCU complained that Ridd's criticisms of his colleagues' science was not undertaken in a collegial and academic spirit, as required by JCU's Code of Conduct.  "But there is no need for such enquiry, examination, criticism or challenge to be done that way under the rights conferred upon Professor Ridd by cl.14 [the intellectual freedom provision]," Judge Vasta concluded.  The Judge also expressed the view that "rather than disciplining Professor Ridd, the better option would have been to provide evidence that would illustrate the errors in what he has said."

Judge Vasta also explained that intellectual freedom "allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals.  It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism.  It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics.  It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth.  And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about."

The Ridd judgement is a huge victory for free speech — but the fight may only just be beginning.  JCU has responded to the judgement like a screaming child incapable of being told they're wrong.  Rather than admit guilt and apologise, JCU has rejected the judgement in a lengthy statement and left open the possibility of using their taxpayer-funded resources to appeal.

If so, this process could continue for years and even reach the highest court in the land.  Thankfully there are many who remain committed.  As one commentator on Ridd's GoFundMe wrote last week:  "If you need more money I think collectively your supporters will see you through to the High Court if that is what it takes."

Ridd's experience might also be unique.  "I have never felt as elated as when the cavalry of 2,405 GoFundMe donors came to the rescue," Ridd said.  For most, this cavalry will never arrive.  It is also too big a risk for many to put their livelihoods on the line for the sake of principle.  It's much easier to just keep your head down and be uncontroversial.  Additionally, students, the ones who are being exposed to fewer arguments and are receiving a weaker education, have no contractual protection for free intellectual inquiry.

JCU's decision to go after Ridd and argue that intellectual freedom is a narrow concept is a serious indictment on the state of free speech at Australia's universities.  As Stuart Wood QC, Ridd's barrister, explained in his concluding remarks:  "We've listened for a day to the university advocating for a narrow construction of intellectual freedom.  It would be like listening to someone from the church come and advocate for a narrow view of religious freedom."

In the damming conclusion to the judgement, Judge Vasta says that:

"Incredibly, the university has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom.  In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset.  It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth."

JCU is not the only university that doesn't get this.  Right across Australia, academics are still self-censoring.  University policies, as former Chief Justice Robert French's University Freedom of Speech Review found, can limit free expression.  There is a serious lack of diversity of viewpoint and challenging of ideas from different perspectives.

Ridd's success is a huge victory, but it is just the start.

Can't Howl This Down: More Must Be Done To Protect Free Speech

Former chief justice Robert French's review into university freedom of speech is a powerful vindication of those who have raised concerns about free speech protection on Australia's campuses.

The review's terms of reference instructed French to assess the existing higher education standards, the effectiveness of policies and practices to protect free intellectual inquiry, consider overseas approaches and, if he believed it necessary, recommend changes to the higher education standards and a model code of conduct to protect free speech.

On the core question, French concluded university rules and policies "use broad language capable of impinging on freedom of expression".  He also developed and recommend the adoption of a model code and changes to the standards.

French does state there is a lack of evidence of a free speech "crisis" on Australian campuses.

Whether there is a crisis, however, was not actually the topic of the review.  French clearly believes recent events have raised genuine questions about free speech and that existing policies are flawed.

The model code is a powerful statement of free speech principles.  It rejects the notion that speech should be limited because someone feels "offended or shocked or insulted".

Despite claims otherwise in some submissions, French states free speech is a "paramount" and "special" value, not just one value among many.

Much of the reporting and university response to the inquiry has ignored, perhaps purposefully, the nuance and actual conclusions of the French's review.

Universities Australia has welcomed the finding that there is no crisis while not addressing the inadequacy of policies or supporting the code.

This is a manifestly inadequate response to French's methodological 300-page review.

Perhaps this should be no surprise considering some of the submissions to the review.

One vice-chancellor, revealed in a footnote to be the University of Wollongong's Paul Wellings, is dismissive of the review's existence, asserting the sector's management of academic freedom and freedom of expression is "robust and appropriate".

French says Wellings's assertion is "an argumentative observation of little empirical value" — a legalistic way of saying complete nonsense.

One university compared itself to "organisations, employers and property owners outside the higher education sector", which are "not required to treat free speech as a ‘paramount value'."

"This was a surprising response," French writes.

"A university which owns property is not just another property owner.  It is a public authority created by public law for the benefit of the community and inheriting a long historical tradition."

Universities Australia responded to the draft model by stating it "could override a broad range of university policies and procedures that have been carefully constructed — balancing rights and responsibilities".

French rejects this:  "A plausible characterisation would be of a rather untidy organic process."

But, more fundamentally, if the code overrides existing policies, is this not an admission that the existing policies inadequately protect free expression?

The responses, however, were not all bad.  Seven universities have already or are intending to review their free speech policies.

Most higher education providers acknowledged the need to do something, and a third explicitly backed the development of the model code.

The code also was welcomed by the sector regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

My Free Speech on Campus Audit 2016 (updated in 2017 and last year) was the first analysis of university policies and actions related to free expression.

These audits found most universities have policies that undermine free expression.  French refers to my audit and submission on several occasions, and lists incidents I found in an appendix.

French similarly points to a plethora of policies that are capable of impinging on freedom of expression.  Student conduct policies at La Trobe University and James Cook University, for example, prevent behaviour that "may be reasonably perceived" as harassing or offensive language.

"That language, of course, begs the question 'perceived by whom?'," French writes.

"To that extent it leaves open the possibility of a range of viewpoints informing characterisation and the possibility of overreach adverse to freedom of speech."

French points to policies that require upholding a university's reputation:  "This kind of language may beg the question — 'reputation' from whose point of view?

"A controversial opinion on a particularly contentious topic might be seen by some, who vehemently disagree with it, as damaging to the reputation of the university but (which may be) not so seen by others."

French says these policies empower university administrators to make arbitrary decisions about allowable speech.

This is particularly relevant in the context of Peter Ridd v James Cook University.

Last week a federal court judge declared the intellectual freedom provision in Ridd's enterprise agreement took precedence over the code of conduct provision about not damaging the university's reputation.  This contributed to the finding that Ridd's sacking was unlawful.

Some in the university sector have asserted that requiring universities to protect free expression would somehow undermine their autonomy.  In the first instance, it is unclear what autonomy would be restrained, other than perhaps the autonomy to operate a monoculture, ideologically driven institution paid for by the taxpayer.  In any case, there is no way an optional model code threatens university autonomy.

French concludes by saying:  "A culture powerfully predisposed to the exercise of freedom of speech and academic freedom is ultim­ately a more effective protection than the most tightly drawn rule."

Australia's universities have a moral, legal, and practical responsibility to foster a culture that protects free speech.

This should start with addressing inadequate policies and adopting the model code — but, more fundamentally, they must foster and encourage debate from a wide array of perspectives.

New Business Fund Ignores Biggest Issue: Red Tape

The Australian Business Growth Fund is a short-sighted proposal which ignores red tape and industrial relations as the major constraints on small business growth in Australia.

The fund, announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, would see the federal government partnering with banks to provide small and medium business owners with equity.  The assumption is that access to credit is the key constraint on small business growth.  However, this is not supported by the best available evidence.

Forty-eight per cent of respondents to a survey published in 2018 by Westpac said regulation was the highest hurdle to business success in Australia.  The next highest response was just 14 per cent.  And access to credit was not even measured, although "other" rated 2 per cent.

Similarly, the most recent Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum found that Australia ranked 77th out of 140 nations for the burden of government regulation, where a higher ranking represents a worse outcome.

The report also found that over the last decade Australia dropped from 75th to 105th for "flexibility in wage determination" and from 46th to 110th for "hiring and firing practices".  New Zealand, meanwhile, improved from 29th to 19th and 103rd to 20th, respectively.

If credit is a constraint on growth, it's a result of government regulation.  Perhaps if the government wanted more credit growth they shouldn't have implemented the Banking Executive Accountability Regime.  Or imposed a new tax on banks.  Or provided the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority with $150 million in extra funding in this year's budget to impose yet more red tape.

The product of misguided public policy is a crisis in business investment.  New private business investment in Australia is just 11.5 per cent of GDP, which is lower than it was during the Whitlam years.

MAIN CAUSES

Small businesses in particular are struggling.  There were 38,000 fewer new businesses created in 2018 compared with a decade earlier, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.  And my recent research estimates there would be 250,000 more businesses in Australia today if business creation continued at pre-Global Financial Crisis levels.

Besides missing the main causes of small business decline, the Australian Business Growth Fund is itself a questionable undertaking.  History is replete with examples of taxpayer subsidised, government-backed finance going wrong, from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac abroad, to Tricontinental and the Victorian Economic Development Corporation at home.

But perhaps the biggest error is that the new fund itself is the institutional opposite to the sector it claims to support.  Small businesses are entrepreneurial, risk taking and innovative.  Governments are lethargic, risk averse, and subject to cronyism.  Only a bureaucracy could think that more bureaucracy could revive a sector which is anathema to bureaucracy.

The only beneficiaries of the new fund will be the major banks who will be "partnering" with government.  Small business owners, meanwhile, will have been sold another policy pup as the business investment crisis in Australia worsens.

Peter Ridd Has Defeated The Climate Inquisition Thanks To You

Peter Ridd was a professor at James Cook University who dared to question claims that the Great Barrier Reef is facing imminent catastrophe from climate change.  Eventually he was sacked for not backing down.

But with public support support he insisted that the university undertake some quality assurance of its research, and refused to be censored, for continuing to speak out.

His battle to speak for science against the Climate Inquisition reached the courts, with a three-day hearing in the Federal Court in Brisbane just last month.  When the hearing wrapped up the presiding Judge Salvatore Vasta said he hoped to have a judgement before Easter.

We were expecting some notice before this judgement was read in court.  There was none.  It was presented today.  And Peter Ridd won on all counts.

The Court ordered:

1. The 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.
2. The issue of the making of declarations and penalty are adjourned to a date to be fixed.

It is very significant that Peter has won on the issue of academic freedom:  that he did have a right to ignore the university administrators and continuing to speak out about the lack of quality assurance and also against the disciplinary process he was being unfairly subjected to.

This is important news for freedom of speech and thought and professional conscience everywhere.

James Cook University may have already spent over $1 million in legal fees attempting to silence Peter.

They have assumed that sooner or later he would run out of money and courage.  But not Peter, with his legal team and support of people like Spectator Australia readers has kept going.

I have known several good professors lose their will to fight once they are isolated, and risk bankruptcy.

Taking this fight to the Federal Court would not have been possible were it not for Peter deciding to take a stand in defence of the truth, to not back down regardless of the consequences.

Cheryl Ridd has been a rock, in support of Peter and the ugliness that goes with such court cases, including the unfair and untrue affidavits.

John Roskam found Peter the very best legal counsel in Stuart Wood QC.

We then went into fundraising mode — twice.  The first time to fight the censure, and the second time for Peter to get his job back.

Bloggers Anthony Watts, Joanne Nova, and also Benny Peiser were terrific.  Together we raised $260,000 from 2,405 people.

Today's judgement is only that Peter Ridd was wrongly sacked from his position as professor at the university.  He has not yet got his job back.  There has been no ruling yet on remedies and restitutions.  Further, the university may yet appeal.

But thank you for your support — so far.  May you generosity continue.

The Coalition Can Stand Out By Standing Up For Australians

In calling the election yesterday, Scott Morrison insisted there was a clear choice between the Coali­tion and Labor.  Sadly, at their core, there is not as much of a difference between the two governing alternatives as there should be.

For example, Labor is committed to a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, while the Coalition's policy is to reduce emissions by up to 28 per cent.  Similarly, Labor's policy is to keep the top corporate tax rate at 30 per cent, which Morrison confirmed last week would be the same under a re-elected Coalition.

Even on the recent hot topic of electric vehicles the Coalition's policy is indistinguishable from Labor's, which is for half of all new cars from 2030 to be electric.  The Coalition's target is 25 per cent to 50 per cent.

Both parties also continue to support compulsory superannuation, high taxes, high spending and large government debt.

So, next month's election will not change the fate of the nation.  That is why we must look beyond the next three years to the next three decades.

The period between now and 2050 will be a fight for the heart and soul of our nation.

That is why today I have released a list of 20 policies to fix Australia.  Fifteen of those policies are what governments should do, and five are what they should not do.  For brevity, three do-nots and seven dos are discussed here.

First, do not hold a referendum to divide Australians by race.  The proposal to hold a referendum on mentioning indigenous Australians in the Constitution is divisive and an affront to Martin Luther King Jr's vision that people be judged by the "content of their character", not the "colour of their skin".  All Australians are equal and race has no place in our Constitution.

Second, do not increase government spending.  The cause of high taxes is high spending as every dollar of spending must be paid with higher taxes.  Since the end of the Howard government, government spending has grown 80 per cent, about three times the rate of inflation.

Third, do not proceed with Snowy 2.0.  The project will cost at least $4.5 billion, it won't become operational until at least 2024-25, and it will be a net energy user.  The best way to get electricity prices down is to provide policy settings to facilitate the development of coal-fired power.

Now on to the seven dos.

First, repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (1975).  Section 18C places an unconscionable restriction on freedom of speech for us all, and an overwhelming 95 per cent of insist free speech is important to us according to our 2017 ­survey.

Second, withdraw from the Paris Agreement.  Paris forces Australia to cut its emissions by 28 per cent, based on 2005 levels, by 2030, yet China (the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gas) can increase its emissions by 150 per cent.  The agreement puts Australia at a competitive economic disadvantage and will make no noticeable difference to the climate.

Third, implement a flat rate of income tax.  Australia's income tax system is punitive, discourages upward economic mobility and, when combined with the welfare system, creates high effective marginal tax rates that trap people in poverty.  The fairest tax is a flat tax that applies to everyone on an equal basis.

Fourth, hold a royal commission into tampering of climate data by the Bureau of Meteorology.  The bureau appears to have fiddled with temperature data to make it appear as if the temperature is higher than it is, and that it has risen faster than it has.  Australians deserve to know the truth about their public institutions, and this inquiry would be the best way to discover it.

Fifth, reintroduce the debt ceiling.  A debt ceiling set at $75bn was implemented by the Rudd government in 2007.  With the support of the Greens, the Coalition government abolished the debt ceiling in 2013.  Government debt is at $546bn.

Six, abolish compulsory superannuation.  It is a tax on wages.  Workers should be able to choose how much of their income they want to defer for their retirement and how much they want to spend now on housing, education and healthcare.  But those decisions are being made by politicians, bureaucrats and financial advisers.

Last, implement a one-in, two-out approach to cutting red tape where two regulations are removed for every one introduced.  Red tape costs the Australian economy $176bn each year, the equivalent of 10 per cent of gross domestic product.  This is why new business investment as a percentage of GDP is lower than it was during the Whitlam era, and why productivity growth is slow and wages growth even slower.

Quibbling about minor changes to taxes, electric vehicles or greenhouse gas emissions misses the main issue:  Australia is a divided nation in a per-capita economic recession that is losing its character.

This can be fixed.  What is needed is bold vision and the wherewithal to take the slings and arrows that come with such a vision.  The list of 20 policies to fix Australia is a good start.

US Criminal Justice Reform A Lesson For Us

US President Donald Trump's endorsement of criminal justice reform is a landmark for conservatives.  After campaigning as the "law and order candidate", Trump has been won over by the argument that government can reduce the growth of incarceration, boost rehabilitation and save money in the long term.

Trump's support for the new approach cements its position as the new conservative orthodoxy.  How this came to be so is something the Australian Centre-Right needs to study carefully.

Last week, Trump held a celebration for the passage of the First Step Act, which he signed into law in December.  The act creates incentives for federal prisoners to participate in vocational education, repeals mandatory sen­tences for drug crimes and restores some judicial discretion for other nonviolent crimes.

Or as Trump explained:  "Nonviolent offenders will have the oppor­tunity to participate in vocational training, education and drug treatment programs.  When they get out of prison they will be ready to get a job instead of turning back to a life of crime."

The First Step Act represents the latest success in a 15-year effort by conservatives in the US.

In 2005, Texas decided that its prison costs were unsustainable.  The Republican-led state legislature shifted money from locking people up to rehabilitation and community-based punishments, targeting nonviolent offenders.

The results were immediate and vast.  During the next decade, Texas avoided $3 billion in new prison costs and saw serious property, violent and sex crimes fall by 13 per cent.  Texas has since become a model for other states.  Similar reforms have been implemented in Republican-controlled states such as Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky and Mississippi.

The consensus has become that governments should reduce incarceration for nonviolent offenders, and increase work and training opportunities within prison, which are correlated with reduced reoffending.

Australia's incarceration rate is nearing a tipping point.  In 1980, the US had an incarceration rate of 310 per 100,000 adults.  Since then growth was exponential, tripling in only 25 years.  By contrast, the Australian rate is 222 per 100,000 adults, up more than 30 per cent in the past decade.

Australia's rate is also high in world terms:  higher than Britain and Canada, twice the rate of Germany and three times the rate of Sweden.  Moreover, Australia's prisons are more than twice as expensive per prisoner than in the US.  In Australia, it costs $110,000 to imprison someone for a year, the fifth highest rate in the developed world.  So runaway incarceration will hit taxpayers hard.

As such, we need to act now.  We can reform punishment for nonviolent offenders by increasing the use of alternatives to prison such as community service, home detention, fines and restitution orders.  And we can improve rehabilitation by increasing the role of work in the corrections system.  Nationwide, 34 per cent of prisons participate in vocational training.  Of eligible prisoners, 80 per cent are in work programs.  In community corrections, offenders serve on average less than half the hours of their sentence.

In Australia, the NSW Coalition government has shown it understands this dynamic.  In 2017, it implemented reforms expanding the use of home detention, curfews and movement restrictions for nonviolent offenders that aim to reduce reoffending.

It is instructive to compare their recent electoral success with the failure of the Victorian Liberals' law-and-order election campaign, which correctly identified rising crime in Melbourne as a problem but offered nothing but ever-greater spending on prisons and police as a solution.

But the benefits of criminal justice reform are more than just fin­ancial or political.  Corrections is a normative exercise where we try to shift offenders' behaviour towards what we value as a society.

Trump's celebration of his criminal justice reform was part of what he has officially designated as Second Chance Month, a month to reflect on giving in good faith, people another chance to be productive members of society.

The final lesson from the US, then, is that criminal justice reform is not just about efficiency, it is about reiterating our commitment to hard work and redemption as fundamental values.

The Outrage Mob Is Out To Get Folau

The outrage mob is out in force following rugby star Israel Folau's latest social media comments.  The mob wants to more than disagree with Folau's opinion, as is our right in a free society.  It wants to ban him from expressing it, which is totalitarian.

On Wednesday, a Rugby Australia spokesman branded Folau's comments about sexuality and religion "unacceptable", and said its integrity unit had been "engaged in the matter".  Now it has signalled its intention to sack him.

Folau shared on his Instagram account an image which said to "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators" that "Hell awaits you!  Repent!  Only Jesus saves."

In the caption to the image Folau provided quotes from the Bible, and added:  "Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent.  Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him."

By all accounts, these opinions are a manifestation of Folau's religious beliefs.  Many people would profoundly disagree with what was said, and find such sentiments deeply offensive.

Should he lose his job for expressing a genuine religious belief?  One held not only by many Christians, and also those of other faiths.

The outrage that followed has far exceeded Folau's supposed wrongdoing.  On Instagram, Australian soccer player Sam Kerr wrote:  "Australia, we should not let athletes or ANYONE preach this hate in our country".  Prominent club level Aussie rules player Jason Ball called the comments "downright dangerous".  In this paper, Peter FitzSimons declared Folau needed to "repent" for his wrongthink before being allowed to play again.

The authoritarian desire to impose ideological orthodoxy on Australians is demonstrated in how our national flag carrier, and the sponsor for the Wallabies team, intervened in this situation.  Qantas said of Folau's comments in a statement released on Thursday afternoon that:  "These comments are really disappointing and clearly don't reflect the spirit of inclusion and diversity that we support."

While Qantas says it believes in diversity, it doesn't believe in the right of someone to express a religious viewpoint.  Qantas is hypocritical.  It has partner airlines such as Qatar Airways and Emirates, owned and operated by repressive regimes the Qatar and Dubai, respectively.  Qatar imprisons those deemed guilty of homosexual acts, and the United Arab Emirates (of which Dubai is a part) punishes homosexuality with the death penalty.

There is a genuine fear in many fields about the tyranny of corporate social justice policies, and Qantas's decision to intervene in this case shows why.

The NSW Waratahs — Folau's employer — may be entitled under the terms of his contract of employment to sack him.  But whether it should is a different question.

Why The Holes In Bowen's Numbers Matter

Spare a thought for Chris Bowen.  It turns out a number he has been quoting for some time is bogus.  To be fair there is no reason to doubt that he relied on that number in good faith.  Yet he has a history of relying on numbers and analysis that turn out to be problematic.

In 2008 Bowen relied on dodgy ACCC econometrics to advocate for the Fuelwatch scheme.  Then he suggested the taxation of employee share schemes lacked fairness and integrity.  After questioning he was able to reveal two instances of tax rorting involving employee share schemes.  Later he declared that novated leases were rorts for fat cats.  Many of those fat cats turned out to be nurses, police and school teachers.

Again there is no reason to doubt that Bowen, in good faith, relied on information being fed to him.  But here is the point:  He didn't know enough or find out enough about each of those topics to question the data being fed to him.  Peter Costello and Paul Keating didn't make mistakes like that.

There is more to the negative gearing kerfuffle than an opposition having a black hole in its costings weeks out from an election.  It relates to an attitude and understanding of how the tax system works.

Bowen has been arguing that negative gearing as policy doesn't perform because it doesn't encourage the construction of new housing.  Irrespective of whether the number is 7 per cent or any other number the problem with his argument is negative gearing is not intended to promote the construction of new housing.  That is not the policy objective.  It never was.

Negative gearing relates to the well-known, and uncontroversial, principle that expenditure incurred in the production of taxable income is itself deductible.

Another way of thinking about the issue is Adam Smith's ability to pay principle.  Imagine the government taxed revenue not income — every business with a return on sales less than the tax rate would go broke.  There is a good, practical, reason to allow tax deductions.  The notion that deductions are somehow either rorts or special privilege that has driven a lot of confusion over the past few years.

What is somewhat unusual about negative gearing in Australia is landlords — individual taxpayers — can offset their property investment losses against other income.  Many jurisdiction don't allow that.  The loss must be carried forward and off-set against future investment income.  This simply adds complexity to the tax system and undermines the notion that a dollar is a dollar and all dollars should be taxed equally.

This hasn't stopped some large (incorporated) property investors from suggesting that negative gearing be curtailed for unincorporated landlords.  This proposal is simply rent-seeking.  This would place smaller unincorporated businesses at a competitive disadvantage to larger incorporated property investors.  This would also introduce distortions into the economy — investment should be independent of ownership structure.

The fact is for a lot of middle income Australians property investment is their only opportunity to have their own small business.  This is a mechanism for retirement savings outside superannuation and an opportunity to top-up their income.  Even if the opposition don't want to thank and congratulate them for being less of a burden on the welfare system and age-pension, there is no good reason to discriminate against landlords by treating them differently to every other business or investor in Australia.

Bowen is highly ambitious.  He very clearly wants to be a reforming Treasurer.  That, however, means he is going to have to change his ways.  Be less trusting of tax-rort stories and dodgy numbers — especially tax-rort stories that generate big numbers.  Big picture reforms require attention to micro-detail.  Remember in 2010 the Rudd government thought that mining companies only paid 13 per cent tax?  A lot of political pain could have been avoided if the government had paid attention to detail then.

So it somewhat embarrassing for Bowen that he has a hole in his budget numbers.  Forecasts are always rubbery.  That isn't his real problem.  An inability or unwillingness to get to grips with the gory detail of policy will be his undoing.  He should start by talking to people affected by his proposed policies and having an open mind about what they say.

Budget Repair Based On Tax Hikes

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg claimed in his budget speech last week that the government had repaired the budget "without increasing taxes".  Unfortunately budget numbers and government rhetoric do not always match reality.  The forecast surplus is actually on the back of high growth in tax revenues.

Built into our tax and monetary system are automatic tax increases.  Just to maintain a constant taxation level requires either continual increases of tax thresholds or decreases in tax rates.

Since the Coalition came to government in 2013, they have failed to cut tax rates and they have only adjusted one bracket threshold.  They have sat on their hands and allowed bracket creep to go to work.  Increases to nominal wages ensures everyone pays more tax at their marginal rate and pushes many taxpayers into higher tax brackets.

The household tax to income ratio has continued to increase over the last decade from below 12 per cent to over 14 per cent, and government revenue from personal income tax has consistently outstripped nominal wage growth.

The truth is, we are long overdue for tax cuts that reverse the effects of bracket creep.  Building on last year's announced tax changes, this budget promises further relief from ever increasing taxes.  In addition to abolishing the second highest tax bracket in 2024, an additional threshold is increased and the 32.5 per cent marginal rate is reduced to 30 per cent in five years' time.

But these promised tax cuts come ahead of an election with the government well behind in the polls.  It is unlikely that we will ever actually see the full implementation of these tax cuts and one must question the Coalition's commitment to lower taxes, given their inaction over the last five years.

Ultimately, this is a budget that will play well in opposition.  Any changes made by a Labor government that do not match the Liberal plan will be labelled as tax hikes.  The Liberals will hold a future Labor government to a standard they themselves could never meet, while maintaining the narrative that they are the party of lower taxes.

This would mirror the tactic employed by Labor after it lost government in 2013.  Labor loaded up significant spending increases and successfully labelled the government's lower rates of increased spending as "spending cuts".

It is also important to note that the government's $45 billion surplus over the next four years is a forecast resting on a number of key assumptions.  The budget currently remains in deficit, and will only improve if the forecast wage growth, low interest rates, and favourable economic conditions prove to be accurate.  Future spending, tax cuts, and debt repayments depend on it.

Let's not forget the budget woes of recent times.  After blowing up the country's financial position with irresponsible and misguided Keynesian stimulus spending, then-Treasurer Wayne Swan announced a number of years of budget surpluses that never eventuated.

The lesson here is that we should take the budget estimates with a grain of salt — especially a pre-election budget of a government facing the prospect of opposition.

The only sustainable way of delivering tax relief while paying down debt is to reduce the size of government.  This budget does not provide any restraint on government spending, which continues to be locked in at 24.5 per cent of GDP.  In the absence of substantial spending cuts, future governments will no doubt turn again to increased taxation to maintain government finances.

The government's tax plan does include a number of critical improvements to the current structure.  Removing the second highest tax bracket, increasing thresholds, and reducing tax rates are all extremely welcome steps.

Unfortunately, since forming government in 2013, the Coalition has been unable to implement tax cuts on this scale or reduce government spending.  We now face the chilling prospect of having our tax cuts held at the mercy of a Labor government.

The Liberals Tax Themselves Out Of Office

If it had spent its 5½ years in government delivering budgets like the one on Tuesday, the Coalition wouldn't be in the position it's in.  The likelihood is the Coalition will lose next month's federal election to a Labor opposition that's promising higher taxes, bigger government, and more regulation.

It's a lot easier arguing against tax increases when you're not raising taxes yourself.

The 2019 federal budget contains no program of economic reform.  Promising tax cuts that are five years and two elections away isn't reform — it's sorcery.

But, and it's a big but, for the Coalition to at least be talking about tax cuts rather than tax increases is progress compared to where the Coalition has been after some of its other budgets.

In the 2014 budget the Abbott government introduced the deficit levy on high-income earners.  The Turnbull government in the 2016 budget introduced retrospective tax increases on superannuation, and the bank levy in the 2017 budget.

As Liberal and National MPs start to find their seats on the opposition benches after the federal election they can contemplate the fact that three of the Coalition's six budgets have had higher taxes as their centrepiece.

Ever since it was elected in September 2013, on everything from climate change and energy policy to freedom of speech and the nation's culture, the Coalition has been confused.

And nowhere is this confusion more obvious than in relation to budgetary and fiscal policy.  As soon as the Coalition started raising taxes and stopped talking about the size of government and the extent of government debt they forfeited their brand reputation as prudent economic managers, which was their single-most important policy advantage over the Labor Party.

In retrospect, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey's "budget emergency" of 2014 might have been a slight exaggeration, but not by much.  Perhaps the mistake they made was calling the "debt crisis" a few years too soon.  Australia has among the fastest-growing national debt in the developed world and the interest payments on federal government debt is now $18 billion a year, which is more than is spent on things like income support for people with a disability.  In 2008 the Rudd government legislated for a debt limit of $75 billion.  In 2011 that limit was increased to $250 billion and in 2012 to $300 billion.  In 2013 the Coalition abolished the debt limit entirely.  Gross federal government debt is now approximately $560 billion.

If it goes into opposition the Coalition will have to rethink it's entire attitude to tax.

For example, far too many Liberal MPs now talk about about tax cuts as "government spending".

A "simpler" and "flatter" tax system was once a bedrock principle of the Coalition — even if (unfortunately) it's never committed itself to a single flat rate of personal income tax.  What's happened though in recent years is that not only has the Coalition not done anything to gradually reduce and flatten tax rates, it seems that the Coalition is now positively embracing Australia's highly progressive income tax system.

In his budget speech on Tuesday evening, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg felt compelled to say that even after the Coalition's tax cuts take effect in 2024 (which of course are unlikely to ever happen) — "our tax system will remain highly progressive, with the top 5 per cent of taxpayers paying one-third of all income tax collected".  The pity is that he said it as if it was a good thing.

Frydenberg went on:  "And someone earning $200,000 [will be] paying 10 times as much tax as someone on $45,000."

These days the Coalition talks a lot about a "fair" tax system.

A Labor treasurer might think if you earn 4½ times as much as someone else, you pay 10 times as much tax — but a Liberal shouldn't.

In recent years the Coalition has lost its way — on both policy and philosophy.

Or to be more precise, ever since John Howard and Peter Costello ceased to be in Parliament the Coalition hasn't known what it has stood for.

And if you don't know what you stand for, it's hard to get people to vote for you.

Roxane Gay's Toxic Feminism

On Sunday night in Melbourne an event was held that was supposed to be a discussion/debate between Christina Hoff Sommers and Roxane Gay, two well-known feminist commentators.  As it turned out, the so-called debate was an absolute shambles and an appalling display of toxic feminism.  Sommers was treated in a manner that was rude, dismissive and highly unprofessional by Roxane Gay.  The audience resembled something close to an angry mob, unwilling to listen to anything they disagreed with and full of entitlement that their version of feminism was the only acceptable form.

What we saw on display was what Sommers describes as the two schools of feminism.  Equity feminism as represented and described by Sommers;  "... wants for women what it wants for everyone — equality, dignity, liberty.  It's a movement that was developed out of the European enlightenment and 19th century humanitarian movements and I think it has one great virtue which is that it works;  it has freed women."

The other type of feminism Sommers describes as "Gender Feminism" which is an ideology that believes all women are "captive to a sex-gender system, and that democratic reform is not enough and they don't have any particular confidence that democratic freedoms will protect women, and so they're much more radical.  They think that women are a subordinate class."

This was highlighted when Roxane Gay said, in reference to the issue of sexual violence;  "The idea that we need to engage in due process when due process has never served victims of sexual assault ... it's like oh this is how much we respect men that we will give them due process".  This statement was met with a great deal of hooting and hollering of agreement from a majority of the audience.  The rule of law should be applied differently to men and women according to those who follow the mantra of "Gender Feminism".

When women fought for their rights and equal treatment in the early feminist movements of the 19th century and beyond, it was on the presumption that women are just as capable as men.  Which of course they are.  That is why women fought for equal treatment, not special treatment.  To obtain the legal status of men means you take on the legal and personal responsibilities as well, meaning that your testimony must be corroborated before guilt can be determined.  Roxane Gay also expressed her support for the common hashtag and phrase #BelieveAllWomen.  Explaining that it did not mean exactly what it says, but rather it means that everyone should give women the benefit of the doubt in all cases of sexual assault.  Saying that "... we need to trust that women are not going to make claims of sexual assault up."

In an ideal world I would sympathise with this position, but unfortunately in some cases women have made claims up.  To argue that women will always be honest in cases of sexual assault assumes that women are all more or less the same and not as complex and varied as our male counterparts;  that they are not capable of Machiavellian manipulation.  Furthermore, by spreading this blanket view that women are always morally virtuous in such cases, you are effectively putting women back upon the pedestal of female purity and fragility that the first two waves of feminism successfully took them down from.

When Christina Hoff Sommers spoke about effective means of lowering instances of sexual assault on campus, she was met with boos and hisses from the audience.  Sommers referenced a multitude of studies and programs including a Canadian study headed by Dr Charlene Y. Senn;  Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women.  That showed female emotional empowerment along with the teaching of self-defence lowered young woman's chances of sexual assault by almost 50%.  For this Sommers was accused of the mortal sin of "victim blaming", there was no place for well researched solutions in the world of Roxane Gay and her acolytes.

Gay thought the one and only solution for sexual violence was "to teach boys not to rape" from a young age, as if there are a multitude of parents in 21st century Australia actively encouraging sexual violence.  The idea of women empowering themselves and taking steps as individuals to make themselves safer was treated as repugnant.  Ignoring the fact that it is nearly impossible to control the parenting actions of the entire population, while it is relatively simple to empower and educate yourself as an individual.  To say as much is not victim blaming it is, in a practical way, victim preventing.

This is not to say that the education of young men has no place in this discussion, but to dismiss more immediate, practical solutions because of your own ideological position is unwise and morally negligent.  To quote Sommers "In none of this am I denying that domestic violence is a serious problem or that sexual assault is a serious problem, they are so serious that we should tell the truth about it and do sober research, not hyperbole and spin".

On Monday in the aftermath of the event, a petition was released by a group of attendees who were apparently unprepared to hear views they disagreed with when witnessing a debate.  They are demanding their money back because Sommers words hurt their feelings and made them feel "unsafe".  This is the antithesis of female empowerment, these women are not fighting for the right to be heard and be involved in public debate, but instead they are fighting for the right to be sheltered and protected from views they disagree with.  Female views no less.

As Sommers said when interviewed, "As a feminist, who became a feminist in the sexual revolution of the 70's, back then it was about fun and liberation and joy and now it seems so negative and fearful.  I don't like seeing women becoming bullies ... I hate male bullies but I don't think female bullies are any better."

The saddest part of all of this is that this not the path to change and female empowerment, as Sommers describes "What scholars have found is when women made the greatest progress and that was beginning in the 18th century ... that was because of a miracle of conservative women and radical women having the same idea and working together, they didn't necessarily like each other ... but they took society to a new level."

Feminism will never have the positive and lasting impact it once had if it continues to be exclusive, reactionary and hostile to those with varying interpretations of female empowerment.  When feminism only has a radical wing, the social and community backing needed to create real change will never mobilize.

Labor's Electric Car Plan Won't Help Ordinary Australians

What do Bill Shorten and Mike from Married At First Sight have in common?

They are both gaslighting the entire nation.

Gaslighting is when someone tells you a story so contradictory of known facts that you come to doubt your sense of reality.

Mike has become notorious for trying to confuse his television bride Heidi by blatantly denying that he has said or done things that have been witnessed by millions of viewers.

Under a Labor government, all light vehicles, such as your family car or your work ute, will be subjected to tighter carbon emissions standards.  The new standards will push up the price of light vehicles by $1500.  But that is just the start of the costs we will have to endure.

Shorten's radical package includes a target for 50 per cent of new cars to be electric vehicles by 2030.

Car retailers will be set a standard of average emissions per vehicle, needing to offset the sale of high-emissions vehicles with the sale of low-emissions vehicles.

In practice, the cost of vehicles will rise as retailers are forced to hold expensive electric vehicle stock and offset reduced sales by increasing the cost of better-selling, higher-emissions vehicles.

This is a trade-off not just between cars but between people.

The smiles of inner-city greenies come at the expense of outer-suburban workers.  Forty per cent of new car sales are SUVs.  The highest selling car in Australia is the Toyota Hilux.  There is currently no electric ute on the market.

Tradies will have to absorb this extra cost or pass it on to their customers.  Either by reducing their earnings or reducing demand for their products, Labor is stiffing one of its traditional blue-collar constituencies.

Alternatively, Labor might massively subsidise electric vehicles, imposing the cost on all taxpayers.  Reduced activity caused by this cost will affect related businesses, from suppliers to retailers, damaging the whole economy.

And we know from experience what happens when the government makes cars more expensive.  In the past, when Australia had a protected car market, we had more old cars on the road.  Older cars are less efficient and less safe.

The costs quickly pile up.

To service the new electric vehicles, a Shorten Labor government will insist that all new roads and housing and office developments include charging facilities.  The cost of your car will rise, and so too will the cost of your house, your office, and the road between them.

While moving half the nation's vehicles onto the electricity grid, Labor also intends to make electricity more expensive and less reliable.

Shorten is committed to a 50 per cent renewables target for electricity generation, meaning more wind and solar — already the reason for the price of electricity doubling in the past decade.

But don't worry, Bill — or should we say "Mike" — Shorten is sure that his policies will "reduce costs" and make cars "more affordable".  Supposedly, all these costs will be offset by fuel savings and somehow, exact mechanism unstated, by the creation of new jobs.

And of course, we get to feel good about saving the planet, notwithstanding that light vehicles make up just 10 per cent of Australia's human emissions, which make up just 1.3 per cent of global human emissions, which make up just 3 per cent of total global emissions.

If a few plumbers in Penrith find themselves on the breadlines, that is a small price to pay.

In other words, Heidi is overreacting again.

The point of gaslighting is not so much the lie as the doubt that it creates.

When you doubt your own mind, you are at the mercy of those in power.

No one really believes that these policies can be realised, will work as promised, or really achieve anything for the environment.

But the people pushing them see an opportunity to take control of the economy, raise your cost of living, and increase your dependence on government subsidies.

You are being manipulated.  To be fair, Mike has the excuse that others have edited his comments.  But Shorten is deliberately selling a bill of goods as fake as reality TV.  The only thing that is real is the cost — and the possibility that under Labor, gaslight is the only artificial light we will have left.