Unis Have Lost Their Way As Homes For Free Speech

In 2016, the Collins English Dictionary ranked "snowflake generation" as one of those annoying new phrases for the year.  It is time to bury it.  It's a beat-up and, worse, it is an unfair slur on the current generation of students.

That is the good news from forthcoming research report into the state of free speech on campus.  Far from being snowflakes, it turns out kids are not the problem.

But the bad news is that there is, most definitely, a free speech crisis on campus.  The results show that universities are failing students, boys in particular, and this institutional dereliction of duty raises questions about the relevance and sustainability of universities in the 21st century.

Instead of speaking to univer­sity administrators and academics, a survey was commissioned from independent market research company Dynata, asking 500 students to agree or disagree with a series of statements about free speech, diversity of views and so on.  Importantly, students joined the survey groups without knowing they would be asked about free speech on campus.

The first point to note is that 82 per cent of students said they should be exposed to different views even if they found them challenging or offensive.  And free speech is not a political issue.  Of those who said they should be exposed to different views, 86 per cent of Greens supporters were concerned and 82 per cent of Labor supporters were worried, as were 82 per of Coalition supporters.  And those noisy anti-free students who try to shut down views they don't like?  They are tiny in number.  With only 2.2 per cent of students disagreeing with the statement that they should be exposed to different views, why on earth are university leaders so pusillanimous in dealing with them?  After riot police had to be called, it took a nine-month investigation for the University of Sydney to discipline a student organ­iser of the protests that tried to stop Bettina Arndt from speaking at a function last year.

The next set of numbers point to a truly depressing state of free speech crisis on campus.  A little more than 41 per cent of students said they sometimes were unable to express their opinions at university.  Just under a third of students had been made to feel uncomfortable by a university teacher for expressing their opinion.  And 59 per cent of students said they sometimes were prevented from expressing their opinions on con­troversial issues by other students.

This last figure should cause students to rethink their claimed commitment to a diversity of views.  You can't, on the one hand, say you support different views on campus, even if they are challenging and offensive, and on the other hand make students expressing different views feel uncomfortable.  A genuine belief in free speech means defending the right of people you disagree with, even vehemently, to speak freely.

The other damning results show that students are going elsewhere to express their views and to learn about different ideas from others.  More than 47 per cent of students said they felt more comfortable expressing their views on social media than at university, and 58 per cent of students said they were exposed to new ideas on social media more than they were at university.  Almost 45 per cent said that social media played a bigger role in shaping their views than what they learned at university.

This raises serious questions about the diminishing relevance of universities for students who are keen to be exposed to diverse opinions, so keen that they are seeking out other platforms for different ideas.

The learning environment at universities is letting down young male students in particular.  The survey results reveal a consistent gender gap between male and female students when it comes to feeling free to express views.  Most concerning, 44 per cent of male students (compared with 23 per cent of female students) said they had been made to feel uncomfortable by their university teacher for expressing their views, and 47 per cent of young male students (compared with 38 per cent of young female students) said they sometimes felt unable to express their views at university.

Time to bury another myth, then:  the one about boys hogging discussion in the lecture theatre and in the tutorial room.  Maybe this sharp gender gap should be no surprise given a recent workshop at the University of Melbourne where organisers wanted white male students, and anyone who looked like a Liberal voter, to remain silent in tutorials.  It turns out that the students wrapped in their identity politics on campus didn't need to make that demand because many boys are self-censoring.  It hardly needs pointing out — or maybe it does today — that this kind of self-censorship is not a healthy learning environment for male or female students.

Dynata's survey also explains why Jordan Peterson is a cultural rock star among young men.  The gender gap is pronounced when it comes to those students who feel more comfortable expressing their views on social media (56 per cent of male students compared with 41 per cent of female students), and those who say they are exposed to more new ideas on social media than at university (65 per cent of male students compared with 54 per cent of female students).

Young male students are disproportionately looking elsewhere for a more diverse range of opinions, and for a space where they can express their own views.  Again, this should be no surprise given the phenomenal popularity of long-form podcasts and YouTube conversations, by left-liberals such as Dave Rubin to more conservative ones such as Peterson and Ben Shapiro.

The terrific news is that students don't have short concentration spans when they are listening to views that challenge the orthodoxy.  In fact, the next generation of leaders, teachers, lawyers, scientists and engineers want to learn;  this survey shows they are hungry for ideas.

What an indictment on the university sector in this country that these students, especially young men on campus, rely on social media, not their own campus, to challenge their views and, ultim­ately, to form their opinions.  And don't imagine these findings are akin to a young conservative man feeling stifled in the audience of the ABC's Q&A.  The gender gap uncovered by this survey is reflected among young male students across all political persuasions.  In other words, the lack of free speech on campus transcends politics.

It is also clear that open intellectual inquiry is unhealthy across university faculties, not just in arts and humanities.  Among the 500 students, 234 students are studying science and technology, and 40 per cent of them said their teachers sometimes unnecessarily inserted political content into their courses.  These areas should be the least political.  But again, are we surprised?  After all, James Cook University unlawfully sacked esteemed physics professor Peter Ridd for asking questions that challenged the climate change orth­odoxy on campus.

And these findings are only slightly below the percentage of all students, 45 per cent of whom said university teachers sometimes unnecessarily inserted political content into their courses.

Speaking at the National Press Club on Wednesday, federal Education Minister Dan Tehan announced his plan to work with the university sector to collect student feedback on diversity of opinions on campus and whether students felt empowered to voice nonconformist views.  "I believe universities want to know if students and staff are afraid to discuss certain topics," Tehan said.  We can test that by watching how university vice-chancellors respond to Dynata's findings.

Their reaction to the French report into the state of free speech released in April points to disheartening default settings:  they told us they were committed to free speech;  that any other suggestion would be ludicrous because they were universities after all;  then they did nothing to explore what in fact was happening on campus.  Worse, they turned their noses up at evidence collected by others.  By not mentioning the French report they prayed it would go away and, when pushed to respond, they grabbed one titbit — a line from the report that said there was no free speech "crisis" — so they could quickly resume normal programming even though French made clear there were problems around free speech that universities must confront.

Like a recalcitrant child, some VCs eventually signalled they would consider adopting some version of French's model code on free speech.  Even then, as French noted, adopting a code is no substitute for changing the university's culture.

For example, following a Senate estimates inquiry late last year, Sydney University vice-chancellor Michael Spence was reported as being "galled" that Liberal senator Amanda Stoker prised from federal education bureaucrats a new-found focus to hold univer­sities accountable for obligations they have under the law to be ­places of free intellectual inquiry.

This latest research shows those laws are not working.

Yet, in response to Stoker's line of questioning, Spence told one newspaper:  "Have you ever heard of a more shocking waste of public funds?"  Yes.  Last year $17.5 billion was provided to universities by taxpayers, many of whom have not been to university.  How extraordinary that it needs saying, let alone enforcing, that each university drawing on public funds should be an oasis of free intellectual inquiry, offering a range of diverse and challenging opinions, so that fee-paying students don't need to go elsewhere to feel comfortable expressing their views.

The days of university vice-chancellors paying lip service to free speech are coming to an abrupt end.  As evidence mounts, with more people, including students, contesting the ability of universities to be places of genuine learning, taxpayers should expect university funding to be strictly tied to their ability to foster diversity of opinions.  That we need such measures at all, and given the history of intransigence among university VCs, we also need to start planning for the next phase of learning, offering new avenues for higher education and deciding whether universities should be publicly funded at all.

The Moral Case For An IR Overhaul

In a week's time the federal Coalition will have been in government for six years after having won three elections in a row.

For all the worthwhile things it has done over those years — and has tried to do but failed — industrial relations is one of the big policy areas the Coalition has been afraid to touch.  Australia's industrial relations system in 2019 is, to all intents and purposes, identical to the one created by Labor with its introduction of the Fair Work Act 10 years ago.

The present-day discussion about productivity and declining business investment takes place with hardly any reference to the fact that in terms of matters such as the rate of the minimum wage, unfair dismissal laws and statutory regulation of terms and conditions, Australia now has one of the most restrictive labour law regimes in the developed world.  According to the World Economic Forum's 2018 Global Competitiveness Report we have the 110th least flexible workplace relations system in the world.

What Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said on Monday to the Business Council of Australia is therefore welcome.  While he certainly didn't promise an industrial relations overhaul, he said the government would consider changes that were "evidence-based, pragmatic, protect workers entitlements and produce clear gains to the economy and working Australians".  That's a good start — but it's only a start.  Frydenberg and the government should add two things to that formulation.

The first is that industrial relations reforms should aim to benefit both working Australians and Australians out of work.  The pity is that trade unions represent only the employed.

The second is that work is more than just a financial exercise.  Work and the dignity of work have a deeply moral purpose.  That's not captured by the statistics.  And while on the subject of morality, it remains deeply immoral that successive governments are prepared to let people live on the Newstart allowance, which provides income support at the equivalent rate of $7 an hour, but ensure it is illegal for a person to offer to work for less than the minimum wage of $19 an hour.

Before any government legislation to reform industrial relations must come the moral argument and the discussion about the need to change.

A good place to begin is by overturning the notion that there's such a thing as "dead-end jobs" and that low-paid work doesn't ultimately lead to something better.

Each year the federal government provides a submission to the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review, which informs the Commission's decisions about awards wages and the national minimum wage.

The most important finding in the government's submission this year related to the crucial role that access to low-paid work plays in facilitating upward economic mobility.  The submission notes that 36 per cent of those who start in the workforce do so in low-paid work.  (Low-paid work is defined as employment that pays two-thirds or less of the median wage.)

A significant statistic is that those in low-paid jobs don't do that job for long.  Half the individuals in a low-paid job are within a year working in a higher-paid job — which on average pays 58 per cent better than the job they had previously.  After five years that figure is 75 per cent.

The problem is that the longer someone is out of work, the harder it becomes for them to find work.  Although upward mobility is strong among those in low-paid work, those outside the workforce find it increasingly difficult to obtain employment the longer they are unemployed.  About one-fourth of those who are unemployed have been so for more than a year and are considered "long-term unemployed".  Time out of work means loss of income, a relative decline of skills, and loss of important social connections.

Part of the reason why the cause of industrial relations reform has made so little headway is that change has only ever been couched in terms of economic productivity.  The larger question as to why we should care whether someone is in work or not is seldom discussed.  Likewise, the phrase "the best form of welfare is a job" is hardly ever heard in this country.

Ban On Cash Is An Attack On Our Freedoms

The Government's proposed restrictions on the use of cash bill which would ban cash payments over $10,000 is a disproportionate and ineffective way of tackling the illegal activity of the "black economy".

Businesses are already required to report cash transactions over $10,000 to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre.

An outright ban would only negatively affect law abiding citizens while those engaging in money laundering, deliberate tax evasion or other illegal activities are likely to find other means of exchange, or will continue to use untraceable cash undeterred by restrictions.

While the move toward digital transactions has been increasing, there are still many Australians who choose to transact with cash.  Research from the Reserve Bank of Australia published in 2016 found that 37 per cent of transactions are made with cash, with higher rates of cash usage among older people and those from lower income households.

People hold and use cash for a variety of reasons, but with growing concerns over the use of data and personal information it is perfectly legitimate for individuals to take measures to reduce their digital footprint without being subject to government suspicion.

As with all intrusions on privacy, it is argued that if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide.  But this implies the government must be privy to every private transaction, regardless of wrong-doing or even suspected illegal behaviour.

This line of argument doesn't stop at banning $10,000 cash transactions, but to a full blown surveillance state the likes of which you might read about in a dystopian novel.

Privacy concerns shouldn't be dismissed as a cover for illegal activity.  Growing concerns over the use of personal data by Google and Facebook are clearly not motivated by illegal intentions.

And neither was the rush of many Australians last year to opt out of the centralised My Health Record initiative that crashed the website and phone line due to high demand.

The proposed cash restriction should be viewed as part of a broader war on cash.

Already, the big four accounting firm KPMG has called for the ban to be implemented on cash transactions as low as $2,000.  There have even been calls to remove the $100 note from circulation.

And then there is the prospect the Reserve Bank implementing negative interest rates as a way of stimulating the economy in the event of an economic downturn.  This radical anti-savings policy was flagged by RBA governor Phillip Lowe when he spoke to the Standing Committee on Economics earlier this month.  This could result in individuals being charged to hold their own money at the bank.

However, for this to work, the freedom to withdraw money from the banking system would have to be severely limited.  With negative interest rates, there would be a stronger incentive to hold cash.  Restricting the ability of Australians to operate in cash would remove a safeguard against radical monetary policy that could work to erode your savings and make it more difficult to invest for the future.

But the clearest picture of where we may be heading was painted by the Black Economy Taskforce — the same taskforce which recommended the $10,000 cash — which stated in its 2017 report that "we are not yet calling for the abolition of cash" (emphasis added).

Not yet, perhaps, but it is seemingly just a matter of time before holding a banknote in your wallet or purse could land you in jail.

When Regulators Roam Out Of Control

Ask Australian business people and industry representatives in formal meetings about our nation's regulatory burden, and you will be told that reform is necessary, a governmental inquiry would be welcome, and the evidence detailing the burden of red tape is persuasive.

Ask them privately, and the language is much less measured.  They will say that the sea of legislation is vast and impenetrable, that additional regulations being proposed are insult piled upon insult, and that regulators are out of control.  It is a potent combination of private anger and public diplomacy and acquiescence.

Business leaders look at financial estimates of the cost of red tape and say they still do not capture the Kafkaesque nightmare of dealing with a regulator determined to make itself a not so silent partner.  Previously it has been difficult to quantify the cost of such harassment, but last week's Federal Court judgment in ASIC v Westpac demonstrates it to be it is $34 million of shareholder funds just for one company.

Australian entrepreneurs with operations in the USA have endorsed President's Trump use of rules such as "one in two out" for new regulations, and seen the economic upside.  But more than that they've seen the importance of regulators being brought back within the confines of the rule of law.  As one with experience of the Obama era put it to me, what do you do when a team from the EPA literally parks itself in your head office for months on end, asking endless questions and interfering in decision-making?

In search of quantifiable evidence of the red tape burden, I have counted pages of legislation, as was done recently in the financial services sector.  This revealed that while there was an already impressive 9,524 pages of relevant legislation, plus a further 19,011 pages of regulation, and an even more incredible variety of "regulatory dark matter" such as the guidelines, notes, advice and so on, running to 56,965 pages.

We've also cooperated in a project using world-leading AI techniques revealing the number of regulatory restrictions in Federal legislation has increased from about 2,000 in the late 1970s to 95,000 by 2015.  This analysis is fundamental to build a case for change, but there is the further research challenge of how best to capture and cost the culture of unlimited discretion in which regulators operate?

At last, there's direct evidence, thanks to a landmark case of ASIC's pursuit of Westpac for alleged breaches of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.  The detail of the case is literally irrelevant.  Just as Herr K in Kafka's The Trial was never told the nature of his offence;  it was the power of the prosecutor and not the strength of its case that mattered.

For a considerable period, Westpac argued with gusto the merits of its defence, but ultimately it caved and in November 2018 agreed to a settlement in which it would have paid a $35 million fine.  Striking a blow against expediency and for the rule of law, Justice Nye Perram in the Federal Court refused to endorse the settlement, stating "I will not declare conduct which is not unlawful to be unlawful.  "How," he asked, "can the court be expected to assess the reasonableness of the proposed penalty if it be left in the dark about what the actual problem is?"

Despite this more than reasonable question ASIC simply resumed pursuit of its quarry through the court, but on 13 August 2019, Justice Nye Perram in the Federal Court found wholly in favour of Westpac on points of fact and on points of law.  ASIC was ordered to pay costs.

In response, ASIC said it would "carefully examine" the judgment but that in any event, it had been a "test case".  If it was such an important test case, why had it been so willing to settle in 2018?  The reality is that maintaining ambiguity by NOT testing the law would have allowed it greater scope to pursue other companies.  Labelling it now a "test case" is a risible retroactive rationale for prosecuting a corporation for the "vibe" of its alleged offending.

I have pointed out a litany of previous such cases where ASIC's pursuit of alleged corporate wrongdoing had comprehensively failed in court.  These include Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [No 5][2009] FCA 1586 and a case against a former AWB Executive which the judge labelled an "abuse of process" which "brings the administration of justice into disrepute in the minds of right-thinking people."

I have also discussed how regulators like ASIC (but not only ASIC) use regulatory dark matter (so-called soft law), enforceable undertakings, and "cooperative regulation" to achieve outcomes never contemplated by and certainly not overseen by democratically elected representatives.

I can only imagine — and certainly hope — that in the Westpac boardroom when their case was discussed in late 2018 the tone of the conversation veered towards the anger and frustration I described earlier.  But nevertheless, the decision was for abasement and apology for a crime directors must have known their corporation had not committed (since the crime could not even be accurately described).  It was submission to a forced confession in a manner that would have made Lenin or Torquemada proud.

Before the Federal Court's decision, we did not know how to quantify the price we pay for our out of control regulators, how to quantify the price we pay for a culture in which regulators can endlessly abuse their authority and operate well beyond the rule of law.  Thanks to Westpac and Justice Nye Perram we now know:  $34 million, multiplied across every large and small business in Australia.

Why Won't The Left Admit: Their War On Alan Jones Is A War On Dissenting Opinion

The woke lynch mob has been busy recently, ramping up their perennial crusade to blackball centre-right voices in the media.  For the past fortnight, the target has been their white whale:  Veteran broadcaster Alan Jones.

Jones came under fire for a spray against Jacinda Ardern which was, effectively, a mangling of the old advice to "put a sock in it".  His words were poorly chosen, and Jones has since apologised.  It should be noted as well that Jacinda Ardern not only accepted his apology, but did so graciously.  Whatever you think of Ardern's politics — and I am personally no fan — as a statesman she is a class act.

All other things being equal, that would have been the end of the matter.  But when it comes to conservative commentators, the rules are different.  Howls of righteous outrage ensue — and continue long after the original incident has been forgotten.

The Greens' Adam Bandt moved in for the kill, launching a "petition" that declared that "Alan Jones has no place on Australian radio" and called on 2GB management to sack him.  At the time of writing, Bandt's apparent data-harvesting exercise has gathered a puny 16,800 "signatures".  For those playing along at home, that amounts to about a third of Bandt's own primary vote in the seat of Melbourne at this year's election, and far less than the approximately 500,000 Australians who tune into Alan Jones' radio show every week.

Naturally, the left-wing commentariat chimed in.  The ABC's Virginia Trioli took to Twitter, musing that the problem with Jones was that he was "something akin to an anarchist", using his "privilege and power to make people afraid, cynical and distrusting of democratic institutions such as governments, courts, schools and public servants".

In other words, according to Trioli it's not that public institutions are out of step with the community, rather it's Australians who are too stupid to realise that a bloke on AM radio is manipulating them into being "afraid, cynical and distrusting" of the warm embrace of the state.

More to the point, if there really is "privilege and power" in Australian broadcasting, it is vested in the taxpayer-funded, omnipresent media juggernaut that is the ABC.  Alan Jones' voice relies on advertising revenue and the goodwill of people voluntarily tuning in.  Trioli derives hers from other people's money obtained by force of law.

Now, of course, Trioli obviously has the right to criticise Alan Jones — silly and hypocritical as those criticisms may have been.  Similarly, the lily-livered companies that pulled advertising from Jones' show were within their commercial rights to do so, and would be far from the first big corporates to engage in such asinine virtue-signalling.

But we should be concerned about the marauding band of militant leftists seeking to hound every dissenting voice off the air.  And we should be deeply worried about parliamentarians like Adam Bandt using his taxpayer-funded platform to dictate the editorial decisions of a private media organisation.

And while Alan Jones may not be everyone's cup of tea, in a free society there is a simple mechanism for that:  Don't listen to him.

But of course, it's not about that.  It isn't enough that the left has the option of not listening to Jones, they need to prevent the rest of us from doing so.

And that's the rub.  It's not even really about Alan Jones himself, it's about his listeners, about the Australian mainstream that the left can't bring itself to understand, let alone appeal to.  For the likes of Bandt and Trioli, the large and growing audience for centre-right analysis and opinion is just a basket of deplorables which polite society should treat with a thinly-veiled disdain.

Above all, this is about the left's frustration that despite their best efforts — and in the ABC's case, over a billion dollars in annual public funding — people are still voting with their feet and flocking to commentators who espouse common sense, limited government, fundamental freedoms and the dignity of the individual.  Identity politics, climate hysteria, Trump-related conspiracy theories and the rest of the guff churned out by other outlets just doesn't rate.

It's a lot easier to shut someone up than win an argument on the issues, and self-proclaimed "progressives" would obviously prefer that Scott Morrison's quiet Australians stayed quiet.  But unfortunately for them, in Alan Jones there is one voice that will not go quietly.

No Call To Heed A Divisive Voice

Localism, property rights and regional economic development will help improve the lives of indigenous Australians more than another Canberra-based body.

In his delivery of the 19th Annual Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture last week, Indigenous Australians Minister Ken Wyatt ruled out holding a referendum on inserting an indigenous-only voice in the Constitution.  This is the right call.  Such a voice would be divisive, illiberal and inegalitarian.  More important, the voice would not resolve the systemic problems facing many indigenous Australians.

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report, Australia's Welfare 2017, 29 per cent of indigenous households live in social housing, compared with 4 per cent for non-indigenous households;  61 per cent of indigenous Australians are in the labour force, compared with 77 per cent of non-indigenous Australians;  and the age-standardised indigenous imprisonment rate is 13 times more than for non-indigenous Australians.

These challenges are not the product of a lack of welfare.  A 2017 report by the Productivity Commission estimated that direct welfare expenditure per person on indigenous Australians is $44,886, about twice the rate for non-indigenous Australians at $22,356.

The first step to addressing challenges in indigenous communities is to assess why welfare doesn't appear to be working.  It could be because of the unavoidable incentives that welfare creates, the money isn't reaching those who are in most economic need but is being siphoned off by intermediaries, or that welfare has played an important role but has reached the point of diminishing returns and perhaps is causing decreasing returns (every additional dollar making the situation worse).

Governments also must change the overall approach and mentality towards indigenous policy.

In many ways, there is no difference between indigenous and "non-indigenous" policy.  The basic underpinnings of a successful and flourishing life are not culturally contingent but include access to economic opportunity, safe communities, caring families and high-quality healthcare, education and infrastructure.  It is unclear why an indigenous-only voice would be required to communicate this.

There are, of course, important local differences that must be taken into account with policy implementation and delivery, as with all public policy.  And advocates of a voice are right when they say that voices in remote Australia aren't being heard by city-based policymakers.

But the answer is not to have another centralised, Canberra-based body but the opposite:  to embark on a program of broad-based decentralisation and localism where Canberra devolves power to the states, which in turn devolve power to regional and local authorities.

In an earlier speech to the National Press Club on July 18, Wyatt acknowledged the issue of centralisation when he argued that "even the most well-intentioned modern policies and programs have still tended to take a top-down command-and-control approach".

At the heart of decentralisation is the individual and their property rights.  Indigenous Australians must be able to enjoy the bounty that property rights offer in the same manner as non-indigenous Australians.

This means the ability to buy and sell their own land as individuals or families, borrow against that property, and decide what types of economic development will or will not take place.

The final policy focus ought to be regional economic development.  Indigenous Australians need jobs in the same way non-indigenous Australians do.  In practice this means removing the barriers to economic opportunity such as red tape, environmental regulations and special legal privileges that allow activists to engage in frivolous and vexatious litigation to thwart development.

An exemplar in how not to advance indigenous economic success include the native vegetation laws introduced by the Queensland government in May last year, which made it harder for farmers to clear native vegetation on their private land to allow for new agriculture projects.  Among those adversely affected were indigenous landowners in the Cape York region of far north Queensland.

Indigenous activists such as Noel Pearson strongly opposed the laws.  At the time the laws were being debated in 2016, Pearson stated:  "We're (indigenous Australians) not going to lift ourselves out of the poverty and misery we live in unless we have balanced development."  In other words, it's our land and we should be able to do what we want with it.

Practical policies that create jobs, encourage more children into school, and reduce violence will improve the lives of indigenous, and indeed all, Australians.  We do not need a race-based body to tell us that.

What Are These Central Banks Up To?

It's funny how in such a supposedly egalitarian country as Australia we pay so much deference to public servants.  We pay them a lot (much more than their overseas counterparts), we give them a lot of power, and perhaps most important of all, we hardly ever question what they do.

The attitude of politicians, the business community, and most of the media to Philip Lowe, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, proves the point.  You could make a good argument that Lowe is the most powerful person in the country.

The Reserve Bank board of which he's the chairman sets the most important price in the economy — the price of money, his independence is enshrined in law, and while his decisions are scrutinised they're seldom questioned or criticised.

Heretical questions that no one dare ask these days such as why so many economists think it's a bad idea if the government decided the price of pencils but they happily accept a government committee setting the price of money, and why should there even be a central bank in the first place can be left to one side for the moment.

The question for the next few years ahead will be what checks and balances will apply to Lowe and the Reserve Bank as they contemplate what in Lowe's recent words to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics are "extreme unconventional policy measures".

It's understandable that if you are going to have a central bank and if you are going to give it a mandate to ensure financial stability the bank should be independent of politics.  But very few people, at least in this country — compared to America where the actions of the Federal Reserve are the subject of regular Twitter commentary by the President — have asked what happens if the Reserve Bank was ever to adopt "extreme unconventional policy measures".

SHOCK AND AWE

While Lowe hasn't ruled out "extreme unconventional policy measures" at least he hasn't yet embraced them as his counterpart across the Tasman Sea appears to have.  Last week the Reserve Bank of New Zealand cut interest rates by 50 basis points to a record low of 1.0 per cent in a move described as "Shock and awe Kiwi style".  The decision prompted the production of a research paper from New Zealand's leading think tank, the New Zealand Initiative, entitled The Unreserved Bank of New Zealand — Why unorthodox monetary policy needs boundaries.  While there are differences between the responsibilities of the two countries' central banks, nearly everything the paper says about the Reserve Bank of New Zealand applies to Australia.  It should be compulsory reading, not just for every member of Parliament, but also for all nine members of the Reserve Bank Board.

A key argument of the paper is that such policy could result in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand undertaking essentially political functions.

"Under quantitative easing, the RBNZ could become an alternative to Inland Revenue [ATO] and the Treasury as it would provide (indirect) funding to the government by purchasing government bonds.  If it went beyond that and started purchasing corporate assets, it could also morph into something resembling a sovereign wealth fund.  If it chose to fund projects of a certain nature (say bonds with an infrastructure background or related to specific policy areas), it would again be more akin to Treasury."

Lowe's remark that in the face of persistently weak economic and wages growth, "We [the RBA] would need to look at all monetary options, fiscal options and structural options", has passed with barely a murmur.  Maybe it's because in Australia we think that producing helicopter money or implementing quantitative easing is what other countries do.

When self-funded retirees are getting less than 2 per cent interest on their term deposits because of the decisions of the Reserve Bank they've got no one to complain to.

In 2009 when the Rudd government handed out $900 in cash to taxpayers to stave off the global financial crisis it was the decision of a democratically-elected government ultimately accountable to the electorate.

If ever the Reserve Bank does implement "extreme unconventional policy measures", to whom Lowe will be accountable for his success or failure is unclear.

Greens Only Want To Make Power Less Affordable

A Greens-backed bill prohibiting government funding of coal-fired power in Australia would further worsen Australia's electricity crisis.  Government intervention in the energy market has seen electricity prices increase by 220 percent over the last 20 years, far outpacing inflation and wage growth.

Policies that favour renewable energy at the expense of coal and gas have proceeded every major jump in electricity prices.  This has been the case with the introduction of the Renewable Energy Target in 2000, its expansion in 2009, the introduction of a carbon tax in 2012, and the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.  The only substantial drop in electricity prices over the past 20 years followed the repeal of the carbon tax.

Contrary to what green groups would have you believe, coal-fired power cannot be replaced by wind and solar any time soon without major breakthroughs in battery and storage technology.  Coal remains one of the cheapest and reliable sources of electricity generation.

This is why there are currently some 256 coal-fired power stations being constructed around the world.  This includes 126 stations which are currently being built in China and 33 in India, many of which will be powered with coal exported from Australia.

In contrast, as a result of onerous red tape on the resources sector and subsidies to wind and solar energy, no new coal-fired power stations are currently under construction in Australia, and only three coal-fired units have been built since 2006.  This is despite the existence of over 1000 years' worth of coal deposits sitting beneath Australian soil.

Not only are our unnecessarily high electricity bills a burden for many Australians struggling to heat their homes in winter, they are also crippling businesses.  High electricity costs and reduced power reliability has made Australia less competitive and has contributed to private investment falling to a historically low 11.4 per cent of GDP.  This is lower than the rate which prevailed during the economically hostile Whitlam era and is a key cause of slow productivity growth and stagnant real wages in the private sector.

All forms of electricity generation should compete in an open and free market without government intervention.  When the market is left to its own devices, the technological makeup of the grid will deliver affordable and reliable power in line with the needs of households and businesses.

The bid to ban government funding of coal power is objectionable, not because the government should be funding coal, but because it would further distort the market away from reliable electricity production.  The bureaucratic government management approach to electricity has long poured billions of dollars into unreliable renewables and undermined the profitability of coal-fired power.

To address Australia's energy crisis, the government needs to take a technologically neutral approach to energy production to ensure the market's ability to deliver affordable and reliable power.  This means withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, ending the subsidisation of renewable energy, and not continuing with the Renewable Energy Target beyond 2020 when it is due to end.

Governments at the Commonwealth and state level must also reduce regulation and red tape on the development of coal-fired power stations (such as provisions which allow frivolous litigation), lift restrictions on gas explorations (such as state-based bans and moratoria), and remove the ban on the development of nuclear power.

A policy of technological neutrality where governments do not pick winners in the energy market will ensure Australia can return to being a nation of affordable and reliable energy.

The G-G Should Resign

Australia's constitutional system cannot function properly with a Governor-General inserting himself into contemporary political debate.  If the current Governor-General wishes to do so, then he should resign the office.

At the Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures in north-east Arnhem Land last weekend, Governor-General David Hurley urged Australians to move quickly to secure an unspecified constitutional amendment to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.  His Excellency gave the comments to an ABC television reporter on August 3, saying of a referendum for constitutional recognition that "it's been put on the table ... terms are on average three years, and three years in the cycle of the country is a very short time ... so we need to move fairly quickly on what we think are going to be the outcomes here".  His Excellency also warned of what would happen if the government did not get the question right:  "when we get to the referendum our history is if we vote No, they're very either slow to resurface, or they don't resurface".

The Governor-General's comments represent an extraordinary intervention into a strongly-contested political topic.  There is rarely an appropriate occasion for the Queen's representative to give comments to a journalist, and there is never a time for a Governor-General to give comments to a journalist about proposals to amend the Australian Constitution.  While His Excellency stopped short of expressing outright support for a Yes vote at a referendum, the act of presuming that a referendum is going to occur and that it should be done sooner rather than later are both politically-loaded comments.  It reveals a departure from detached impartiality on the issue, and can be interpreted as revealing a preference on the underlying policy question.  A Governor-General should make every effort to avoid even an appearance of this.

Indeed, not only has the parliament not been presented with a bill to initiate a referendum, there is currently no consensus from "recognition" supporters on what a referendum question should ask.  The content of the question, and whether the question will be asked at all, are still very much live policy questions.

Compounding the Governor-General's error was the venue for making the comments.  The Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures, held annually in north-east Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, is a four-day festival of Indigenous cultural exchange.  Key features of the Garma Festival are speeches and policy discussions, and it has in recent years become a venue for discussion and engagement on the matter of constitutional reform.  The Governor-General's participation this year coincided with the provocative comments by renowned Indigenous leader Galarrwuy Yunupingu, who threatened to throw the Australian Constitution into the sea if the Commonwealth did not present a model for substantive constitutional reform.  "If they don't come to us with an answer, we will tell you what ... the Yolngu people are going to do ... We will dismiss the Constitution ... we thrown [sic] it out of Australia into the saltwater ... It will be wonderful.  The Yolngu people will stand on the land and see if that document will float away into the ocean," Dr Yunupingu said.  Such comments could, with little difficulty, be regarded as a threat to unilaterally declare independence from the Commonwealth.

The role of the Governor-General is too often written off as a ribbon cutting, rubber-stamping accoutrement of the Australian Constitution.  This is an inaccurate description.  Aside from the ceremonial duties, the Governor-General has the important duty to safeguard the Australian Constitution.  And at the heart of the Australian Constitution and Australian political tradition is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.  This means that it is the role of the House of Representatives and the Senate to debate and resolve policy questions.  The individual appointed to the office of Governor-General should, like the monarch he or she represents, strive to stay above the political fray.  To do otherwise would violate the trust of Her Majesty and the Australian people by using the position to make political demands or set a political agenda.

This is not to say that the Governor-General's position should somehow exist in a vacuum outside the political arena.  The Crown is at the apex of Australia's constitutional structure.  It is by definition a political entity.  But it plays a different role than the other constitutional entities.  The political role of the Governor-General is to ensure that the process of lawmaking complies with all relevant constitutional requirements and conventions.  Vice-regal interventions in the political process may be more dramatic in the case of intractable parliamentary crisis.  Such was the case in 1975, when the unpopular Whitlam government was not able to pass appropriation bills in the Senate, leaving the federal government in the position of not being able to function.  It was only resolved when Governor-General Sir John Kerr commissioned Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister on the condition that Fraser would in turn immediately pass appropriation bills and advise Sir John to dissolve parliament and declare a double dissolution election.  This was not a constitutional crisis, as historians often refer to it, but was an occasion where a Governor-General exercised the power of the office under the constitution in an appropriate manner to put an end to a political crisis.

Even in these circumstances, the Governor-General is not required to answer questions from television journalists at an event with strong political themes.  Governor-General Hurley's comments were so far afield of appropriate vice-regal behaviour that it calls into question whether His Excellency should remain at the post.

None of this should detract from General Hurley's long and outstanding service as a soldier and senior officer in the Australian Army, including a stint as Chief of the Australian Defence Force from 2011 to 2014.  The nature of these comments has however undermined the dignity of his current office.  The standards of behaviour of vice-regal appointees are high for a good reason — to ensure that political questions are answered by the people through their elected representatives in parliament.  Conduct to date is sufficient to justify a resignation, and would help ensure that such interventions do not become a regular and accepted part of the vice-regal role.  Any further such interventions and resignation should be requested forthwith.

How Chinese Investment Is Challenging Our Academic Freedom

Recent scenes of chaos at the University of Queensland as pro- and anti-Hong Kong freedom demonstrators squared off on campus, and reports that the Chinese-based families of anti-communist protesters have received visits from Beijing's security apparatus, are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to infiltration of our universities by the Chinese Communist Party.

Even more disturbing is the news that a number of our prominent universities have signed highly profitable agreements which essentially give bureaucrats in Beijing control over what is taught at Australian university campuses.

It turns out that numerous universities have signed contracts with Hanban, the agency under China's education ministry which oversees so-called Confucius Institutes which have sprung up on campuses across the country.

Australia currently has the third-highest number of Confucius Institutes and classrooms in the world, behind the USA and the UK.

The formal mission of the Confucius Institutes is to promote Chinese language and culture around the world.

However the informal mission is to promote a highly uncritical view of Chinese society, and it is considered part of a wider pattern of activities which ensure that the Beijing-determined narrative is adhered to by everyone.

Among other things, this means that subjects known as the "three T's" — Tibet, Taiwan and Tiananmen Square — cannot be discussed in many classrooms without fear of backlash.

Last year ASIO paid visits to 18 different universities, research interests and internet suppliers regarding the influence of Chinese government.

This month Education Minister Dan Tehan will meet with a number of vice-chancellors to discuss the matter and to work out what can be done to maintain institutional autonomy, control over the curriculum and teaching standards.

This is a good first step but it will not solve the problem.

In March this year, the US government released a report on activities of Confucius Institutes on American campuses and concluded that they were tightly controlled arms of the Chinese government and least 10 US universities have moved to close the doors of the Institutes.

The report also raised the question about whether employees should be classified as foreign agents.

Among the 13 universities which currently host Confucius Institutes in Australia, and which have handed over academic freedom to Beijing, are the Universities of Sydney and Queensland respectively.

All this raises grave questions about the state of free intellectual inquiry in Australia, as well as the influence of the Chinese government on campuses.

It also exposes the double standards and utter hypocrisy of the vocal academics who, over the past two years, have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation from running a Bachelor of Arts in Western Civilisation on their campuses.

Since the Ramsay Centre announced its intentions to partner with Australian universities, we have heard endlessly from these academics that its mere presence would somehow endanger academic freedom.

ANU's academic union branch president Matthew King said he was "very concerned that this (BA in Western Civilisation) would violate the core principles of academic freedom, integrity and independence".

In the meantime the University of Queensland, which is currently in negotiations with Ramsay Centre, has had to reassure its staff that "the University will only pursue a partnership with the Ramsay Centre providing it is consistent with the University's policies of autonomy over curriculum, academic appointments, academic freedom and governance arrangements".

Yet the same university seemed unwilling or unable to stop 200 pro-CCP students who were filmed aggressively yelling, blasting the Chinese national anthem and even punching and kicking pro-democracy in Hong Kong protesters on campus.

The university's statement is unsatisfactory to say the least.

It did not name the pro-CCP students as the perpetrators of the violence nor did it mention disciplinary action.

It did not even mention how violent the protests had actually been, despite viral videos being widely available on social media.

The significant number of Chinese students at the university might go a long way to explaining the university's lacklustre statement and response.

As yet, the University of Queensland has not signed up to the model code on free speech recommended by former chief justice Robert French.

Time and time again, staff have bandied about the phrases "academic freedom" and "integrity" when they have happily and willingly signed away both to Beijing.  The sheer hypocrisy is astounding.

The fact of the matter is that academic freedom has absolutely nothing to do with the opposition to the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation.

Even when the University of Sydney's Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence announced that he would consider taking the Centre's $64 million grant if it gave the university complete control over the curriculum, the reading list and the academic appointments, the staff continued to oppose it.

This fury results partly from a certain complacency on behalf of some members of academia, who for years have happily presumed Western Civilisation, both as a concept and a unit of study, to be long since dead and buried.

The Ramsay Centre has rudely and violently interrupted their ideological reverie of a world without Western Civilisation.

Such is their loathing of Western civilisation that they have chosen to hand over academic autonomy to an authoritarian Communist regime via the Confucius Institutes.

They have shown that they would prefer this to their own civilisation, which has given all of us a liberal democracy, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of speech, and conscience and religion, which are the values and institutions which make Australia the successful, peaceful and prosperous nation that it is today.

Outrage Culture Is Killing Free Speech

Australia is becoming increasingly intolerant of speech.  From the Australian Rugby Union terminating Israel Folau's playing contract to the fake controversy about the impending visit of British writer Raheem Kassam to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in Sydney, examples of a growing outrage culture mount every day.

Adding to this list is today's decision by the High Court to unanimously uphold the sacking of a public servant for posting criticism of government policy using an anonymous Twitter account.  Michaela Banerji had been employed at what was known at the time as the Department of Citizenship and Border Protection (it is now part of the Department of Home Affairs) but was fired when it was discovered she was running the account, which she had used to comment on immigration policy and the detention of asylum seekers.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal originally found that the sacking violated Banerji's constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication, but the High Court held that the restrictions placed on public servants' freedom of speech by the Australian Public Service code of conduct are proportional to the public's right to have an apolitical public service that can be trusted to administer the policies of governments no matter the results of elections.

What should concern Australians about this decision is not whether the High Court interpreted the law correctly—a unanimous decision suggests the court had no doubt about that.  Instead, what we need to start thinking about is whether we want to have a country in which codes of conduct for employees purport to govern such a wide range of speech.  Moreover, we should wonder whether we can have democratic government if every time anyone says anything about anything, we jump all over each other.

It is this concern that links this case to other recent free speech issues.  Banerji's case is distinguishable from Folau's case on the grounds that her commentary was directly related to her job, but his was not.  Recall that Israel Folau was sacked for his esoteric religious beliefs (he thinks more or less all of us will burn in hell), but even if it is true that rugby is the game they play in heaven, this does not make the Australian Rugby Union a religious organisation.  On the other hand, Banerji was employed to implement government immigration policy and her social media activity seemed to suggest that perhaps she was not able to perform that function properly.

A narrow reading of this case to the effect that public servants must refrain from commenting on policy directly related to their employment is appropriate.  But as a general rule, it cannot be the case that the 1.9 million Australians who work in the public sector (or even just the subset of those who work under this particular code of conduct) must refrain from political commentary altogether.  That would be far too broad.  As is often the case with freedom of speech issues, those cheering a decision to silence someone on one day often end up bemoaning the silencing of another person on another day.  For example, though it is sometimes forgotten, many public servants do have conservative views and so this is a decision that neither side of politics can be complacent about.

As with the phoney Kassam issue, the main point to take from today's decision is that we need to rediscover some robustness in the face of disagreement.  We should have enough faith in one another to believe someone can and will faithfully perform a task despite disagreeing with it, and we should worry less about the possibility that someone, somewhere holds a view different from our own.  We should do this not because of any silly belief that even stupid speech is somehow edifying, but because the alternative, a world of speech codes and outrage and constant checking on one another, is simply exhausting.  An online activist herself, Banerji contributed to the outrage culture, and so she ought to reflect on whether she herself helped set the petard that has hoisted her into unemployment.

The Art Of Persuasion Needs More Than Abusive Language

I am on a unity ticket with Noel Pearson, whether he cares to admit it or not.  Like the work of the respected indigenous leader, my work endeavours to help people overcome disadvantage, to enjoy the dignity that comes from work, and the human flourishing that comes from greater freedom and economic prosperity.

Like Pearson, I strive for more localism because decision-makers closer to the ground understand issues better than Canberra bureaucrats.  To that end, the debate about a constitutionally entrenched indigenous voice to parliament is not a contest over who cares more about indigenous Australians.  I simply disagree with Pearson about the means to overcome disadvantage.

I favour universal rights and freedoms over a separate voice for one class of Australians.  As I say, the essence of human equality is that there is no "them".  There is only us.

It was unfortunate that a clever man such as Pearson accused me of sending in "child soldiers", all young white conservative men, he said, to peddle lies about the campaign for a constitutionally entrenched indigenous voice.

Pearson's claim, made at the Garma festival on the weekend, is unworthy of him, and of intellectual curiosity.  Is he saying that young white conservative men have no place in national debates?  If so, and this is only one flaw among his many claims, he will need to muster more rational arguments to draw millions of Australians to his cause.  I believe race should not attract special advantages or special opprobrium.

Aboriginal leader Galarrwuy Yunupingu may need to revise his strategy too.  At the annual gathering in northeast Arnhem Land, he said that if indigenous people did not get what they wanted, the Yolngu people would throw the Australian Constitution into the sea.  Are these the sounds of men on the losing side of a debate?

I contribute to important national debates by using research, principled reasoning and always a respectful tone.  Not everyone agrees with me.  That is not the point of what I do.  I engage in Australia's big conversations because a thriving contest of ideas is the single most important piece of intellectual machinery that will lead us to rational policies enabling people to flourish and the country to prosper.

For many years, my research has shown why there is no place for race in our Constitution.  My analysis, to be released this month, will build on my principled position:  as a tolerant and democratic country, we should be colourblind;  everyone is equal under the law;  our universal rights accrue to us as human beings, not as gifts from government.  This is classical liberalism writ large, and the foundation stones of our democratic project.

Pearson's weekend pique was a calculated snub to debates that keep our democracy healthy and strong.  Pearson's deliberately colourful and carefully crafted claim about "child soldiers" was a reminder of a ploy used more than a decade ago by historians when their cosy and tight control over the teaching of Australian history came under threat.

In his 2004 book, The History Wars, historian Stuart Macintyre conjured up the imagery of war to impugn the views of those with different views about our history:  like war, their arguments were brutal and unjust, and had to be stopped.  Macintyre labelled those who challenged the then left-leaning orthodoxy about Australian history as "neo-conservative ideologues", "right-wing polemicists", "the History War Crusaders", the "fundamentalists", the "Australian deniers" of the Stolen Generations.  He took aim at "opinionated columnists" who wrote with the "ring of a Stalinist ideologue".

It was nonsense.  It was not a war;  it was a long overdue debate about our history.  If it felt brutal for Macintyre and his fellow travellers it was because they had grown soft, forgetting what it feels like to have their positions probed and challenged and, in some cases, overturned.  Pearson is not soft.  He knows plenty about confrontation.  That makes his ratcheting up of fake war talk so damaging to his credibility.  It makes no sense for Pearson to allude, in the same weekend address, to that sparkling age of Enlightenment only to then try to shut down people with different views.  He may as well just say stop testing ideas, stop probing for details, stop teasing out the consequences of my proposal.  Just stop challenging me.

Accusing me of using "child soldiers" to delegitimise my role in national debates won't further the cause of a constitutionally entrenched indigenous voice.  By coarsening debate, imbuing language with gratuitous violence and desperate assertions, Pearson undermines that broader cause.

This is not a war.  There are no soldiers.  This is an important debate about a proposal to fundamentally alter the guidebook to our democracy.  How will this change alter the sovereign power of parliament if parliament cannot abolish this constitutionally entrenched special right for one group of Australians?  Doesn't constitutional entrenchment give that separate voice for one class of Australians a level of legal power and political heft that makes comparisons with other bodies, such as the Productivity Commission, entirely spurious?

Why is Pearson splitting hairs to assert a distinction between race and indigeneity without explaining the difference?  More to the point, Pearson's label change from race to indigeneity makes no difference to the core issue of why one group should have separate constitutional privileges.  What is the purpose of a separate voice for one class of people given indigenous people sit in our parliament under democratic processes that give every voter, indigenous and non-indigenous, the same rights?  And why are advocates of the voice whitewashing the dismal record of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, that earlier voice to parliament?

Changing our Constitution warrants a full and frank testing of all pertinent issues.  And this raises Pearson's other flawed claim that I should all roll over and agree because a few former chief jus­tices and a few conservative commentators side with Pearson.  None of that seals the deal for constitutional change.  Neither Pearson nor former High Court chief justice Murray Gleeson have answered a critical question:  how can our federal parliament remain sovereign if parliament is not empowered to abolish a separate voice for one class of Australians?

A referendum will not be won by telling Australians they must vote yes to a voice.  The art of persuasion needs more than abusive language.  A hero for a cause is someone who matches his skill with literary flourishes and thundering intonation with sound substance and principled arguments.

Australians can rest assured that I will remain respectful and principled in a contest of ideas over whether we should cement in our Constitution a separate voice for one class of Australians.  That contest of ideas is the best hope for the government settling on a sensible resolution.  That is also, by the way, the sign of a magnificent working democracy.

Keep The ACCC Out Of Social Media

Nearly exactly the same things said about social media today could have been said in the middle of the 15th century about the development of movable type and the printing press.  People will use books and newspapers to say nasty things about each other;  foreign powers will distribute pamphlets to undermine domestic governments with the result that eventually the sources of authority in society will be challenged and even overturned.

Five hundred years ago the Catholic Church could no more hold out against the printing press than can governments and the traditional mainstream media hold out against Facebook and Google and whatever succeeds them.

In a fight between government and technology, in the long run, technology usually wins.  The reason technology wins is because the best and most powerful technologies empower individuals — which is precisely why, on the whole, kings and queens in the 15th century and governments in the 21st want to regulate and control technology.

This is the context in which the release last week of the report of the "Digital platforms inquiry" from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission must be seen.  The report is just another manifestation of the history-long, never-ceasing attempts of governments and authorities to prevent the spread of whatever it is (usually its ideas and technologies) they believe could damage their own interests.

One of the very few possible justifications for the involvement of the ACCC in the field of social media is to investigate the extent to which the traditional news media is hampered by rules and regulations that don't apply digital platforms.  And related to this is the question of whether Facebook and Google are "publishers" with all the legal liability that entails.  These were issues the ACCC largely avoided.

Instead of focussing on these legitimate policy considerations, the ACCC instead spent its time inventing a whole series of new regulatory burdens to be imposed on digital media companies to level the playing field with traditional companies — which is exactly the opposite of what they should have done.  Unfortunately no bureaucratic organisation whose entire raison d'etre is the creation and application of regulations will ever recommend doing themselves out of a job.

The ACCC wants a whole series of new powers for itself and other regulators to control the news and opinions citizens have access to, through the ACCC's oversight of the algorithms determining what users see on their screens.  While the manipulation of algorithms of the big technology companies leaves a lot to be desired, the alternative to private companies choosing what citizens see is having the government decide.

The ACCC is absolutely wrong when it claims that "high-quality journalism" is "essential for a well-functioning democracy".

What's essential for a well-functioning democracy is for individuals to have freedom of speech and freedom of thought.  Journalists should have exactly the same freedoms to speak and write as any other citizen.  The "high-quality journalism" that the ACCC believes exists is usually simply the left-progressive opinions of journalists working for traditional news media organisations.

Perhaps the worst part of the ACCC report is its attempt to tackle the alleged problem of "fake news" by requiring digital media companies to monitor the spread of "disinformation" on social media.  What the ACCC is suggesting is eerily reminiscent of a report into media regulation commissioned by the previous federal Labor government.  In 2012 the so-called "Finkelstein Inquiry" recommended that the government appoint a "News Media Council" to regulate the publication and dissemination of news.  After a widespread uproar, Labor shelved the idea.

Now just a few years later, the ACCC is back with very similar suggestions and it's using exactly the same rationale to justify government censorship of the media as that employed in the Finkelstein Inquiry.  Apparently, in the words of the ACCC, the spread of digital media content means it is "difficult for consumers to ascertain the veracity, trustworthiness and quality of the news and journalism they access online".

Probably the only worthwhile outcome of the ACCC report is that perhaps unwittingly it highlights the stark choice we face into the future.  Either we as individuals decide for ourselves the sources of news and opinion we trust or we leave it to the government and the ACCC to decide for us.

Indigenous Voice Of Division Would Force Parliament's Hand

Proponents of an indigenous voice to parliament make two key claims:  it would be confined only to areas affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and it would not become a third chamber of parliament.  Both claims understate how far-reaching such a body is likely to become.

In an opinion piece in these pages on July 26 ("Cleanest way to establish a voice"), esteemed constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey refers to a draft constitutional amendment she prepared in 2015 to provide guidance on how a constitutionally enriched voice might work.  The first part of Professor Twomey's proposed amendment states that an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander body "shall have the function of providing advice to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples".

But this seemingly unobjectionable limitation hides how far the remit of the voice would be.  All major policy decisions made by parliament affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including tax, welfare, education, health, infrastructure, industrial relations, environmental regulation, financial market regulation, and superannuation.  It couldn't be any other way.  Laws are passed by parliament on behalf of all Australian citizens regardless of their biological make-up.

Even assuming an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander body could represent the diversity among indigenous Australians is questionable.  There is no more a single indigenous view on policy than there is a single non-indigenous view.  But the proposal for a voice cuts against the model of Westminster parliamentary democracy, based on geographical rather than racial representation, that underpins the success of modern Australia.

Professor Twomey also flatly rejects the claim that an indigenous voice to parliament would act as a third chamber.

In a separate article on July 13 ("Fright-monsters keen to deny voice a fair go") Professor Twomey states "the only people suggesting this (that the voice would become a third chamber) are those who are opposing it, so we can strike this off the list of problems".  Professor Twomey asserts that the proposed indigenous voice is not a radical concept as it would join numerous other bodies "whose job it is to ensure that the parliament is better informed about particular subject matters".

Chris Kenny in his article from July 20 ("Uluru plan could not be fairer") similarly claims that if critics must describe an indigenous voice as a chamber, "then it will not be a third chamber but perhaps the 598th chamber".  But the entire point of having an indigenous voice is that it must not be just another body among many others.  That is why proponents insist on it being constitutionally enshrined — to elevate it above the other bodies and to prohibit its abolition by parliament.

If the voice is to be just another government body, then it doesn't need any special representation.

The government could establish the voice right away, without the need for constitutional change.  But if the voice is to be something more influential, then it will necessarily need to have a more privileged place within the policymaking, development, and implementation process.

This is why the voice would become a de facto third chamber (if not de jure — although even on this point we cannot be sure until a concrete proposal is established).

Parliament would be reluctant to go against the advice of the voice, not necessarily because of the quality of its advice, but out of fear of being shamed into action.  In a time of identity politics, the image of a majority non-indigenous parliament going against the advice of an indigenous-only body would make it difficult for parliament to go against that advice.

Despite disagreement about the voice, there is broad agreement that the views of many indigenous Australians are not reaching the policymakers in Canberra.

This is not an argument for another Canberra-based bureaucracy, though, but its opposite.  More localism achieved via the decentralisation of policy to local communities would empower those in remote areas to take control of their own lives in a way that Canberra never could.

Policymakers, commentators, and activists on both sides of the debate should come together to develop a positive and united policy program based on localism, regional economic development, and providing real property rights to indigenous Australians.  This would deliver practical outcomes without compromising on the universality of the Constitution.

Regardless of the intentions of proponents, the voice would become an exercise in identity politics where every policy issue would be viewed through the prism of race.  This would create an irreparable, permanent, structural, and racial divide in Australia from which this nation would never recover.

Campus Freedom Of Speech Gagged By Chinese Money

Australian universities have been slow to act against worrying ­violence and intimidation by pro-Chinese Communist Party stud­ents on campus.

Unwilling to upset their CCP-dependent business models, in­action has been prioritised at the expense of free debate.

On Wednesday, a Hong Kong democracy rally at the University of Queensland turned violent when 200 pro-CCP counter-protesters­ arrived.

In several shocking videos shared on social media, pro-CCP students can be seen screaming, ripping up posters, blasting out the Chinese national anthem and even punching and grabbing the neck of pro-Hong Kong students.

Worryingly, a Chinese Twitter account responded to a video I posted of the incident by declaring that the "students deserved it.  But it was waste of time kicking the pig's ass.  They cant (sic) get rid of the habit of eating s...".

This comes after Hong Kongers were violently attacked by masked thugs at a train station on the way home from a pro-freedom rally last weekend.

As well as ongoing concerns about freedom in Hong Kong, the alarming affair at the University of Queensland raises serious questions about how Australian universities' dependence on Chinese international students compromises free intellectual inquiry.

The ability of pro-CCP forces to mobilise hundreds of people on one Australian campus in a couple of hours should raise eyebrows.  There are more than 152,000 Chin­ese students at Australian universities, making up almost 40 per cent of Australia's $34 billion international student market.  (By comparison, there are 9000 students from Hong Kong.)

This places hundreds of thousands of students who have sympathies­ with, and are closely monitored by, a heavily authorit­arian regime at our universities.  This has a chilling effect on ­campus culture and classroom discussion.  Professor Clive Hamilton, a former Greens candidate, meticulously catalogued a range of on-campus incidents and use of Chinese international students by the Chinese government in his book last year, Silent Invasion:  China's influence in Australia.

The large number of Chinese students could help explain the University of Queensland's insipid response to recent events.  Last month Hong Kong students began protesting at the university against the extra­dition law.  Student newspaper Semper Flor­eat reports that, one day, campus security told them to pack up and leave, and instructed that "no political or religious protests would be permitted on campus grounds the following day".  This is an un­acceptable demand for a university that exists to promote debate.

The subsequent day's rally was ultimately allowed to go ahead on the condition no "discriminatory materials" would be present — raising questions about what is considered "discriminatory".

In response to the incident this week, the university's statement refused to explicitly name the pro-CCP students as the provocateurs or even mention the content of the protests.  There was also no mention­ that students who were physically violent would be dealt with strictly by the university.

The statement simply reiterated that it expects "staff and stud­ents to express their views in a lawful and respectful manner, and in accordance with the policies and values of the university".

The university's policies provide little comfort.  Its discrimin­ation and harassment policy explicitly forbids "offensive ­language" based on "national or ethnic origin".

This policy could be interpreted to effectively forbid students from criticising the actions of the CCP — because criticism of the Chinese government could be genuinely offensive to some based on their national origin.

The University of Queensland is also yet to adopt the model code on free speech proposed by former chief justice Robert French.

This is not the first time the act­ions of pro-China students have come under the spotlight.  Last year Victoria University cancelled the screening of an anti-China documentary after pressure from the campus Confucius Centre and the Chinese consulate.  In 2017, there were four known incidents, including a University of Sydney lecturer being forced to apologise for a map showing territ­ory ­disputed by China, a University of Newcastle lecturer condemned on social media for a list showing Hong Kong and Taiwan as separate territories, and Monash­ University withdrawing a textbook because of a quiz question that offend­ed Chinese stud­ents.

Students are also not the only conduit for influence.  There is now a Confucius Institute at nine Australian universities, including many of the prestigious Group of Eight institutions such as the universities of Sydney, Melbourne, NSW, and Queensland.  There is even one integrated into the NSW Department of Education.

These institutes are funded and overseen by the Hanban, a fully funded subsidiary of China's Ministry­ of Education.  Their formal mission is to promote Chinese language and culture, and in doing so provide an uncritical view of Chinese society.  They typically include­ one local director and one Chinese director appointed by the Hanban, providing direct influence inside our universities.

The reputation of Australian universities is dependent on pro­viding­ a high-quality education in an atmosphere of free intellectu­al inquiry.  The thirst for Chinese student money must not be allowed to undermine the critical­ capacity of our higher-education institutions.  The violence at the University of Queensland is an important reminder that universities need to get their internal affairs in line to protect free expression on ­campus.