South Australia's new home detention laws should not be about coddling criminals

Lindsay Bassani, a former Education Department bureaucrat and football coach, was sentenced to home detention after stealing almost $10,000 from the South Australian Aboriginal Sports Training Academy.  Despite being allowed to avoid prison, he is now complaining about his electronic tracking bracelet because of the stigma of being seen with it.

The fact that Mr Bassani is complaining is a good thing.  It means he feels like he is being punished, which is precisely the point of his sentence.

As reported in The Advertiser, Bassani is one of the first beneficiaries of sentencing changes introduced by the Weatherill Government in May.  These reforms gave judges more discretion in allowing certain nonviolent, low-risk offenders to serve their sentences in home detention, and they were introduced for very sound reasons.

The prison population in South Australia has grown by 75 percent in the last 10 years.  There is evidence to suggest that not all of this growth was necessary or desirable.

For example, the most serious offence of almost half of these prisoners was a nonviolent offence.  In many cases, locking them up is doing very little for community safety.  And it is known that prisons often fail to prevent criminals from reoffending.  Nationwide, 59 percent of prisoners have been imprisoned before.

South Australian taxpayers spend about $96,000 for each person in prison each year.  With prisons already at capacity, if this trend were to continue, taxpayers would soon need to pay for a new prison.

Instead of continuing to spend more and more money on locking up people who pose little threat to the community and for whom incarceration is unlikely to be rehabilitative, South Australia has rightly decided to try something different.

Bassani committed a nonviolent, relatively minor property crime, and has a stable job and home.  He is the sort of offender for whom laws like this are designed.

But even though this kind of reform has merit, policymakers and judges must not lose sight of the fundamental purpose of the criminal justice system:  the punishment of individuals who harm others or the community.

It is vital to the operation of the criminal justice system that criminals feel they are being punished for their actions.  And for victims, seeing a punishment imposed is essential to their sense of closure.

This means that offenders like Bassani should not be coddled.  Restrictions like not being able to consume alcohol, a curfew, and being confined to certain locations, are not only entirely reasonable but necessary to give weight to his punishment.  Incredibly, Bassani is suffering none of these hardships.  It is positive that he is employed but being allowed to travel to his workplace should be the limit of his mobility.  He shouldn't be playing footy, let alone worrying about how he looks on the field.

What this case illustrates is that the goal of punishment reform should not be to give criminals an easier time.  Instead, the goal must be to impose punishment more effectively, to reduce crime and recidivism, and more efficiently, to reduce government waste.

There is a common view in criminology that crime is a result of social dysfunction.  Rather than the traditional understanding of crime being a choice made by individuals, on this view crime is a pathology caused by social and economic disadvantage and so criminals are not really responsible for their actions.

In a perverse way, criminologists consider criminals to be victims.  And so they support reforms such as these because they do not believe in punishment at all.

This nonsense should not be allowed to discredit or discourage good faith attempts to rationalise criminal punishment consistent with a traditional emphasis on retribution.  The criminal justice system is not a tool with which to reengineer society or to redress social grievances.  It is the means by which our communities are kept safe and peaceful, and it achieves this end by ensuring that criminals suffer negative consequences for their wrongful acts.

It is possible to get the benefits of punishment reform — lower crime and recidivism, with less spending on prisons — without, in effect, letting criminals like Bassani off lightly.

But this requires policymakers and judges to insist on the need for criminals to experience their sentences as punishments.

Malcolm Turnbull must ignore the luvvies — he leads a centre-right party

Tony Abbott is right.  Australians are sick of the revolving door of prime ministers.  As Abbott said on Wednesday, there's not going to be a change in the Liberal leadership "any time soon".  Liberal MPs are still too bruised by last year's leadership contest and a close-run election to contemplate either going back to Abbott, or moving to the next generation of Liberal leaders like Christian Porter or Josh Frydenberg.

So at the moment, the federal Liberal Party is what it is and Malcolm Turnbull is its leader.  Given that many Australians would be hard-pressed to identify a single achievement of the PM's first year in office, other than breaking an election promise not to increase taxes on superannuation, the fact that according to the latest polling the Coalition is only four points behind Labor is no mean feat.

The question that Turnbull must deal with is the same one he confronted when he took the prime ministership.  What is he prime minister for?  And the question for his ministers is, "What sort of government do they want to be a part of?"

On the rare occasions when cabinet ministers have stood up to the parliamentary leadership group, it's been on the wrong things.  A substantial number were quite willing to play petty politics and prevent the nomination of Kevin Rudd for secretary-general of the United Nations.  Yet the Turnbull cabinet, just like the Abbott cabinet, consistently waves through higher taxes.  And meekly sits on its hands while university students and cartoonists are prosecuted by government officials for insulting and offending people.

The cabinet's refusal to confront the question of freedom of speech in Australia is made all the more galling by the knowledge that three of its members have previously spoken passionately and publicly about the issue.  In April last year, Julie Bishop went to the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris and delivered a moving speech about freedom of speech.

Strategy failure

According to many in the Canberra press gallery, the Labor Party and the Greens, Turnbull should move his party to the "centre", i.e. the Liberal Party should become more left-wing.  The problem with this analysis is twofold.

First, Turnbull tried the "Labor-lite" strategy and it didn't work.  All that Turnbull got for imposing higher taxes and refusing to cut government spending was a one-seat election victory.  The strategy is rarely successful, either at the state or federal level.  If the electorate wants a Labor government they'll vote for the real thing.  This is a point slowly dawning on the federal Liberals, but it's not something yet understood by every state Liberal leader.

Second, because most journalists, the ALP and the Greens have very little real knowledge of the Liberals, they all tend to forget one thing:  the Liberal Party, by it's culture and history, is a political party of the centre-right.  As much as Bill Shorten and Richard Di Natale might wish it otherwise, Malcolm Turnbull can't simply pledge his party to things like a free vote on same-sex marriage or the doubling of renewable energy targets.  Or to be more precise, Turnbull could try something like that, just as he did when he supported Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme in 2009.  And if he did he would come unstuck, exactly as he did seven years ago.

The alternative for Turnbull is to act as the centre-right leader of a centre-right political party pursuing centre-right policies.  Such a course has a number of benefits.  It would be good for Australia.  It would also help him win the next election.

The past month has proved such an approach could work.  The subjects of the political victories and the positive coverage the Coalition has enjoyed since the election are on exactly the things a centre-right government should be doing.  Eliminating trade union corruption, reforming the welfare system, and ensuring electricity is cheap and reliable (especially if you live in South Australia) are not favourite topics of Radio National, but they are important.

The best way forward for Turnbull's leadership is different from the path the Australian Broadcasting Commission would like him to take — but it provides him with the best chance of success.

Je suis Bill Leak

The idea that a cartoonist should be answerable to a government body for making a political point is yet another low in the use of Section 18C of Australia's Racial Discrimination Act.  18C makes it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" on the basis of race or ethnicity.  It's under 18C that columnist Andrew Bolt has had two articles banned, and a group of Queensland University students is now facing court for questioning the decision to provide a separate computer lab for indigenous students.

Now Bill Leak, an Australian cartoonist, is in the firing line for a cartoon depicting the importance of parental responsibility in indigenous communities.  Leak is being investigated by Australia's so-called Human Rights Commission.  The cartoon in question depicts an indigenous police officer, presenting a child to his father.  He says:  "You'll have to sit down and talk to your son about personal responsibility."  The indigenous parent responds:  "Yeah righto, what's his name then?"  The notion that parents in indigenous communities must take more responsibility for their children is not particularly controversial — it's a point often made by indigenous leaders such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine.  Mundine, who is also a former national president in the Australian Labor Party, has defended Leak.  "If the allegations are that [Leak] has incited racial hatred, I don't support that at all," Mundine said.  "[The cartoon] has a black police officer and it's opening up a debate.  Cartoonists have always been in-your-face — and that's definitely in-your-face."

However, extraordinarily, the complaint against Leak was encouraged by the commission's race-discrimination commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, which will most likely prejudice the commission's investigation.  A government entity has effectively told people to be offended and will accordingly be investigating.  Yes, Leak's cartoons are often offensive.  That's what a good cartoonist does.  They highlight topics of debate through confronting, hard-hitting and pointed imagery.  If you fall foul of their pen, it can be tough.  Leak recently portrayed same-sex-marriage activists as the "WAFFEN-SSM", made light of domestic-violence leave, and poked fun at fat, bald and transgender people to highlight the importance of freedom of speech.  And that's the key thing here:  the freedom of Leak and others to draw and say anything they like.

Leak's cartoons are not for the faint-hearted.  I often find them disagreeable.  But that's no reason to put Leak before a government tribunal.  Even if the case is eventually dismissed — by the commission itself, or later in court — it is still damaging to have gone through the process.  It is costly, and hurtful to the reputations of all involved.  The case also encourages people to stop talking about controversial issues, stifling freedom of expression.  The use of the law against someone you disagree with is always an authoritarian response.  The liberal, and far more powerful, response to encountering ideas you dislike is to use it as an opportunity to write — or draw — opposing ideas.

Australian politicians expressed sympathy when the controversial French magazine Charlie Hebdo was attacked.  However, "Je Suis Charlie" — the notion that while we may disagree with you, we will defend your right to freedom of speech — seems to have been forgotten.  Even Australian attorney-general George Brandis, who originally campaigned to repeal 18C, recently said repealing it is a "fool's errand".  It's a worrying sign that our leaders can't even be bothered to attempt to stand up for the fundamental value of freedom of speech.  However, there is growing cross-bench support, and backbench agitation, for repealing 18C.  Every government backbench senator has expressed support for amending 18C to remove the words "offend" and "insult".

The Leak case is sadly not unique.  A freedom-of-information request I submitted earlier this year found that there are 18 complaints currently under consideration under 18C.  The complaints we hear about in the news are just the tip of the iceberg.  And almost all of the complaints are investigated behind closed doors.  And, as happened in the case of the Queensland students, the investigations can go on for months (or years) without the accused even being told.  Leak's case is just another reason to repeal 18C.

Blue Poles: sell this monument to madness

Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles must be sold.  Not because it's a bad painting or because it fails the Australian test, but because it of what has come to represent to the Left.

Last week, Senator James Paterson suggested that the painting, currently on loan to the Royal Academy of Arts in London, should be sold to the highest bidder in order to help with our national debt.

Given that the painting might fetch somewhere in the region of $350 million, its sale is unlikely to make much of dent in the country's growing $470 billion gross national debt.

Senator Paterson justified his idea by saying that although it was a "great painting", the nation could afford to lose it because it's not Australian enough.

While the canvas is no doubt "great" in terms of scale, Blue Poles is light years from away from being a great painting.  Rather, it is an anarchic assemblage of dribbles, splatters and droplets which leaves the gallery visitor wondering just what it's all about.

And if we were to apply the Senator's logic about the painting's foreign provenance to the entire collection of the National Gallery, then we would be left with very empty rooms indeed.

Blue Poles is the ultimate symbol of Gough Whitlam's progressive and politically modernist government, which the Left continues to praise and defend in equal measure.  What the canvas represents in reality is the financial, political and cultural ineptitude of the disastrous and irresponsible 2 years and 11 months of the Whitlam government.

The vast canvas has been gracing an equally vast wall of the National Gallery of Australia since 1973, when it was purchased for a whopping $1.3 million, which is about $11.5 million today.

James Mollison, the director's gallery at the time, had to apply for a special dispensation from Whitlam because he was only allowed to spend $1 million on any one piece.  Whitlam thus achieved the highly dubious world record of having bought the most expensive piece of contemporary American art work on sale anywhere at that time.

When it arrived in Australia, critics objected to both its appearance and its price.  The outrage and scandal caused by Whitlam's profligate decision was entirely justified.

Entitled either No. 11 or Number 11 (apparently naming the painting after an object such as "poles" was too distracting), the work was criticised as having been painted by "barefoot drunks".  This was not merely hyperbole but based on the story of its creation told by Pollock's close friend Tony Smith, who together with Pollock, proceeded to get drunk, unroll a canvas on the floor, empty tins of paint onto it, get even more drunk, lie on it, then walk around on it in bare feet.

Aesthetic value aside, it was the financial implication of the purchase made in the early 1970s which was as unforgivable then, as it is now.

The painting was acquired by the government during a period of "stagflation", in which the Oil Crisis, Britain's entry into the EEC and rising competition for Australian exports, combined with Labor's appalling economic policies, drove Australia into economic recession.

Australians were suffering from high unemployment on a scale unmatched since the Great Depression of the 1930s.  They lost their jobs, business and savings.  Inflation hit nearly twenty per cent, the highest since the post-war years.  It was by no means a happy or prosperous time for many, nor was it a time to be spending $1.3 million on second-rate American paintings.

The Labor government's coffers had become so depleted that there was simply not enough money to keep the country operating.  Facing defeat in the 1975 election, it attempted to unconstitutionally borrow $500,000 from Iranians connected to Saddam Hussein's regime to help pay for the campaign.

Blue Poles is a shambolic painting, purchased by a shambolic government.  It represents Whitlam's complete and utter failure as Prime Minister as well as the reckless spending of his government.  It is precisely because it has become the Left's monument to this failure, that it must go under the hammer as soon as possible.

Section 18C must go as it curbs freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is meaningless if all it entails is the liberty to express opinions approved by the state.  Freedom of speech is richer than that.

It's a fundamental human right — which is also vital to the proper operation of a functioning liberal democracy — that is breached whenever the state ­places restrictions upon it.

Section 18C is a law that gives individuals an avenue to punish others if they say things that may "offend, insult, humiliate or ­intimidate" a person on the basis of race.  As a clear example of a ­restriction on expression imposed by the state, it therefore breaches the principle of free speech.  Free speech advocates have sensibly called for the repeal of this law.

The debate has now reached a point where senators from a diverse range of parties — including the Coalition parties, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, Family First Party, and the Derryn Hinch Justice Party — have co-sponsored a bill that proposes a modest reform.

All that is proposed by the bill is the removal of the words which set the lowest bar created by section 18C — "offend" and "insult".

Some defenders of the status quo argue that section 18C does not breach free speech because "hate speech is not free speech".

This is the kind of vacuous statement you might hear while wandering around a modern university campus.  It's a peculiar argument because it is so incoherent.

Of course "hate speech" is not "free speech".  Free speech is a normative principle of liberal moral philosophy, and hate speech is a (relatively unhelpful) label for a certain category of speech.

For the sake of the argument, let's set aside pedantic arguments about syntax.  The argument defenders of section 18C are attempting to advance is that the principle of freedom of speech does not protect expressions that might be classified as "hate speech".

But the boundaries of what can reasonably be labelled hate speech are important.  Even leftists who favour restrictions on hate speech, such as law and philosophy professor Jeremy Waldron, recognise that it does not include conduct which merely offends or insults.

Waldron, in his 2012 book, The Harm in Hate Speech, wrote:  "Laws restricting hate speech aim to protect people's dignity against assault ... However, I do not believe that it should be the aim of these laws to prevent people from being offended.  Protecting people's feelings against offence is not an appropriate objective of the law."

In Australia, the list of supporters for change to section 18C is incredibly diverse.  Many on the political Left recognise that section 18C goes too far.  They include barrister Julian Burnside QC, journalists David Marr and Gay Alcorn, Professor Sarah Joseph and ABC chairman Jim Spigelman.

Another argument advanced by those against change is that section 18C does not breach free speech because there are a range of "defences" available to protect defendants against legal sanction.

Section 18D is the provision that outlines these defences.  They appear as a list of exemptions for conduct that might otherwise be found to breach section 18C.  These include artistic work, statements, reports or fair comment made in the public interest.  These exemptions appear, on their face, to be quite broad.  They're not.

In Bolt v Eatock, the Federal Court case against journalist Andrew Bolt, lawyers for the defendant argued that newspaper articles written in the course of public debate should fall under the fair comment exemption.

That argument was not accepted by Justice Mordecai Bromberg, because in his view Bolt had employed "mockery and inflammatory language", a "derisive tone", and "gratuitous asides".

According to Justice Bromberg, Bolt had "failed to honour the values asserted by the RDA".  It's the vibe, your honour.

Sections 18C and 18D have been on the books for 21 years.  In all that time, precisely how many examples can those who champion section 18D as a great protector of free speech point to?  Three.

The exemptions in section 18D have been applied in just three cases ever.  Over that time a total of 65 section 18C cases have been argued before the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court.

You can't pretend to believe in freedom of speech by defending section 18C because of the existence of section 18D, and be satisfied that it has "protected" speech in just three out of 65 cases that have come before the courts.

Section 18D doesn't restore the egregious breach of freedom of speech contained in section 18C when a judge is able to rule that exemptions don't apply because your tone is not acceptable.

The argument that state approved speech is the same as free speech is an authoritarian distortion of a bedrock human freedom.  Section 18D doesn't even protect free speech in practice.  Let's not hear of it again.

Union bully busting: FU to the UFU

Voters in the ACT have a stark choice this weekend:  Jeremy Hanson and the Canberra Liberals, or four more years of a government notoriously beholden to trade unions (even by Labor standards).

Canberrans only have to look south to see what a union-dominated government looks like.

Victoria's situation is so dire that Metropolitan Fire Brigade chief Peter Rau resigned recently due to stress, attributed to bullying by the United Firefighters Union.  It is no wonder.

The reason for Rau's resignation came to light when Acting Emergency Services Minister Lisa Neville was caught out shamelessly spinning the sudden departure.  Rau, she wrongly said, was "gravely ill".

Rather, it is our fire services bodies that are "gravely ill", under siege from the United Firefighters Union.

Consider the symptoms.  The bullying of Rau and others.  Alleged threats by UFU boss Peter Marshall to put an axe through the head of a state government minister.  And the extraordinary attack on over 55,000 Country Fire Authority volunteers.

As spectacular and shocking as these symptoms are, the underlying disease is more complex and longstanding.

Australia's industrial relations regime — ushered in by the Rudd Government's Fair Work Act — has put unions in an unprecedented position of privilege and influence.  In a recently released report, I argued that one of the most insidious effects of Fair Work has been the creep of union influence beyond just pay and conditions via favourable enterprise bargaining agreements.

Through increasingly audacious negotiation with state governments, unions are building clauses into EBAs requiring that management "consult" with them on a wide range of operational matters, often completely unrelated to workers' pay and conditions.

These provisions not limited to fire services authorities.  The Ambulance Victoria EBA, for example, requires that management must consult with the relevant union in relation to any proposal to "restructure the workplace, introduce new technology or change existing work practices".  Management must also give "due consideration" to "alternative proposals".  Similar provisions exist in EBAs covering other emergency services bodies, like Victoria Police and the State Emergency Service.

Public sector EBAs also typically include time-consuming "dispute resolution" clauses, which can be invoked where management and the relevant union cannot reach "consensus" on proposed changes.

Evidence given to the Fair Work Commission by the MFB show that consultation has been required on matters as trivial as the migration of the MFB's operating system to Windows 7 and proposed changes to the model of pencils to be used by firefighters.

Unsurprisingly, management are throwing up their hands in frustration.  Prior to his resignation, Rau indicated that the UFU's "power of veto over my statutory responsibilities is unworkable and undermines community safety".

Similarly, Joe Buffone, then-CFA chief, indicated that consultation provisions "undermine my statutory authority as Chief Officer to have and maintain control, at all times, of resources."

The Turnbull Government's changes to the Fair Work Act this week are a positive step.  In effect, they would quarantine decisions about the deployment of volunteers from union veto powers.

But while protecting volunteers is important, the government must go further in limiting the matters that can be governed by EBAs.

Enterprise bargaining should be a mechanism to set pay and conditions, but it has become a proxy tool for joint union-management operational decision-making.  Until this changes, our emergency services bodies will continue to be hamstrung, and we the public will be "gravely ill" for it.

After Brexit, Anglo-Oz relations can flourish

Australia's cultural, social and political history is entwined with Britain's.  We share a language, the Westminster democratic system, the common law and a respect for diversity, individualism and freedom.

Australia's modern incarnation was defined by British colonisation.  As former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott put it last week, during a discussion of Anglo-Australian trade relations at the UK Conservative Party conference, "Once, you exported people to Australia, of course ... chosen by the finest British judges".  Today, Australia and the UK continue to have particularly strong ties in intelligence and international relations, but the UK's decision to join the European Economic Community in 1973 put a strain on our close friendship.

In the 1950s, the UK government assured the Australian government that it would do nothing to diminish trade relations.  Consequently, Australia was genuinely shocked and affronted by the UK's application to join the EEC in 1961.  French president Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain's entry in 1963, and again in 1967.  In order to join the EEC, Britain was compelled to sever economic ties with the Commonwealth, imposing extensive trade restrictions on Australian exports.  This has had a profound cultural and economic effect on Australia.  As former Australian prime minister Paul Keating put it during the 1990s, the UK had "walked out on us and joined the common market".  This secondary status is writ large at British airports, where, despite sharing a queen with Brits, Australians are shuffled into the slow lane while Europeans are given priority.  (Just a few weeks ago, I waited for 50 minutes in one such line.)

This is why Australia is excited about Brexit.  It is an extraordinary opportunity to right a historic wrong, and rebuild our relations, both economic and cultural.

Many pessimists have pointed out that Australia's trade with the UK is very small — minimising the importance of any trade deals.  Indeed, Britain is only Australia's 8th largest export market.  However, this focus ignores the reason why Australia-UK trade has declined — Australia's lack of access to the common market.  Australian businesses cannot compete on an equal footing with European businesses.

Take one industry:  butter.  Older Britons might remember that until the mid-1970s Australian butter was a significant presence on UK supermarket shelves.  But after Britain joined the EEC, Australian butter exports dropped by more than 90 per cent.  Or take the case of apples:  exports declined from 86,000 tonnes in 1975 to 27,000 tonnes in 1990.  Similarly, before the UK's membership of the EEC, about a third of Australia's sugar exports went to the UK.  This market virtually disappeared overnight.

Australia began negotiating a free-trade agreement with the European Union in 2015.  Sadly, however, talks have stalled due to Italy's protest about Australia's anti-dumping duties on Italian canned tomatoes.  As a consequence of a completely irrelevant delay, Australia and Britain are missing out on the mutual benefits of freer trade.

Our passion to rebuild historic relations with the UK, playing off our complimentary economies, is the reason why we are the first country in line to sign a deal with the UK.  We're pretty good at trade agreements, too, having completed negotiations with China, Japan and Korea in the past few years.

There has also been substantial decline in the number of Australians issued visas by the Home Office in recent years.  This is not because young Aussies are uninterested in coming to the UK, but rather due to new visa regulations and migration caps.  UK foreign secretary Boris Johnson has previously supported a "free-mobility labour zone" between Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Britain.  UK home secretary Amber Rudd has since poured cold water on the idea of increasing the number of Australian migrants.  But, with negotiations yet to begin, there's no reason to dismiss the possibility of it happening.

The consequences of these trade and migration restrictions are bad for both Britain and Australia.  Nevertheless, Australia has flourished since the 1970s, largely thanks to our open economy.  According to the International Monetary Fund, we have the 16th highest per capita income in the world (the UK sits at 25), and, according to the World Health Organisation, the fourth highest life expectancy (the UK sits at 20).  We are proud of our achievements and are ready to re-establish a strong independent relationship with the UK, one that would be beneficial to both our nations.

Diary

I arrive at Melbourne airport for my midnight flight with an unfortunately timed cold.  My lack of sleep after Canberra's ultimate insider event, the Midwinter Ball, is catching up on me at the worst possible time.  There's nothing quite like a night celebrating with journalists, in Parliament House, to wear down one's stamina.

On the long flight over to London I have the opportunity to read Arthur Brooks' masterful Conservative Heart.  Brooks contrasts Europe's lost mojo to aspirational developing countries.  In India people are agile and innovative — moving to shanty towns desperately looking for opportunities to create a better world for themselves and their children.  In Europe, the energy is lacking.  The best days are behind them.  They have accepted their slow slide to mediocrity.

I have a few weeks before I begin studying.  After less than 24 hours in the United Kingdom (just enough time to get my residency card) I board the next budget airline flight across the channel to Spain.  Spain hasn't had a government for nine months — stuck in caretaker mode after elections last December and June failed to produce a conclusive result.

Yet, miraculously, life goes on unencumbered.  The beautiful beaches, the bars and clubs that stay open all night — nobody tell our Puritan premiers Mike Baird or Anastasia Palaszchuk that people are having fun at 2am in the morning!  The tapas is as free flowing as the sangria (which literally comes from taps in some bars).  What a time to be alive!  The hostels are full of young Aussies, seeing the world before being thrust back into the reality of study and work.  We are an intrepid people.

The darker elements, however, are not far below the surface.  Spain was governed by a fascist dictator until 1975.  The signs of the Spanish Civil War, where dictator Francisco Franco ruthlessly took power, are still visible in gun and shrapnel damage to beautiful historic buildings.  Meanwhile, due to failed economic policies, over half the country's young languish unemployed — freed from material need by a welfare state and yet lacking a sense of purpose and hope for the future.

Following a visit to Bilbao and the beautiful resort town of San Sebastian, I arrive in Barcelona on their Catalonia region national day.  There are tens of thousands of people across the city protesting for Catalonian independence.  Spain's most successful region is sick of subsidising the rest of the country with high taxes — sound familiar? — but the central government won't accede to the people's wishes and allow a referendum.  I wonder if an independent Catalonia would join the European Union.  In Madrid my local tour guide — attempting to be funny — repeatedly points out that Spain was "a great empire ... once upon a time" but now "we're a bankrupt country".  The "joke" doesn't get many laughs.

After a quick visit to Portugal, another economically struggling former empire, the jaunt is up.  I'm back on the plane to London.  I'm doing it the wrong way round — Ausexiting, Brentering.  On my train into London from the airport a loud American tourist asks a local what Brexit means.  "Freedom" the Brit swiftly responds, before admitting he didn't actually vote.  "We've had to follow all their laws, now we can do our own thing," he explains.  The comment reminds me of a poll shared a few days earlier on Twitter by the great Dan Hannan which found the number one reason people voted for Brexit was "The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK."

The London School of Economics' welcome lecture proves an intriguing affair.  The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion speaker, after discussing various services available to students, begins discussing freedom of speech.  She says it is "not absolute" — limited by public order law, terrorism law and the equality act, however that "simply causing offence is not enough to limit freedom of speech, after all a university is about exploring controversial ideas".  It sounds almost perfunctory, however it is unimaginable that an Australian university would make a similar comment to students during their first week.

The head of the student union was next.  She was careful to comfort European students with the comment that "We didn't vote for Brexit".  As a Commonwealth student I already feel discriminated against.  Brexit is on everyone's lips, and yet nobody knows exactly what it will mean in practice.  The civil service, fearful of a potential leak, apparently did no preparation work before the vote.  And now everyone has their own vision.

I attend an event with Syed Kamall, the Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament and a Brexiter himself, who says that the UK will not remain part of the common trading and regulation market, or keep current migration targets.  However that doesn't mean the end of trade, or migration.  Meanwhile, Theresa May is being hounded for not outlining specifics, or triggering Article 50 (the leave clause).  The European Union is also in disarray, infighting about who should lead the negotiations, between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and lack any offical position.  Well, with all this drama, there's never been a more exciting time to be an Australian in London.

Red tape hampers resources recovery for miners

The future prosperity of resource-rich states such as Western Australia is threatened by unnecessary regulatory roadblocks.

Capitalising on a possible market recovery, and unleashing the potential benefits of a second mining boom, can only begin by cutting the layers of red tape sitting between miners and the resources they seek to extract.

Australia's has a red tape problem.  My recent research, based on the World Bank's "regulatory quality index" and a methodology developed in the US, found that red tape costs $176 billion in foregone economic output every single year.  That's the equivalent of 11 per cent of GDP.

That new estimate is more than double the Abbott government's 2014 estimate of $65 billion for two reasons.  First, my methodology takes into account not just commonwealth law, but the body of state and local government law too.

And second, rather than asking government departments to estimate the burden of the red tape they impose, my top-down approach incorporates some of the unseen burdens of red tape:  fewer jobs, fewer new businesses, and lower productivity.

It is this second point that is most poignant for the resource industry, and therefore for states such as WA.

The cost of red tape isn't just the inconvenience of government approval and filling out additional forms.  The real cost of overbearing government regulation is how it fundamentally changes the structure of our economy — distorting decisions and resources away from their most productive uses.

The resources industry in particular is subject to a byzantine array of by licenses, permits and approvals, that slow or prevent major projects, cost jobs and ultimately undermine Australia's prosperity.

Earlier this year, for instance, recall that plans for Yeelirrie, one of Australia's largest uranium mines in Western Australia, were halted by the Environmental Protection Authority because of a threat to 11 species of tiny "stygofauna", or "desert prawns".

According to the Productivity Commission, the costs of delaying an average sized project by just one year is in the order of $26 million to $59 million.

The Roy Hill project in the Pilbara required over 4,000 permits, licenses and approvals, including 1,057 environmental regulatory approvals, in the pre-construction phase alone.

With this unsustainable level of regulatory resistance it's no wonder money funnelled into exploration is in precipitous decline.

Over the past four years, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the money spent on minerals exploration in WA (excluding petroleum) has plummeted from $574 million to $220 million.

The trend for petroleum looks even worse:  dropping from $955.4 million in December 2012 to $223.6 million in June this year.  That's a fall of over 70 per cent.

Exploration is critical to the long-term future of Australia.

It is of course the case that some of this trend can be attributed to cyclical economic forces outside our control, from commodity prices and changing global currents.

But it is equally clear that the government has a role in encouraging investment, and in particular competing for investment.

To reinvigorate our resources industry, and thereby the West Australian economy more broadly, governments at all levels must begin to wind back roadblocks on business.

Only by doing this can we propel economic growth, get more people into jobs, and pull ourselves back up the international competitiveness rankings.

We should be optimistic about the future of the mining in this country.  A Newport Consulting report in June showed that 43 per cent of miners surveyed were optimistic about the year ahead.  But 24 per cent of miners in that survey also said red tape was an issue, especially for project approvals.

To be sure, the West Australian government last year reinvigorated efforts to streamline project approvals.  But more needs to be done.  If Western Australia is serious about a second leg of the mining boom then the role of the government is to create a regulatory environment conducive to exploration and investment.

Cutting red tape is a real economic plan with tangible economic dividends — and ones that the public can understand.  Cutting red tape promises to help unleash a second wave of prosperity from the West.

High cost of the warm and fuzzies

The bank boss parliamentary inquisition ordered by Malcolm Turnbull has served one useful purpose.  It has got bankers doing something they don't do enough of talking about banking.

If bank CEOs spent more time talking about their actual job and less time pontificating about things such as climate change, Indigenous recognition and diversity, maybe the banks wouldn't be in the position they're in.  Talking about climate change is easy and popular.  Talking about banking is hard.

In large part, the bank bosses have only themselves to blame for the fact that politicians and the public have precious little understanding of how banks operate.

Both Labor and Liberal treasurers have had trouble comprehending that the Reserve Bank does not and should not determine home mortgage interest rates.

Many parliamentarians complain about the lack of competition between the big four banks.  What they don't appreciate is that the more regulations Parliament imposes on banks, the more the supposed monopoly of the larger banks is entrenched.  Big businesses can afford to pay the costs of regulation — their smaller disruptive competitors can't.  Which is why the banks will be not too bothered by the extra regulation that will inevitably emerge from these parliamentary hearings.

The irony of Labor MPs telling bank executives how to do their job is rich.  It was the Labor Party that gave the country the pink batts disaster, the Building the Education Revolution (BER) scandal and the NBN boondoggle.  An earlier version of the Labor Party understood that the government had no rule in owning or operating a bank Banks might be unpopular, but the chances are that more people would choose for their home loan to be provided by a private bank than by a government department.  And it's almost understandable that Coalition MPs won't defend the banks when the banks won't defend themselves.

There was a time not so long ago when a speech from a bank CEO was more likely to be a critique of capitalism rather than an enunciation of the benefits of free markets.

To be fair, the views of bank CEOs are not very different from those of their peers in other industries.

It's almost impossible to imagine the CEO of an ASX100 company arguing in favour of free speech.  Or Brexit.  Or heaven forbid, that Donald Trump would not be a much worse US president than Hillary Clinton.

On the rare occasion when a CEO does step out of line with the consensus of the political class, the reaction is ferocious.  In 2013, the then Myer chief executive Bernie Brookes made the now "infamous", but entirely true, statement that if taxes went up shoppers would have less money to spend in his stores.  The particular tax he was referring to was an increase in the Medicare surcharge to contribute to the costs of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.  A government bureaucrat, the disability commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, launched a public petition against Myer.  Three years ago, Brookes and Myer got no support from the rest of the business community, in the same way the bank bosses are now being left to fend for themselves.

Beyond the issue of what's happening to the banks is a bigger story about the place and perception of business and enterprise in Australia.  A plausible argument could be made for the claim that the influence in the public debate of the business community, and especially of big business, is as weak now as it has been at any time in recent decades.  This is a phenomenon that is not good for the country's future prosperity.  As the voice of the sector that generates wealth grows weaker, the voice of government, and the voice of the handmaiden of government the public sector unions gets louder and stronger.

Successive bank bosses have used their corporate pulpit to promulgate a soft-left progressive ideology that allowed them to explain away the fact that they lent money at a profit.  The anti-bank sentiment that now exists in the Labor, Liberal, and National parties is a direct consequence of bank CEOs spending years apologising for themselves.

The current crop of bank bosses must now clean up the mess their predecessors left behind.

Strip Greens of pointless funding

After years of litigation, environmental activists have been dealt a terrible intellectual and legal blow by the Queensland Supreme Court:  Australian coal mines don't hurt the environment.

Last Wednesday the Queensland Supreme Court rejected a frivolous legal challenge mounted by green group Coast and Country concerning a coal mine near Alpha, in central Queensland.  The green group argued that the burning of coal in export destinations such as India would create carbon emissions, and these emissions needed to be considered by the State Government when granting approvals.

But, in its rejection, the Court noted that stopping the mine would not have made any difference to global carbon emissions:  "Power stations would burn the same amount of thermal coal and produce the same amount of greenhouse gases whether or not the proposed Alpha Mine proceeded."

This is a significant judgment.  It says blocking coal mines in Australia will not benefit the global environment because we are in a globally competitive market place.  If a power station in India does not obtain coal from Australia, it will buy coal from somewhere else.

It also lays bare the motivation behind these legal challenges.  For years green groups have fished for a ruling that says Australian mines are responsible for carbon emission overseas.  This would establish a legal precedent that would destroy the coal industry, which is precisely their aim.

But, just as competition means stopping coal in Australia won't help the environment, it also means business investment is highly sensitive to domestic cost pressures.  Legal challenges that cause delays are a key source of concern for big miners.

As The Sunday Mail (Oct 2) found, more than $34 billion of projects are being targeted by ecoactivists, which could jeopardise employment for 27,000 Queenslanders.

This comes at a time when the same number of people are in full-time work now as they were in 2011 and state debt is forecast to reach $75 billion in 2016-17.

Green groups do not have the solutions.  After the court's decision, Coast and Country's Derec Davies said "it's up to the Queensland Government and the labour force that are traditionally working in mines to look to transition to some sustainable future jobs".  Where are these "sustainable future jobs"?  Davies does not say.  Meanwhile thousands of actual jobs are being squandered.  The Alpha mine is expected to create 5650 jobs.

The State and Federal governments should adopt a pro-Australian energy and jobs policy.  This will involve stripping green legal groups of funding;  abolishing or amending laws that give green groups special legal privileges;  cutting project approval red tape;  and getting the Federal Government out of approvals altogether.  Now that it is clear stopping coal in Australia will not help the environment, why allow green groups to continue with the pretence that it does?

Red tape ready for Malcolm Turnbull to cut

The ridiculous story of Tori Gentle and Bea Cobon and their cafe reveals how red tape threatens Australia's prosperity.  Their cafe is a small business, but what's happening to them is the same thing happening to big business.

Tori and Bea are the owners of Crate Speciality Coffee cafe in Heidelberg Heights, Melbourne.  In response to customer demand they recently applied to their local council, Banyule Council, to increase the cafe's seating from 15 to 30 people and extend its opening hours to 9pm on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.  If their application had been successful, Tori and Bea would have had to hire more staff.  But it wasn't successful.  The council rejected Tori and Bea's application as a result of a single anonymous objection from a member of the public.  That's right.  Because one person objected, the application was refused.  According to the council, "the proposal needed to balance economic opportunities and amenity impacts".  And apparently, according in Heidelberg Heights, one single anonymous objection can tip the scales against economic opportunity.

In the light of red tape like this it should be no surprise that according to the World Economic Forum, Australia now places 80th out of 140 countries in a ranking of the burden of government regulation on companies.  The country rated as the best place for doing business was, of course, Singapore.

What Banyule Council forgets is that community amenity is a product of economic activity.  If it wasn't for the rates businesses pay Banyule Council wouldn't have the money to fund its Arts Plan as outlined in a glossy 76-page full colour brochure.  As part of the plan the council consulted with five-year-olds about the cultural activities they wanted in their neighbourhood.  Among the things the children said they'd like to have were a chocolate mountain, "a big beautiful castle with steps that go up", a circus and dinosaurs.

We tend to think of red tape as only unnecessary or unproductive rules and regulations imposed by government.  And there's certainly lots of this kind of red tape in Australia.  I have calculated red tape costs the country $176 billion a year in foregone economic output.  Some industries are hit harder than others.  The consulting firm Deloitte estimated that nearly one in 10 employees in the mining sector works in compliance.  The Roy Hill iron ore project in Western Australia required more than 4000 government permits, approvals and licences in its pre-construction phase alone.

Abolish bodies that create red tape

One of the ways to cut such red tape is simply to abolish the bodies that impose and implement red tape.  The Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government established 497 new authorities and organisations.  In the three years since it was elected in 2013, the Coalition has abolished and amalgamated just 53 of those bodies.

Another kind of red tape is the requirement for seemingly endless "stakeholder engagement".  Certainly there's a role for community consultation, and there's nothing wrong with Banyule Council asking residents for their views about a cafe operating in a residential area, but the opinion of one person shouldn't necessarily decide the cafe's opening hours.  In a democracy the voices for and against economic development can be heard, but left-wing activist environmental groups should not be able to use the legal system to delay projects for years.  And those groups shouldn't be funded by state government to run litigation against projects.  Adani has spent $1 billion and six years on community consultation and in court in an effort to build its coal mine in central Queensland.  The Environmental Impact Statement for the project was 22,000 pages long.  The project would create up to 10,000 jobs.

In an interview with this newspaper a few days ago the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said "top of mind for me are jobs and growth and the critical objective for us is to deliver the economic reform measures, whether it is in the form of savings or whether it is in the form of getting rid of red tape and excessive regulation ..."

If the Prime Minister is serious about cutting red tape, he should start by chatting to Tori and Bea and then he could visit the municipal offices of Banyule Council.

Federal spending a dangerous drug of dependence

While the deal struck last week between the government and opposition to get $6.3 billion of savings over four years through the Parliament is welcome, it is still just treating the symptoms rather than tackling the disease.

In fact it is the expectation that Canberra must be involved in tackling every problem and managing every program, with the assumption that this commitment is backed by spending, funded by taxes and powered by regulation, which is slowly poisoning the patient.

Government spending has become a dangerous drug of dependence.

According to the budget papers, Australian government spending more than doubled from $209 billion in 2003-04 to $425 billion in 2015-16 and is forecast to reach $502 billion by 2019-20.

Gross debt, which was worth about $55 billion in 2007-08 rose to $427 billion in 2015-16 and will pass $500 billion in the next 12 months.

It is the inability to control government spending that recently led the three major credit rating agencies to issue warnings to Australia.

It is the need to fund government spending that drove the government's superannuation tax changes, turning the objectives of the retirement incomes system on its head and convulsing its voter base for a paltry $2.9 billion net over the forward estimates.

It is the absence of any government spending boundaries that has drawn the federal government into so many areas of private sector or state government responsibility including health, education, childcare, energy, transport, planning, the environment, and local government to name but eight.

This trajectory is clearly unsustainable yet still doesn't include the full impact of the NDIS from 2019-2020, the cost of implementing election promises and deals with minor parties, or — heaven forbid — another global financial crisis or dip in commodity prices.

To begin the healing process you must first isolate the patient from the cause.

As a first step, the government should use the deteriorating budget position, fractious political climate and ratings agency warnings to set a firm target to cut its own spending to the pre-GFC benchmark of 23.1 per cent of GDP (currently 25.8 per cent) as soon as possible, but by no later than the end of this parliamentary term.

All spending commitments over the next three years would need to be viewed through this prism, with all policy ideas on the table.  Achieving this target would alone put the budget back in surplus and enable the government to start paying off debt.

But to get there, a number of big changes need to be made to our approach to government.

The federal health and education departments should be abolished, and these powers transferred back to the states.  A small secretariat inside the Prime Minister's Department could administer residual responsibilities, with the states wholly responsible and accountable for policy and service delivery.

Australia's clean air, water and impressive state and national parks are due to state and not federal government management.  All environmental, planning and other land management functions should be returned to the states with the federal government absolving itself of responsibility for funding cities and local governments.

Noting that the federal government collects about 80 per cent of taxation revenue, the partial repatriation of income taxing powers or a fixed proportion of existing income tax revenue would help the states to fund these returned responsibilities.

The government should also abolish the Renewable Energy Target, and supporting bureaucracies.  The role of government should be to promote cheap sources of energy, and support genuine competition between technologies, rather than cripple one of Australia's few remaining international advantages.

If the government must get itself involved in childcare, a more affordable policy that respects parent choice would be to just offer vouchers so that parents can choose the arrangements that best suit them, rather than featherbedding the interests of private-sector operators.

In the second decade of the 21st century, the rationale for state-run media organisations, a parcel service and national communications infrastructure or vast bureaucracies that regulate what people say to each other, whose cars they can get into or what they can charge for their labour is also worthy of consideration.

The resurgence of protectionist forces both domestically and overseas, and parlous financial state of many governments and central banks, mean that unless we address our spending and debt addiction now we risk international events taking these decisions out of our hands.

Making it crystal clear at the beginning of the new parliamentary term that there is a limit to what individuals and businesses can expect from government would be a major step towards healing the body politic.

How to defuse the authoritarian populist timebomb

It is no foregone conclusion that simply giving government more power and money will fix income inequality.

Adam Smith once wryly said "there is a great deal of ruin in a nation", and many would argue this statement is aptly represented in the re-emergence of an anti-immigration, anti-trade populism mainly on the right, but also from the far left, in many countries.

The Swedish think tank Timbro recently released a study showing authoritarian populism well and truly on the rise in European politics, but this trend is also evident in the US (Donald Trump) and Australia (Pauline Hanson).

There are many economic, political and social factors that could be used to explain the increasing voting shares captured by these groups, but for some commentators the answer seems pretty clear-cut already.

The issue, apparently, is that growing inequality of incomes and wealth between the rich and the poor has been driven, almost wholly and solely, by a dreaded neo-liberal "Washington Consensus" seeking to fiscally starve the state and to lift trade barriers.

Inequality-inducing neo-liberalism, it is alleged, foments political resentment among the less well-off, leaving such disaffected people to be lured by politicians somehow offering a better way through rebuilding walls and retooling "picking winners" industry policy.

The Labor-aligned think tank Chifley Research Centre released a report promulgating this kind of narrative, suggesting the best way to beat Hansonism at home is to upend inequality.

Much of the current discussion about economic inequality rests on movements in the measure of income concentration, known as the Gini coefficient, within any given society, with higher values of Gini implying that income is being earned by relatively fewer people.

There have been some recent empirical works, published by the likes of the OECD and the IMF, which claim that there is a negative correlation between inequality, as measured by the Gini, and economic growth.

The studies received much fanfare as of late, and have been approvingly cited by Chifley including in background consultancy studies it has commissioned.

However the studies do not present a definitive case about the relationship between inequality and growth, let alone the kinds of policy prescriptions needed to suppress income dispersion.

Indeed, the methodological underpinnings and policy conclusions have been contested on several grounds — for example, Eric Crampton of the New Zealand Initiative pointed out a few problems with Federico Cingano's OECD paper late last year.

As for the Jonathan Ostry IMF study, which no doubt influenced Chifley's positions concerning the economic implications of income inequality, it shows that a degree of government redistribution above a certain threshold is detrimental to growth.

Australia's social welfare state is lauded by many as reasonably well-targeted, but Ostry and his IMF colleagues estimated us to be close to the critical threshold whereby any further redistribution would be associated with falling growth rates.

Despite its popularity by inequality economists there is a more fundamental question as to whether the Gini coefficient itself represents the most useful measurement of inequality in the first place.

Some economists have been critical of the predominating usage of Gini during the contemporary inequality debate given the numerous limitations of the measure, say, in relation to the treatment of non-cash benefits and how demographic changes affect the coefficient results.

The Gini coefficient provides low informational content in that it is difficult to infer to what extent the measured inequality is wrought by beneficial changes, such as improved productivity or market-tested entrepreneurship, or by malign changes such as economic cronyism and corruption.

And the Gini cannot appropriately account for the degree and breadth of changes in economic and social opportunities, nor the mass improvements in living standards enjoyed over the past few decades and even longer.

Indeed, classical liberals have stressed that relative income changes, as reflected in movements in the Gini coefficient over time, do not necessarily provide the insight needed to establish whether economic conditions have improved on a broad scale.

In her critical review of Thomas Piketty's work, economic historian Deirdre McCloskey argues that the size of Gini is "irrelevant to the noble and ethically relevant purpose of raising the poor to a condition of dignity".

Elsewhere, McCloskey refuted the notion the poor are getting poorer:  "Millions more have gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, lower child mortality, adequate nutrition, taller bodies, doubled life expectancy, schooling for their kids, newspapers, a vote, a shot at university, and respect."

The redistributive approach pursued by Chifley appears grounded, to some extent, upon an economic view that diminishing marginal utility of income implies that poorer people value an extra dollar in their hand far more than a wealthy person already in possession of many dollars.

But a key dilemma is that forcibly redistributing incomes, or other rewards emanating from the production process, could potentially reduce the available total bounty (including resources that could be redistributed) in future.

As philosopher David Schmidtz described it in his book The Elements of Justice, "the society takes seed corn out of production and diverts it to current consumption, thereby cannibalising itself".

Now, there should always be some place in civil society for charitable contributions to the needy, and influential liberals like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek agree a lean, efficient public sector "safety net" should complement charity.

But there always is a question of balance here, and it isn't a foregone conclusion that politicians have the knowledge and incentive to ensure the welfare state is always well proportioned with the market-based economy.

An aggressive redistributive agenda, perhaps to greatly reduce the Gini coefficient, could threaten opportunities for productive economic advancement, which could have a particularly injurious effect upon the poor who most urgently need chances to improve their situations.

And expanding the public sector in such circumstances would give a certain class of people more political power to non-consensually transfer resources from politically unfavoured constituencies to the politically favoured, potentially treating the former group in unjust ways.

One could agree with the likes of the Chifley Research Centre that lots of people seem politically disaffected right now, an unsurprising outcome in this low-growth, high-cost economy at the present.

But giving government an opportunity to star in its own "Super Size Me" policy experiment is unlikely to fix inequality, nor placate those whose political preferences gravitate toward extremist parties.

WA Labor's uranium ban sells the state short

According to WA Labor's Plan for Jobs, "a McGowan Labor Government will free business from the burden of poor regulations".  Yet if elected WA Labor will also ban new uranium mines and refuse to complete approvals processes for mines that are already underway.  So much for freeing business from red tape.

The prospect of a Labor victory next March is already wreaking havoc on the uranium industry.  According to recently released figures by the Australian Bureau of Statistics uranium exploration has come to a virtual standstill, with just $2.3 million invested in the sector in the June Quarter 2016.  This is 92 per cent below the December 2010 peak and the lowest level since level since the original ban on uranium was lifted by the Barnett Government in 2008.

Part of the decline is structural;  the resources sector has declined on the back of lower commodity prices.  And people have grown more cautious about nuclear fuel following Fukushima.  But Labor's policy is clearly causing damage.

Over just the past year for example, quarterly expenditure on uranium exploration has declined by some 66 per cent.  While expenditure in the non-uranium resource sector has actually increased by 14 per cent.  Businesses are hedging their bets on a Labor win in March and are retreating from the market.

But what is so bizarre about the proposed ban is that it will prevent Labor from delivering on a number of its own policy objectives.

Firstly, Labor's Plan for Jobs says more skilled jobs are needed in regions.  But this cannot be achieved without a buoyant resource sector.  According to recent research commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, up to 22,600 jobs could be created in the uranium sector by 2040 across the country.  Western Australia will share these jobs with South Australia and the Northern Territory, with the lion's share going to rural and regional areas.  Opposing uranium means opposing these jobs.

Secondly, Labor claims to want to improve our climate and natural environment.  But banning uranium means banning a low-emissions fuel with a relatively small environmental footprint.  Even prominent environmentalists, such as the former Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, Stephen Tindale, have recognised the importance of nuclear fuel in facilitating a cleaner environment.

Thirdly, the proposed ban undermines Labor's Brand WA which seeks to "promote and support WA businesses across all sectors".  Labor's ban would send a clear message that Western Australia is closed to investment — hardly a positive brand.

Fourthly, Labor has criticized the Barnett government for "poor management of mining royalties".  But at least the Barnett government had an industry policy that would allow royalties to be received in the first instance.  Under Labor royalties from uranium will come to the grand total of $0.

Lastly, it makes Labor's claim that they value "the economic freedom to pursue our own employment and enterprise" simply laughable.  You could not do more to undermine free enterprise than ban an entire industry.

But what is happening in Western Australia's uranium industry is occurring across the country as prohibitions and red tape stunt primary industries.

For example, the Victorian government recently announced it will extend the current moratoria on coal seam gas development to a permanent ban.

The Productivity Commission has found that just obtaining a mining exploration licence can take more than two years.

The Roy Hill iron ore mine in the Pilbara required more than 4,000 licences, permits and approvals from Commonwealth, state and local governments in its pre-construction phase alone.

And it has taken more than six years and a billion dollars for Adani to get approval for its central Queensland coal mine.  And having just overcome two frivolous legal challenges in a month, Adani faces three more.

The anti-development ethos, epitomised by WA Labor's proposed uranium ban, and illustrated by reams of red tape across the country, is one of the biggest issues holding back economic development and growth.

Red tape is increasingly being used to shut down industry and development under the pretense of responsible government and environmental concern.

The Western Australian Labor Party should reverse its opposition to uranium.  This would generate regional jobs, a cleaner environment and expand freedom, all of which WA Labor claims to support.

Banning political donations is banning freedom

In the wake of the Chinese ­donation scandal engulfing "Shanghai" Sam Dastyari, more than a few politicians have ­massively overreacted by calling for bans on all political donations from not only foreign sources, but companies and unions too.

Tony Abbott last week advocated such a ban:  "We need to look long and hard at restricting donations to real people on the electoral roll.  To that end, there should be no union donations, company donations or foreign donations."

Other members of parliament have since agreed.  While current MPs fought over who had the strongest plan to crack down on an important means of democratic participation, another former prime minister — John Howard — was resolute in his defence of political donations:  "I've spent 40, 50 years of my life and interest in politics fighting the nationalisation and socialisation of things and I don't want to see the political party system owned by the state.

"The more you make it difficult or you discourage companies, individuals, foreigners from donating, the more you end up with the state ­controlling it."

It's a brilliant defence of the ­primacy of the individual over the state.  And is there any area where that principle is more important than in the structure of our democratic system?

Howard is right.  Under the current political funding model, individuals, companies and unions make voluntary donations.  The alternative is compulsory financing.  That means your tax dollars get siphoned to candidates you would never support.

Abbott has form in this area.  As leader of the opposition in 2013, he made a deal with the Greens and the Labor Party that would have seen them hand themselves hundreds of thousands in extra taxpayer funds.

Public funding is bad.  But there's a more fundamental issue here;  banning political donations represents a huge attack on freedom of speech.

In the 1976 case of Buckley v Valeo, the US Supreme Court held that making a political donation "serves as a general ­expression of support for the candidate and his views".

In Australia, the High Court has developed the doctrine of the ­implied right to freedom of political communication, limiting government bans on speech.  The court has held that political donations give rise to political communication.  It was on these grounds the High Court in 2013 invalidated New South Wales laws prohibiting donations from anyone not on the Australian electoral roll.  Given this precedent, identical federal laws would also be struck down as unconstitutional.

The proposal creates a false ­distinction between individuals acting alone and individuals acting ­collectively.  Individuals participating in the democratic process under the umbrella of a distinct legal identity, such as a company or a union, are as entitled as individuals to make donations.  Banning them is an attack on free speech.

The Turnbull government backs an unprincipled purpose of super

On Wednesday the Turnbull government released draft legislation to bring some of its superannuation promises into law.  These changes are not the whole policy — we are told that some of the most contentious parts will be legislated in the future.  But in many ways this legislation is even more significant than the policy of how superannuation should be taxed.  Because for the first time the draft legislation enshrines the purpose — the principles — of our compulsory superannuation system into law.

When the government used the May budget to shred its promise not to increase taxes on superannuation, it did not consult the public on its proposal.  At least they're having a consultation this time.  But the consultation will go for nine days.  That's correct.  The public get nine days from when the draft legislation was unveiled (7 September) to the date consultations close (16 September) to make submissions on the future of an industry with more than $2 trillion in assets.

Meanwhile, the government estimates it will get $100 million this year from new taxes from overseas backpackers working in Australia.  The consultation period was a month, and reportedly resulted in 1000 public submissions.  But the consultation on the objective of superannuation goes for nine days.  A sceptical observer might conclude that perhaps ministers have already made up their mind.

Over the last month the Treasurer has travelled the country assuring the public that the Coalition's plans to retrospectively apply a $500,000 cap on post-tax contributions and limit the amount that can be held in accounts in the pension phase will only affect one per cent of superannuants.  The problem with this analysis is that even if the one per cent figure is true (accurate figures for superannuation are notoriously inaccurate), the number only applies to people who are immediately affected by the change.

The figure takes no account of people potentially affected into the future.  Further, the implication of the Treasurer's claim is that if only one per cent of superannuants are affected by arbitrary and retrospective changes to superannuation, then there's nothing to worry about.  He is coming perilously close to claiming the rule of law shouldn't apply to rich people.

'Primary objective'

The thing that the government will spend nine days consulting the public on is the idea that the "primary objective" of superannuation should be put into law.  According to the Coalition the primary objective of the superannuation system should be "to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension."

The problem with this as the objective of the superannuation is that it puts superannuation and the age pension the wrong way around.

The focus on any retirement income policy should be on strengthening self-funded superannuation, and the age pension should only act as add-on or top-up.  The government should aim to have as few people rely on the welfare of the age pension.

Expressing the objective of superannuation in the way the government proposes is to put tax and financial consideration at the centre of superannuation policy.  Instead, the starting point for any consideration of superannuation should be the inherent dignity of individuals taking personal responsibility for the care of themselves in retirement.

Saying that the main objective of superannuation is merely to save taxpayers the cost of the pension, is like saying people should be encouraged to get a job so the government doesn't have to incur the expense of paying the Newstart Allowance.  Work is important in and of itself.  The self-respect of a retirement that doesn't rely on support from someone else is no less important.

An objective for superannuation that was centred on dignity and choice in retirement could be expressed in the following way.

"The objective of the superannuation system is to ensure that as many Australians as possible take personal responsibility to save for their own retirement.  The age pension provides a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves in retirement."

Their policy on superannuation is not the only thing Turnbull and Morrison have got wrong.

They're also wrong on the principles of superannuation.  Getting a principle wrong is much more serious than mucking up a policy.  Policies can be fixed and reversed.  Principles are more difficult to correct.

Dead to history

A movement to censor our history is forming at Australian universities.  Students and academics are campaigning for buildings and lecture halls to be renamed because of their association with "offensive" historical figures.  They no longer feel comfortable confronting, or even acknowledging, the past — instead, they want to expunge it altogether.  Their first target is the renaming of the Richard Berry building at the University of Melbourne.

Richard Berry revolutionised the teaching of anatomy in Melbourne.  He wrote the standard anatomy textbook used by students for some twenty-five years.  As dean of medicine he advocated for the placement of a hospital near campus that could work closely with the university, a dream that became a reality after his departure.  Berry's contributions to teaching, as well as an administrator, were so outstanding that when a new anatomy building opened, which he designed, it was only natural to name the building after him.

Sadly, despite his capabilities, Berry, along with John Maynard Keynes, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, and Winston Churchill, advocated for the patently racist and discredited eugenics movement of the early 20th century.  Eugenicists sought to promote certain genetic traits, and discourage others, by manipulating sexual reproduction.  This supposedly scientific theory was used by the Nazis to justify their atrocities.

Berry (right) researched the relationship between skull sizes and intelligence, collecting a large number of human skulls for research.  He also advocated for sterilisation of Aboriginals, people with a disability, and other groups he viewed as inferior.  Student union president Tyson Holloway-Clarke says the existence of a building named after him is "confronting and alienating situation for Indigenous students".

The move to wipe Berry's name from the building he designed follows in the footsteps of similar campaigns on British and American campuses.  Oxford University students unsuccessfully advocated for the destruction of a Cecil Rhodes.  However, their campaign failed to appreciate Rhodes' positive legacy.  The Rhodes Scholarship has provided extraordinary educational opportunities to thousands from the developing and developed world, people who would otherwise never have had the opportunity to attend such a prestigious institution.  It has helped train the leaders of countless countries, including our own prime ministers Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott and Bob Hawke.

Yes, Rhodes' legacy, just like Berry's, is deeply flawed.  It is vital, however, that we acknowledge both the virtuous and vile in our history.  Our past is neither good nor evil, rather, it reflects the varying shades of grey that make up the complexities of human character.  It reflects our constant drive towards progress and developing a more compassionate society.  It is vital we remember and attempt to fully understand the complexity, not seek to censor our past.

We must be careful to not project modern ideas, which simply did not exist at the time, onto history.  The speed of human progress has led to an extraordinarily rapid change in cultural understandings, political values and scientific theories.  The essence of historic analysis is gaining a full understanding of these changes, and the world in which historic figures lived.  The alternate, applying today's values to the past, makes it almost impossible to find any respectable historical figures for admiration or study.

It would require Labor to rename their think-tank, the Evatt Foundation, because Doc Evatt brandished a letter in Parliament from Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov falsely claiming there was no Soviet spying in Australia — a letter written by the same individual who signed the Soviet-Nazi Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.  Liberals would have to stop celebrating Robert Menzies because, in the height of the Cold War, he advocated for the illiberal policy of banning a political party, the Communist Party of Australia.  Americans would have to abandon their constitution and bill of rights because two-thirds of the founding fathers owned slaves.

If we actually want to understand, not simply abandon, the past we must comprehend the world in which these people functioned, the threats that motivated them, and the cultural values of their time.  We must understand that Evatt was motivated by a theory, albeit false, of conspiracy between the government and the security establishment to discredit Labor.  We must understand that Menzies believed, based on the stated aims of Australian communists, that there was a serious clandestine threat to our democracy.  And we must understand that the American founders lived in a time when slave ownership was common across the world.  We can, and should, criticise their views and actions, but it is ahistorical to apply today's values to figures living in a different time.

Censoring the past also hinders the educational mission of universities.  These statues, buildings, and lecture halls provide an important opportunity to confront our history.  Renaming buildings allows past injustices to be forgotten, to be wiped off the public memory.  Leaving them in place is a good reminder and educational opportunity.  Rather than rename the Richard Berry building, making him float away into the abyss of history book footnotes buried in the basement of a campus library, it would be appropriate to place a prominent plaque near the entrance of the building explaining both his contributions and abhorrent views.  This would allow students to understand the fact that this person did exist, and what he actually did.  It also prevents the university from taking the relatively easy step of wiping out a dark part of their history.

Ironically, the University of Melbourne has previously hosted a disability support services unit in the Richard Berry building.  Some have claimed that this placement is insulting.  However, the opposite is in fact true.  The best way to show just how wrong Berry's ideas were, and to display how far we have come as a society, is to act in the completely opposite manner.  It is to celebrate that students from all backgrounds roam freely in the corridors of the Richard Berry building.  This allows us to not forget the complexities of our past, and delivers a far more nuanced understanding of what is right and wrong.

Way too much fuss over a simple T-shirt

This week Target became the latest target of the politically correct warriors.

Target's crime of political correctness was to sell a T-shirt.  A pink T-shirt for girls.  The t-shirt read, "Batgirl to-do list:  Dryclean cape, wash batmobile, fight crime, save the world".

And with that, the warriors launched their attack on social media.  The accusations the warriors levelled at Target ranged from the T-shirt being "outrageous", "really inappropriate", sending a "really damaging message" and the final coup de grace, "out of step with 21st century family values ... it is utterly offensive and must be removed".

Target is a business and it isn't in the business of fighting political correctness.  It's in the business of selling affordable clothing to the mass market.  So it withdrew the T-shirt from sale and issued the following statement:  "After reviewing and reading our customers' concerns on the Batgirl tee, we have decided to remove the shirt from our stores.  It was never Target's intention to offend our customers with this item."

The warriors celebrated their victory like a grand final win.  But we should be commiserating.  The surge of political correctness undermines our freedoms, including in this case the freedom to raise our children in a way we choose.

Let's consider a few things.

First, the T-shirt wasn't sexist.  For many, including me, the T-shirt sent an empowering message to girls that they can do anything.  It was far more interesting and sassy than the boys' version of the T-shirt which merely read, "Like father like son, yes my dad is Batman".  No crime-fighting or world saving for the boys.

But the deeper meaning in this two-year-olds' T-shirt was open to interpretation.  For the politically correct warriors who found the T-shirt sexist, was it necessary to attack Target and call for its withdrawal?  If you don't like it, don't buy it.  No one is forcing anyone to buy these clothes.

Why should the moral outrage of a few bind us all to their value systems?  In parenting there are many hotly contested debates about "good parenting" and what sort of messages we should send our children, especially our girls.

As a parent, it is and should be your choice how you raise your children and the values you instil in them, what you dress your children in, what schools you send them to, what language you use with your children.  But inherent in this is "choice" and freedom to choose.  Instances such as the Batgirl T-shirt are indicative of a disturbing trend of the politically correct imposing their value systems on the rest of us.  Next time, warriors, please remember not everyone agrees with you.

A shift in monetary policy won't work miracles

A nominal GDP target for central banks isn't without merit, but a monetary fix won't be a cure-all for our economic problems.

Given these chaotic days of unorthodox monetary policy practice, such as ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing, talk about reforming the way central banks manage the monetary system is seemingly at an all-time high.

Bursting from the academic literature into the blogosphere, and from international economic bloggers into the Australian public policy discourse, comes an idea that the Reserve Bank's longstanding policy to target price inflation at least ought to change.

That the RBA must forgo its effort to keep increases in consumer prices between 2 and 3 per cent, on average and over the business cycle, comes from an unlikely source:  protectionist South Australian senator Nick Xenophon.

In collaborative work with economist Danny Pearce, Xenophon says that inflation targeting as a basis for monetary policy has passed its use-by date, especially in a low-growth world in which the inflation scourge appears well and truly vanquished (at least for now).

Xenophon and Price call for the RBA's inflation target to be swapped with a "nominal GDP growth target" of 5.5 per cent per annum for Australia, which they claim will deliver a more stable macroeconomic environment.

The call to refurbish this country's monetary policy settings in favour of a NGDP target, which incorporates both prices and real GDP, is something that has gained significant traction among economists irrespective of their ideological leanings.

Classical liberal economists Scott Sumner, Lars Christensen and Tyler Cowen are proponents of an NGDP objective for monetary policy, and these sentiments are broadly shared by progressive economists including Paul Krugman and Australian John Quiggin.

Before discussing the merits and limitations of changing the ground rules for how monetary policy is conducted in Australia, it may be beneficial to rekindle memories as to how and why the RBA came to earn its modern reputation as an "inflation fighter".

During the 1970s and early '80s, Australia and most other advanced economies confronted high rates of price inflation, oftentimes with bouts of high unemployment, as oil prices peaked, wage costs escalated, and discretionary fiscal and monetary policies boosted prices but failed to sustainably raise output.

We briefly flirted with directly targeting money supply growth to control inflation, in line with first-wave monetarist precepts about price inflation always and everywhere representing a monetary problem, but with targets proving a touch too tricky for the RBA to reliably pin down.

Price inflation remained particularly troublesome during the 1980s, continuing to erode the real wages earned by Australian workers, and measures of inflationary expectations stayed in double-digit figures.

It was only following the severe recession of 1990-91 that inflationary expectations were finally subdued, and the opportunity to lay out a basis for a new monetary policy framework arose.

Determined to ensure general price increases remained modest, the Keating government entered an agreement with the RBA setting the price inflation target as a monetary policy objective.

Australia's rate of price inflation has since been kept to an average 2.5 per cent, which has been largely attributed to the role of monetary policy anchoring price-inflationary expectations, although falling trade barriers and other microeconomic reforms have also contributed.

With price inflation still seemingly nipped in the bud, the argument is that central bankers must now do something different in an attempt to wake the economy up from its post-GFC coma.

If the RBA adopted a NGDP target of 5.5 per cent, as recommended by Xenophon and Price, then the presently "easy" monetary policy stance under the price inflation targeting regime might be reinterpreted as "tight", given our current NGDP growth rate is only 2 per cent.

A new monetary policy regime in these circumstances would imply further reductions in our already-low cash-rate interest rate or, worse still, a green light to dabble with unorthodox policies that have side-tracked the US, Europe and Japan firmly onto a slow-growth path.

It is not clear that additional easing would be beneficial, given the dismal international track record for monetary policy exotica and the non-monetary problems constraining our growth potential.

In fairness, from a theoretical perspective, there are certainly some potential upsides to pursuing a style of monetary policy that engages in NGDP targeting.

The new-wave "market monetarists" such as Sumner and Christensen argue that a specified NGDP objective would serve as an improvement over price inflation targeting, because the former places fewer informational requirements upon central bankers.

Under NGDP targeting the RBA would not have to undergo the fatigue of trying to determine whether a change in average prices in the economy is primarily attributable to developments in the supply or demand side of the economy, and whether change should warrant a monetary policy response.

Consider the example of a positive supply shock resulting from microeconomic reforms, which would generally be seen as a beneficial development.

Under the price inflation targeting regime for monetary policy, the central bank would feel obliged to impose expansionary monetary policy to counter the falling generalised prices threatening the achievement of the target, but with the potential side-effect of exacerbating asset price bubbles.

But under an NGDP target there is no need for a policy response from the central bank because the declining price level is offset by increases in actual, and potential, output in the wake of supply-side economic reform.

Nick Xenophon has indicated that he prefers the government to abolish the price inflation framework when it sits down with the incoming RBA governor Philip Lowe to strike a new agreement on the framework for monetary policy.

It is best to consider any change to monetary policy frameworks soberly and carefully.

After all, the current inflation-oriented approach has helped focus monetary policy on a clear objective (that is, price stability) where arguably none existed beforehand, and Australians have benefited immensely from lower rates of price inflation.

And there is plenty of other reform business for the new Parliament to contend with, such as reducing red tape burdens, cutting taxes, and repairing the budget, all of which would improve our productive capacity if implemented.

NGDP targeting isn't the worst reform idea going around, but let's not think that changing monetary policy would magically resolve our economic issues.