America Is Losing Its Wall Against The Authoritarians

A few days ago Alexander Downer wrote on these pages that if he were American he would have voted for Donald Trump ― but through gritted teeth.

My view is different from Downer.  I would have voted for Trump eagerly and enthusiastically.  You could argue that in 2016 there were arguments for both Clinton and Trump.  Not this time.  In 2020, the case for Trump was overwhelming ― although based on the likely election result, it looks like a majority of the American electorate didn't have quite the same assessment.

Usually when people complain about Trump's personality it's because they refuse to acknowledge the success of his policies.  In October last year, unemployment in the United States was at its lowest level in 50 years.  Trump did more for the job opportunities and economic empowerment of minorities in America than any president since Reagan.  At this election, it appears Trump won a greater share of the minority vote than any previous Republican.

Critics complain about Trump's rhetoric on China but they never explain what they would do differently in the face of an authoritarian and imperialist power.

The suggestion that Trump is some sort of vandal of constitutional propriety is a meme of a media that refuses to countenance that the Democrats might mean what they say and attempt to stack the US Supreme Court.

However, the main reason why I'd have voted for Trump was not because of economics, it was because of cultural values.  Trump offered an alternative to the ideology that started on college campuses and is now engulfing the country that defines individuals according to their race, that regards the democratic political process as a tool of oppression, and uses violence to shut down freedom of speech.

American historian Anne Applebaum in a thoughtful article a week ago in The Atlantic titled 'The Answer to Extremism Isn't More Extremism' asked why 'educated conservatives', who knew Trump's faults would still vote for him.  As she correctly noted, many conservatives, 'educated' or not, are deeply concerned by intellectual trends such as 'an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty'.

Many conservatives believed that re-electing Trump while not a complete answer to all of this, would have been a start.

According to Applebaum:  "Anyone who actually cares about academic freedom, or the future of objective reporting, or the ideas behind the statues built to honor American democrats in the country's public squares, must hope that Trump loses.  If he win a second term, extremism on the left will not be stopped."

As one of the world's leading historians of authoritarianism and communism, it's perplexing that Applebaum would advocate a form of cultural appeasement.

"I hope that educated conservatives think hard about what will happen if Biden's moderate-left campaign fails:  It is extremely unlike that its adherents and spokespeople will shrug their shoulders and decide that, yes, Trump is right after all.  They are much more likely to move further to the extremes.  Americans will witness the radicalization of the Democratic Party, as well as the radicalization of the powerful and influential intellectual, academic, and cultural left, in a manner that we have never before seen."

It's interesting to speculate whether before the election there was anyone in America urging 'educated progressives' to vote for Trump to avoid the radicalisation of the Republican Party and the intellectual, academic, and cultural right.  Probably not.

Yet for all the potential consequences Applebaum describes of a Trump victory, 68 million Americans nevertheless voted for him;  72 million Americans voted for Biden.

Many commentators before and now after the election have spoken about how deeply divided is America.  That's true.

But many 'educated conservatives' would respond that a country or a community or a family is only as divided as it wants to be.

An 'educated conservative' who voted for Donald Trump would ask what side of politics it was sowing the seeds of division.

The interest of an Australian in the culture wars of America's universities, sports fields, and boardrooms is that inevitably what begins in Berkeley, California ends up in Ultimo, Sydney.

Bloated Super Sector Sucking Up Workers' Wealth

The Morrison government has a key decision to make before the end of this financial year:  does it stand with mainstream Australians who have suffered through the lockdown-induced recession, or with the financial sector and industry super elites that are seeking to line their pockets further at the expense of working people?

The compulsory superannuation contribution rate is legislated to rise from 9.5 per cent to 10 per cent next July and steadily increase to 12 per cent five years later.  In the wake of the largest economic shock in decades, and the sharpest spike in unemployment and underemployment, increasing the super rate will come at the expense of working people who are already struggling with a rising cost of living.

By scrapping the legislated increase in the super contribution rate, the Morrison government will demonstrate that it prioritises the interests of mainstream Australians above those in the bloated superannuation industry.

There is a misconception that employers pay superannuation contributions.  The legal incidence of contributions falls on employers, but it is workers who must pay them through lower wages.

This used to be an uncontested point.  Compulsory super was first introduced after Paul Keating as treasurer agreed with the ACTU that it would allow for wage increases without creating inflationary pressures.  In a speech in 2007 Keating reaffirmed the point that super was paid by employees:  "The cost of superannuation was never borne by employers.  It was absorbed into the overall wage cost … In other words, had employers not paid nine percentage points of wages, as superannuation contributions, they would have paid it in cash as wages."

In 2010, in a speech after the Labor government legislated to increase the contribution rate, Bill Shorten as assistant treasurer said:  "It's wages, not profits, that will fund super increases in the next few years.  Wages are the seedbed of the whole operation."

Keating and Shorten have since sung from different song sheets, arguing that increasing the contribution rate will not come at the expense of wages.

But their change of tune does not alter the fact super is paid by workers through lower wages, which is the agreed wisdom of the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Grattan Institute, a range of academic studies and the Rudd government-commissioned Henry tax review.

Compulsory super was designed to ensure that Australians could retire in comfort without putting too much strain on government pensions.  In reality, it prevents a decent working-life standard of living and often diminishes the ability of Australians to buy a home and raise a family.  The home ownership rate declined from 71 per cent in 1994-95 to 66 per cent in 2017-18.

In the meantime, things could not be better for the financial services industry with a guaranteed and growing revenue source from super fees.  Before compulsory super was introduced, the financial services industry represented 2.4 per cent of the economy.  Now it's 6.5 per cent.

The forced savings scheme has allowed the financial services sector to flourish as it enjoys a never-ending transfer of wealth from working Australians.  Meanwhile, working people struggle as private sector wage growth has been below its long-run average for the past decade as the cost of living increases.

The government should provide a message of hope and aspiration for Australians as they emerge from the lockdown recession.  This means making the case for individuals and families keeping more of their wages, rather than seeing more siphoned off into the accounts of the elites running super funds.  It also means making the case for liberal values rather than ac­qui­escing to the technocratic mantra that the government must force people to save for their own good.  Australians should be able to make their own decisions about how they spend or save;  they are best placed to make the right decision.

According to statistics from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, more than 3.3 million Australians have withdrawn an average of $7400 from their super under the COVID-19 early release scheme.  This indicates that young people are withdrawing their entire super balance and are voting with their feet;  they believe that they are better placed to manage this money than the super funds to which it was previously sacrificed.

The budget contained some sensible reforms of the super system, but there is still a long way to go in ensuring that it works in favour of mainstream Australians.  For example, the $450 a month earnings threshold after which contributions must be made has not increased since compulsory super was introduced in 1992, meaning people earning about half as much in real terms today are forced to make contributions to their retirement fund.

For most working Australians, the super system does not serve them well.  Forcing them to throw more money at it will do more harm than good.

A Warning From Australia: Boris Johnson's Cure Is Worse Than The Disease

Victoria has become famous for using lockdowns to 'defeat coronavirus'.  Dr Anthony Fauci mentioned Australia as a country that did “quite well”.  We haven't defeated the virus.  The virus is at bay but the only thing truly defeated is Victoria and Victorians.

The state last week got out of its second lockdown of the year.  Just like you were told yours will only last one month, we were told it would last six weeks.  It lasted 112 days.

Like Brits are about to re-experience, all non-essential retail and hospitality have been closed, businesses have been shuttered and we have been cut off from friends and family.  At the lockdown's peak we were only allowed out of our homes for one hour a day between 5am and 9pm.

Cases have come down, but what has exploded is a mental health and economic crisis that will take this state decades to recover from.

Melbourne has been declared the world's most liveable city six out of the last seven years by the Economist Intelligence Unit.  Now look at what 112 days of lockdown has done to this city and the state.

Victoria lost more than 1,000 jobs a day through this second lockdown.  Since lockdown strategies began in March, 696,000 jobs have been destroyed in Victoria, according to my research.  Given that 3.3 million Victorians are employed, those job losses are equivalent to 21% of the Victorian workforce.

Streets that once boasted the country's best culture and nightlife are empty.  Shops that displayed cutting-edge fashion, antique goods or any matter of personality now simply hang 'For Lease' signs.

The mental health figures are just as concerning.  Victorians have been cut off from so many things that make life worth living these 112 days.  We have been banned from seeing friends who live further than five kilometres away from us (it's now 'only' 25 kilometres), we could not visit family or friends in their homes, or walk in groups of more than two ― and even then only once per day.  The effects have been devastating.

In the last two months calls to the mental health support hotline Beyond Blue are 77% higher in Victoria than in the rest of the country.  Most disturbing, hospitalisations for attempted suicides are up 6% from last year ― and for those aged 17 and under the increase is 31.3%.

Now that the state is finally starting to take steps towards opening up, a new fear has come forward:  the deep fear that we will return to lockdown again.

This is a fear we share.  Boris Johnson promised that Britain would never return to lockdown ― that promise is now broken.  He has promised this new lockdown is only for a month, but how can Britons believe that now?

Victoria's freedom relies on our state's contract tracing team, whose incompetence meant the government did not feel it was safe to ease restrictions even when daily new cases was as low as seven per day.  There will be another outbreak in the state, it is inevitable.  If the team fails, we go back to lockdown.

Our two countries are destined to spiral in and out of lockdown until a vaccine arrives, always fearful that at any time the government can take away our livelihoods.

This is the warning from Victoria.  This state is a shell of the vibrant place it was, and its people live in constant fear.  Britain is about to follow the same path.

Johnson is following this path as he believes that lockdown is the only remaining weapon he has against this virus.  But it isn't.

It's not even the best one.  Dr David Nabarro, the World Health Organisation's Special Envoy on Covid-19, said to Andrew Neil last month:  “We really do appeal to all world leaders:  stop using lockdown as your primary control method.”

Why?  Because “lockdowns have one consequence that you can never belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.”

Lockdowns destroy livelihoods, throw people out of work, spark mental health crises and make poor people poorer.  Meanwhile, treatment of coronavirus is improving.

A new paper accepted for publication in the journal Critical Care Medicine tracked mortality rates from Covid-19 in the UK.  “In late March, four in 10 people in intensive care were dying.  By the end of June, survival was over 80 percent,” said the paper's author John M. Dennis, a University of Exeter Medical School researcher.  It is now November, so Britain's medical experts have spent another four full months learning more about this virus.

Sending Britain into another lockdown means Johnson is ignoring the steps Britain's medical community has made in limiting the virus's threat.  He has chosen to send all of Britain into another lockdown rather than isolate and support those for whom the virus is still life-threatening.

And Britons will have their way of life destroyed.  Let's hope Johnson keeps to his word just once and only locks down for a brief period of time, and not 112 days.  But that's what we were told too.

We Need To Put Corruption Watchdogs On Short Leash

Labor's push for a so-called federal anti-corruption body would be an undemocratic and illiberal forum for legalised defamation to be weaponised against political opponents.

The most recent call for a federal Independent Commission Against Corruption comes on the heels of last week's revelations that the CEO of Australia Post and the chairman of the Australian Securities & Investments Commission had both been stood aside pending investigations.

The first related to the awarding of luxury watches to Australia Post senior managers in late 2018, and the second to payments made by the corporate regulator for the ASIC chairman's tax advice.

These events have been exposed and are being investigated within the existing regulatory framework.  The enthusiasm for a special-purpose anti-corruption body to deal with these kinds of issues deserves greater scrutiny.

The risks of wide-ranging anti-corruption agencies are not insignificant.  Tackling corruption is a virtuous mission but agencies committed to this are prone to becoming kangaroo courts running show trials where the rule of law and respecting the legal rights of individuals caught up in their investigations are ignored.

In NSW, the Independent Commission Against Corruption has left a trail of destruction in its wake since its establishment in 1988.  It has proved more effective at destroying lives and careers than it has at tackling genuine wrongdoing.

ICAC also has shown a tendency to exceed its legislated authority, as the NSW Court of Appeal found in the commission's pursuits of former NSW premier Nick Greiner in 1994, and the High Court found in its pursuit of former crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen in 2015.

An explanation for why the political class would be so enthusiastic to take a chance on a federal ICAC is the opportunity to weaponise it to target political enemies.

A federal ICAC would operate as a forum for legalised defamation.  As the NSW ICAC has demonstrated over three decades, being referred to ICAC carries a high political cost that can be enough to end careers.

The fact that these bodies are protected from defamation law is deeply concerning.  Once they have these powers, defamatory and slanderous claims can be stated as fact, with no legal recourse for the accused.

Federal Labor is an enthusiastic supporter of replicating the NSW ICAC at the commonwealth level.  Labor and shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus have overseen no fewer than 10 referrals of Coalition MPs to law enforcement bodies since 2015.  None has resulted in any charges.

Although in opposition, in 2019 my freedom-of-information request revealed that Dreyfus personally directed the bureaucrats in the Attorney-General's department administering the Foreign Interference and Transparency Scheme to target conservative activists speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Sydney.  Conference organiser Andrew Cooper received a letter from the department to produce information and correspondence related to the conference within 14 days or risk being jailed for six months.

One proposal has been introduced to parliament this week.  Known as the Australian Federal Integrity Commission and introduced by federal independent MP Helen Haines on Monday, it would allow public hearings to take place when it is in the public interest and allow any member of the public to make complaints.

Public interest is an ambiguous concept that would ultimately only be determined by the commission itself.  In other words, it would have the power to run inquiries and hearings at any time and into any matter it chooses at its discretion.  Allowing any member of the public to make complaints will be used most of all by the political class.

Like the NSW ICAC, the body proposed by Haines would be empowered to make findings of fact.  In a court of law, allegations of facts are fiercely tested and proceedings are governed by the rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence.  This is not the case at ICAC.

Over centuries the institution of parliament has developed the traditions and practices, based on intense partisanship and its adversarial structure, to scrutinise its members and hold members of the government to account.

Many modern politicians would prefer to outsource this and have anti-corruption agencies do their work as parliamentary opposition for them.

The federal government is in a no-win position.  Since it committed to introducing some kind of anti-corruption body in 2018, it has tried to thread the needle on a proposal that would avoid the excesses of NSW ICAC.  Every instance of delay opens it to criticism that it is weak on corruption.

Government wrongdoing and shortcomings in integrity are inevitable consequences when bureaucrats and politicians have vast powers and opportunities to squander taxpayer money.  The fact that the preferred solution of so many is to grant more powers to more bureaucrats is indicative that improved governance and management of taxpayer money is not on the agenda.

If Our Restaurants Can Open Safely, So Can Our Churches

The Victorian Premier reassures the public that strict lockdowns are merely a reflection of him putting lives before the economy, but his plan to reopen has made it clear that that non-material goods have little place in the roadmap back to "COVID normal".

Lockdowns have undermined almost every civil society institution in this country.  They mandated the emptying of places of worship and that volunteers cease to perform work in many instances.  The financial hardship that resulted from this policy drained the pockets of donors and the charities they support.

Relief cannot come soon enough for civil society groups.  But in the road map laid out by the Premier, preference has been given to material and metropolitan values over non-material and community ones.

Since 16 September, regional Victoria has been under step 3 of the road map which means services such as beauty therapy, tanning, waxing, nail salons, spas, tattoo parlours and massage parlours can reopen if they adhere to hygiene practices such as the 4m² rule, cleaning, signage and record keeping.  Community activities however, such as book clubs or craft groups, were limited to ten people and only in outdoor venues.

Last Sunday, the Premier announced further opening to allow Libraries and toy libraries to open up to 20 people indoors, but there was no mention of non-government community spaces.

Even more concerning is the treatment of places of worship.  Step three restrictions, allow restaurants, bars, cafes and pubs to open for indoor dining of up to 10 people (or even 40 for some venues) and up to 70 people for outdoor dining.  Compare this with the restrictions put on religious organisations, which are restricted to private worship only.  Private worship is defined as a household or a household bubble (up to five people from that household) plus a faith leader.  Public worship can only be conducted outside and with a maximum of 20 people.

There appears to be little public health justification for the inequitable treatment.  If anything, the hospitality industry is a more likely vector of this virus given that no one can eat or drink with a mask on and waiters go between groups to deliver food.  Conversely, most religious services can be conducted without contact and with a mask.

This is not to say that commercial activities shouldn't open up, but that religious and community groups should be treated the same way.

If there has been anything positive to come from the COVID-19 experience, it is that there has been a reassertion of federalism and state-based experiments in public policy.  If Victoria wants to know how to manage an opening up of both the private economy and civil society (and particularly places of worship) it should look across the border to New South Wales.

When NSW started to ease the lockdown restrictions, everything from cafes to churches were to open provided they had a COVIDSafe plan.  These are online forms that take 30 minutes to fill out and demonstrate how basic practices such as the 4m² rule and face masks are going to be enforced on the premises to prevent the spread of the disease.  There is no reason why Victoria can't provide this kind of instruction.

Civil society needs to be granted the freedom to be a separate and distinct entity from the state.

People need meaning and connection as much as they need material comfort.  A road back to "COVID normal" that does not include religious observance and other civil society organisations is not a return to normal at all.

What The ACT Election Results Tell Us About Our Rulers In The Bubble

Last weekend's ACT election results have again revealed how out of touch our nation's capital city is with mainstream Australians.  While it is tempting to write off the ACT Legislative Assembly as little more than a glorified city council, ACT elections are one of the clearest indicators of elite opinion that we have ― and the results are alarming.

ACT Labor will continue to govern, as it has done since 2001, but the big winners were the Greens, who have more than doubled there representation.  The 25 seat ACT Assembly will have ten Labor members (down from 12), nine Liberals (down from 11), and six Greens (up from two).  The Greens already have a seat in cabinet, in exchange for propping up the minority Labor government, and will now be even more influential.  The radical Greens are a party of government in the ACT.

Overall, the ACT electorate is markedly out of step with the country.  Labor, the Greens, and minor left-wing parties received more than 58 per cent of the first preference vote ― a tally even exceeding the left's primary lower house vote in Victoria's landslide 2018 election (approximately 56 per cent).

Of course, this pattern diverges wildly from that seen in more conservative states.  At the 2019 New South Wales election, left-wing parties received only 44 per cent of the first preference vote (in the lower house), and at the 2017 Queensland election, the figure was 45 per cent.

Many Canberrans are transplants who have moved to the city to work in the federal bureaucracy, so the political differences are quite striking.  Canberra, it seems, both attracts a certain type of person and instils in people a certain set of beliefs and attitudes.  These sorting mechanisms have gradually separated the capital from the country over which it rules, encasing it in a bubble of ideology.

The left's stranglehold on Canberra poses two big problems for the rest of the country.

The first is that the residents of the Canberra bubble make policy for all of us.  Their detachment from the preferences and values of mainstream Australia has led to a range of policy disasters.

Perhaps most seriously, economic policy in this country increasingly favours the public sector and the corporate bureaucracies that oversee the enforcement of government regulation.

As my research has demonstrated, the COVID recession has made this trend worse.  Our country increasingly has a K-shaped economy, in which bureaucrats thrive even as the productive economy that sustains them is hobbled.

At the height of the recession, public sector wages in the ACT increased by 6.5 per cent.  The average wage in the ACT is $102,000, far exceeding other states and territories.  While the country has seen 600,000 private sector jobs lost this year, the ACT has largely been insulated from the fallout.

We also seem to be developing a K-shaped culture.  Consider, for example, the obscene and embarrassing fiasco that is national arts funding.  The ruling class amuses itself with deranged art, obscure research projects, and the self-flattery of the ABC, while traditional and elevating cultural pursuits are shunned and shuttered.

The second problem emerges from the unavoidable fact that the ACT electorate is highly educated.  The Canberra bubble represents, to a worrying extent, the best that our systems of education and moral instruction can produce, and they are turning against the values of the rest of the country.

This is one way that Canberra is similar to the rest of Australia: educated people are radicalising.  Just as we have seen in some wealthy parts of Sydney and Melbourne, the Greens in Canberra picked up votes mostly from the Liberal Party.  Our inner suburbs are filled with spiritual Canberrans.

Somehow, we have created a system that selects for these kinds of beliefs, or that fills the heads of many of our brightest people with bad ideas.  Maybe both.

The elite, the attitudes of which are made plain at ACT polling booths, is the main reason that elections in this country never seem to change anything ― a reminder that democracy means more than just elections.  If we want a democratic country in which policy aligns with mainstream values, our highest priority should be ending the miseducation of our ruling class.

Scientists All At Sea With Alarmist Barrier Reef Warning

A new scientific paper, received with great fanfare among inter­national media and Australia's public broadcaster, the ABC, claims half the corals of the Great Barrier Reef are dead.

The paper is by academics at James Cook University's ARC Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.  It is a scary headline.  But is it true?

This finding is not based on any tried and proven method.  Rather, the researchers from James Cook University have come up with a new method of statistical analysis based on a complicated "proxy" to estimate "colony size".

The study itself was undertaken in 2016 and 2017, just after a coral bleaching event at cyclone-damaged reefs.  If they had used traditional methods and longer time frames, it would likely be found that there is actually nothing wrong with the Great Barrier Reef.

Great Barrier Reef photographer Julia Summerling wrote recently about how a section known as North Direction Island, saying that the island's corals were "savaged beyond recognition" due to Cyclone Ita in 2014, cyclone Nathan in 2015, and a coral bleaching event in the summer of 2016.  So it was probably not the most representative time to be sampling.  But the headlines are based on proxy measures from just a few reefs at that time.

She now says those areas have since recovered.  "What I saw — and photographed — I could hardly believe.  Young dinner-plate-sized corals were crammed into every available space on the limestone plateau as far as I could see, bristling with iconic fish life, from maori wrasse and coral trout to bumphead parrotfish and sweetlips.  I swam a long way on the dive, checking to see how far the coral shelf stretched.  The further I swam, the denser the coral fields became".

For a new film, in January this year I visited the Ribbon reefs with Emmy award-winning photographer Clint Hempshall to follow the edge of Australia's continental shelf to find and film coral bleaching.  It was meant to be one of the worst-affected regions — 60 per cent dead from bleaching, which the same scientists say is caused by climate change.  But we could not find any significant bleaching.  We mostly found jewelled curtains of coral, appearing to cascade down underwater cliff faces.  So colourful, so beautiful, all in crystal clear and warm waters.

The problem for Professor Terry Hughes, who co-authored the research, is that his study was undertaken in 2016 and 2017 then extrapolated out to cover other years.  All of the research and subsequent media attention points to a narrative that the Great Barrier Reef is at risk of imminent collapse from climate change.

It was for questioning this claim, and the quality of science behind it, that Dr Peter Ridd was eventually sacked from James Cook University.  Part of those claims by Ridd were that a lot of the science coming out of JCU's ARC Centre for Excellent in Coral Reef Studies "is not properly checked, tested or replicated, and that is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions, and the fact is I do not think we can anymore".

Neither James Cook University, nor Hughes, have ever rebutted Ridd's criticisms of the research.

This is what objective observers need to put into context when examining Hughes's most recent claims.  Ridd also said:  "I think that most of the scientists who are pushing out this stuff, I think that they genuinely believe that there are problems with the reef, I just don't think they are very objective about the science they do.  I think they're emotionally attached to their subject and you can't blame them the reef is a beautiful thing".

One quick glance at Hughes's Twitter account and you will find he is critical of the Morrison government's gas-led recovery, cheerleading for a royal commission into the Murdoch media and constantly criticises the Adani Coal mine.

The new paper by James Cook University scientists claims both the incidence of coral bleaching and cyclones is increasing, but there is no evidence to support ­either contention.  The available data from 1971 to 2017 indicated there has actually been a decrease in both the number and severity of cyclones in the Australian region.

Coral-bleaching events tend to be cyclical and coincide with periods of exceptionally low sea levels.  As discussed in a new book, Climate Change: The Facts 2020, there were dramatic falls in sea levels across the western Pacific Ocean in 2016.  These were associated with an El Nino event.

Until recently, coral calcification rates were calculated based on coring of the large Porites corals.  There are well-established techniques for coring the Porites corals and then measuring growth rates.  So why do Hughes and his colleagues stray from these tried and tested methods?

Since 2005, the Australian Institute of Marine Science has stopped using this technique to measure how well corals are growing at the Great Barrier Reef.  The few studies still using the old technique suggest that, as would be expected, as water temperatures have increased marginally, coral growth rates have also increased.

But rather than admit this, key Great Barrier Reef research institutions have moved from such ­direct measures to new and complicated "proxies".  They thus have more flexibility in what they find because the measurement is no longer one that represents coral growth rates or coral cover.

As proxy votes are something delegated, this gives the researchers at JCU the potential to generate what might be considered policy-based evidence.  And yet without question, the media reporting of the most recent research is that "there is no time to lose, we must sharply decrease greenhouse gas emissions”.

Far too frequently, climate science has demonstrated noble cause corruption — where the ends justify the means.  We will only know exact coral calcification rates, and changing trends in coral cover, when our once esteemed research institutions return to more traditional methods of measuring such important indicators of coral health and growth.

We need a return to real science that is based on real observations and real measurements and then we may find written in journals what we see in the real world when we jump off boats and go under the sea.

Premier Dan Andrews Divides Victorians Down The Middle

Maybe a majority of Victorians once supported Premier Daniel Andrews and his management of COVID-19 ― not any more.

Victorians are now divided exactly down the middle.  Any sense of community unity and "we're all in this together" has long since disappeared.

Victorians have witnessed first-hand what arbitrary and naked power looks like.  They've seen how a government that rewards its friends and punishes its enemies operates.  In Melbourne, if your job was mowing lawns and you belonged to a trade union the government allowed you to work.  If, however, you did exactly the same job but were self-employed you weren't allowed to work.

When Kevin Rudd attempted to introduce his mining tax there was a lot of discussion about "country sovereign risk".  After what's happened in Victoria "state sovereign risk" is now a real issue.  The Victorian government's contempt for the private sector is demonstrated by the fact Andrews has said he hasn't even read the letter from the chief executives of seven of the country's largest employers urging the state to be reopened.

Earlier this month I commissioned an opinion poll of 1000 Victorians.  When asked to respond to the statement "Daniel Andrews has mismanaged the government's response to COVID-19 and should resign", 41 per cent agreed, 41 per cent disagreed, and the rest were undecided.  Responding to the statement "Daniel Andrews does not understand the impact of his restrictions on ordinary Victorians", 42 per cent agreed, 42 per cent disagreed, with the rest undecided.

Clearly the Andrews government still has support, but it's not overwhelming.  The mystery to Andrews' polling numbers is not why are they now starting to turn, but why they had been so strong for so long.  The much-discussed Melbourne version of "Stockholm syndrome" might be one explanation.  Another might be that, quite understandably, Victorians have not wanted to admit to themselves they've been duped.

In April, Andrews spoke about the need to impose lockdowns to "flatten the curve" of infection to avoid a "pandemic peak" and have Victoria's hospitals overwhelmed, and the number of intensive care unit beds in the state was increased from about 450 to 4500.  He said, "Everything we do now gives us vital time to prepare our health system for what is to come."

DEEP GENERATIONAL DIVIDE

According to the federal Department of Health, two days ago 10 Victorians were in hospital with COVID-19, and none of them were in intensive care.  In fact in the entire country, 16 people were in hospital because of the virus, with one of those being in intensive care in New South Wales.

The response of Victorians to the statement "The lockdowns were necessary and justified early on, but now they have gone too far" reveals a deep generational divide:  48 per cent of respondents agreed, 35 per cent disagreed, and 17 per cent didn't have a view.

But across the age groups of 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54, those who agreed with the statement were a clear majority.  A result that closely corresponds to what we know about the economic and mental health effects of the lockdown.  Fifty-seven per cent of those aged between 25 and 34 thought the lockdowns had now gone too far, while only 26 per cent disagreed.  In comparison, for those aged between 55 and 64, only 38 per cent agreed and 46 per cent disagreed.

When he was re-elected Premier in November 2018, Andrews declared he led "the most progressive government" in "the most progressive state in the nation".

The numbers released this week by federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg on unemployment in Victoria provide a devastating commentary on the success or otherwise of "progressivism".  Victoria's effective unemployment rate is 14 per cent, compared with 7.5 per cent in New South Wales and the national average of 9.4 per cent.  Victorians are 26 per cent of the country's population, but 40 per cent of the country's effectively unemployed.

When Frydenberg called on the Andrews government to reopen Victoria he wasn't "playing politics" ― he was speaking for every Victorian who doesn't enjoy the luxury of a taxpayer-funded guaranteed income.

Maybe Victoria is an advertisement for "progressivism" like Venezuela is an advertisement for "socialism".

Danger Across The Ditch As Incompetent Leader Ardern Wins Office

Nobody skewered Barack Obama during his presidency like legendary comedian Dennis Miller.  "It's not all that dramatic with me and Obama," Miller once told his audience.  "It's not racist, it's not classist, it's not ideological.  It's just that he's an inept civil servant.  He's the guy at the toll booth who's constantly giving out the wrong change."

The same could be said about New Zealand Prime Minister ­Jacinda Ardern.  She's a brilliant politician, but has been a grossly incompetent administrator.  And with her seismic re-election on Saturday, New Zealand is in for a dangerous three years.

"There is a distinct chance that if we don't sort out our economic challenges quickly, New Zealand could end up a failed state," says Oliver Hartwich, executive director of leading think tank the New Zealand Initiative.

Hartwich is right to be worried.  New Zealand has been hit particularly hard by the Ardern government's heavy-handed coronavirus response.  Before COVID-19, tourism was New Zealand's largest export industry, employing 8.4 per cent of its workforce and bringing in over one fifth of the country's foreign exchange earnings.  With corona, this key plank of the NZ economy has been shut down for the foreseeable future.

Fundamental economic indicators are even more concerning.  According to the OECD, New Zealand's GDP could fall by 10 per cent in 2020.  Likewise, unemployment is tipped to rise to just under 9 per cent in 2021 as New Zealand's $14bn corona wage subsidy program ends.  Public debt will soar from 19 per cent of GDP in 2019 to 56 per cent in 2026.

Jacinda Ardern is perhaps the worst person to lead New Zealand through this economic turbulence.  Her first term has been marked by political triumphs but public policy disasters.  Ardern's empathic — even admirable — responses to events like the Christchurch massacre and the White Island volcano have masked a damning suite of failures in government.

Ardern squeaked into office in 2017 promising to deliver 100,000 homes within a decade, but ultimately built just over 500.  Other projects, like a rail link from Auckland airport to the CBD and a new hospital for Dunedin were attempted, but quickly abandoned.  The $3bn Provincial Growth Fund — extracted by Winston Peters in coalition negotiations — has created more jobs in Wellington than it has in the regions.  Labour came to government promising to drive down carbon emissions, homelessness and child poverty;  all three have risen.

As for what Ardern has planned for a second term, the details are patchy.  Labour ran something of a "small target" strategy during the election, relying on the Prime Minister's star power and perceived success in warding off the coronavirus.

But from what we do know about their "policy-lite" platform, Labour will likely exacerbate New Zealand's economic woes.  Hiking income tax, re-regulating the industrial relations system and a bloodcurdling plan for 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030 could turn the corona-induced economic shock into a permanent state of impoverishment for thousands of Kiwis.  Worse-still is the possibility — still not ruled out at time of writing — that Ardern will go into coalition with the Green Party, with their plans for a new "wealth tax" and climate change evangelism on par with the Greens' Australian counterparts.

The great shame is that just three years ago, we could look to New Zealand as a beacon of good government and sensible economic and social reforms.

Over their nine years, the National Party governments of John Key and Bill English cut income and company taxes, brought the budget back to surplus, reformed the labour market and privatised state assets.

The hefty economic windfall was deployed towards a revamped welfare system inspired by what Key and English called "social ­investment".  The leaner but substantially better-targeted spend led to dramatic improvements in everything from welfare dependency and school attendance to crime rates.

But sadly, the National Party that submitted itself to the people on Saturday night was a shell of its old self in government.  It put forward a mixed bag of policies — some decent, like repealing planning laws and temporary tax cuts to kickstart the economy, and some just silly, like introducing a target for electric vehicles.  In any event, the opposition failed to put forward a clear, coherent alternative to Labour.

Throw in the spectacle of having three leaders in five months, constant infighting, and a $4bn hole in its pre-election costings, the Nationals were clearly nowhere near "match fit" in 2020.  They got the shellacking they deserved.

But the surge in support for the libertarian ACT party — which went from 0.5 per cent of the vote to 8 per cent — shows that there is still a constituency for lower taxes and smaller government.  In other words, many were looking for an alternative to Labour's agenda, but the Nationals just didn't offer it.

The end result should be familiar to Australians.  Alarmingly, there are strong parallels between the political dynamics in New Zealand and the state of Victoria:  A first-term Labour government that has steamrolled a weak and divided opposition, a popular leader with a big mandate and a hard-left political temperament, a degraded and politicised public sector, and a largely uncritical and compliant media.

The only hope for New Zealand now is that, whatever horrifying plans that Labour has in store, Jacinda Ardern is just as hopeless at actually implementing them in her second term as she was in her first.

The Reserve Bank's Great Gamble On Interest Rates

The fiscal path outlined in the federal budget will constrain monetary policy and undermine the stability of the Australian economy.  The Reserve Bank of Australia will be forced to pursue expansionary monetary policy that will leave it impotent in the event of future economic headwinds.

The RBA's decade-long experiment with record low interest rates has created an economy that is dependent on low borrowing costs and has emboldened the Federal government to dramatically blow the government debt out to $1.7 trillion over the next decade.

High levels of government and private debt has committed the RBA to a policy of continual monetary expansion that will trap it between a rock and a hard place should price inflation set in.

The dramatic expansion in deficit spending will require the RBA to increase money creation to purchase government debt if it is to maintain low interest rates.  The RBA has already doubled its balance sheet since January to over $300 billion which has contributed to record growth in the money base.  The money base measure, which includes currency held by the private sector and bank deposits with the RBA, is up 48% on this time last year.

In the event that continual growth in the money supply flows through to price inflation, the RBA will be forced to either allow inflation to wreak economic havoc or fight inflation by restraining monetary growth and allowing interest rates to rise.

Increased borrowing costs would reveal the instability of the Australian economy.  Government interest payments would shoot to the top of the budget expenditure list, and Australian households, which have the second highest household debt to GDP ratio in the world behind Switzerland, would quickly go underwater with mortgage defaults causing a housing market decline that could undermine the balance sheets of Australian banks.

The expansion of government debt combined with the RBA's mandates has severely constrained the central bank.  The Reserve Bank Act (1959) charges the RBA with conducting monetary policy to best contribute to "the stability of the currency", "the maintenance of full employment", and "the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia".

For the foreseeable future, the economic prosperity and welfare of Australians depends on low borrowing costs, but achieving this will require continual monetary expansion that risks undermining the stability of the currency.  Given the RBA's charter, it has little option but to attempt to hold the line with low interest rates, hope for modest inflation to assist the indebted economy, and pray that inflation doesn't get out of control.

This shows that the RBA is independent in name only.  For all intents and purposes, its decisions are constrained by the need to accommodate fiscal policy and the rapid expansion of government debt.

However, the RBA's current predicament also reflects a long-term failure of its own monetary policy.  In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis the RBA slashed the cash rate from 7.25% to 3%.  In November 2011, after an attempt to normalise rates, the RBA began a rate cutting cycle that culminated in March this year with the cash rate target being set at 0.25%.  Never before have we had a decade-long period of record low interest rates.  This has facilitated a record level of household debt and enticed governments into deficit spending.  Instead of having a stimulating effect, myopic monetary policy has severely undermined the stability of the Australian economy.

Low interest rates cannot be assumed in the long-term as debt is repaid.  The timeline of repaying the national debt has shifted out decades with my estimating that it could take until 2080 before gross debt is repaid with favourable conditions.  A host of not unlikely scenarios over the next half a century ― including rising interest rates, increased price inflation, and future economic shocks ― could see the Australian economy enter a deep and debilitating depression.

This is not a position of strength to leave to our children and grandchildren.  Pursuing the status quo will not improve Australia's economic resilience.  Governments must recommit to reducing debt by implementing pro-growth reforms, such as cutting red tape and inefficient taxes, reducing the size of government and restraining government spending.

You’re Only Focused On Case Numbers, Dan? Here Are The Shocking Stats Showing Why Lockdown Must End Now

On 10 October, during his daily press conference, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said, "The only numbers I'm focused on is [COVID-19] case numbers."

We knew this already.  That's why Victoria has been subject to the cruel and indefinite lockdown measures that have crippled the economy, caused countless businesses to close for good, and kept school children from seeing their friends for months on end.

What Andrews' admission does not explain, however, is why there has been no nuance in the policy response to the legitimate public health threat posed by COVID-19.  Back in March when very little was known about the new disease, governments responded by implementing blanket lockdown measures to halt the spread of the virus.  The idea was to "flatten the curve" to buy time to ensure that adequate healthcare and contact tracing personnel and infrastructure were in place to deal with community transmission.

Much more is now known about COVID-19, including how it spreads and which population groups are most at risk after contracting it, which treatments are more effective than others, and that over the longer term effective contact tracing systems are far more important than blunt tools such as lockdown measures.

However, the Andrews government has refused to implement a more sophisticated approach to dealing with coronavirus.  It has pursued an unrealistic elimination strategy which was never going to be achievable.

Daniel Andrews' refusal to consider anything other than confirmed case numbers is a concerning admission.  No politician or policymaker should ever advocate policies based on a single consideration.  Since the beginning of the lockdown in late March, I have been highlighting the limitations of such an approach by drawing attention to the social, economic, psychological, and mental and psychical health impacts of lockdown measures.

Here are some other numbers I think Dan Andrews should be aware of.

Lockdowns have thrown 696,000 Victorians out of work, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data.

Since March, 135,400 young Victorians (aged 15-19 years old) have lost their job, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data.

In the June quarter alone private sector wages declined by $1.9 billion while public sector wages increased by $88 million, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data.

Victorian government and public sector debt is approaching $150 billion, or $22,600 per Victorian, according to my analysis of Victorian Budget figures.

Between September and October alone, more than 350,000 Victorians sought access to Medicare-funded GPs, psychiatrists, psychologists and counselling treatments, according to The Australian.

Calls to the support lines of Beyond Blue are 77 per cent higher in Victoria than across the rest of the country.

The number of people hospitalised after attempting suicide is currently up 6% on last year.  For those aged 17 and under, the number is up 31.3%, according to The Australian.

Of Victoria's 79 local government areas, 51 currently have no active cases.  Only one LGA has more than 20 active cases.

There is not a single patient with COVID-19 in intensive care in all of Victoria.

Daniel Andrews' reckless elimination strategy has destroyed Victorian jobs, businesses, and livelihoods.  Zero COVID-19 cases mean zero hope for Victorians.

It's time to end the lockdowns and let Victorians live.

A Day At The ABC

The following is a sneak peek into a day in the life of an intern at the ABC, based on content that has been published either by the ABC or the media about ABC staff.

Congratulations!  You have just started an internship at Australia's public broadcaster, the ABC.

At 9:00am you are ushered into your manager's office, who sits you down to run you through the ABC's editorial guidelines that all staff must follow.

You're asked to acquaint yourself with the updated editorial guidelines which were introduced late last year under the banner of "Hate speech, terrorism and mass killings".  It reads "It is important to avoid language that alienates religious or ethnic groups, therefore, do not speak of 'us' and 'our values' in ways that exclude minorities."

You question this, saying "What?  I thought we were all equal.  Isn't it unifying to include everyone in our portrayal of Australia?"  Your manager chuckles sarcastically and continues to read from the guidelines.  "Racism is now routinely applied to prejudice or discrimination based on a wide range of differences:  ethnicity, skin colour, religion, language, etc."

At 10:30 am you're given your first task, which is to assist with the ABC Radio National program.  This is a big current affairs program, so you're very excited to get started on it.

Your job is to book guests, which should be easy.  You decide that you will stick to the ABC's charter and try to balance out guests from the left and right to ensure impartiality.  But you find that your task is bogged down in red tape.

You are handed a "content tracker" which is part of the ABC's Diversity & Inclusion Plan.  "The ABC must look and sound like modern Australia, and include all Australians in what we do."  Thinking that seems pretty straight forward and without reading any further, you go to book Mark Latham, an elected member of the NSW parliament, on the program.

Within minutes however, you're tapped on the shoulder by your manager, who asks "Didn't you read the content tracker?  We don't mean diversity of opinion.  The content tracker allows you to see how you are including groups which might be under-represented in our content, including women, Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders, people from CALD backgrounds, LGTBI people, and people with disabilities."

"Isn't it dehumanising and undignified for the ABC to be making important editorial decisions based on someone's skin colour or superficial attribute rather than on their merit, hard work and journalistic integrity?" you ask.

Your manager points you to the following paragraph in the ABC's Editorial Guidelines:  "Electoral success does confer some legitimacy in a democracy ― it is hard to argue that support sufficient to elect politicians to federal parliament does not represent a 'significant perspective in the community'.  However, it does not exempt politicians from being vigorously challenged, nor does it oblige the ABC to broadcast hate speech.  However, fringe political players should not be elevated simply because they create controversy."

"This is why we cannot invite Mark Latham onto the program," he says.

At midday, the Community and Public Sector Union delegate addresses staff, calling on them to reject the six-month pay freeze that the rest of the public service has taken in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.  "You deserve the $5 million worth of pay rises.  It doesn't matter that the rest of the media has shed jobs at a great pace.  We are part of the cultural fabric of Australia, and it doesn't matter that 606,000 Australians have lost their jobs in the private sector.  We can keep saying 'we are all in this together' while taking a 2 per cent pay rise, because you deserve it!"

At 3:00 pm you get sent back to the main office and you take a seat next to Barbara Heggen, a radio producer who has started the "Climate Crisis Advisory Group".  Barbara takes you along to a working group meeting.  Armed with a notepad and pen you get ready to note down healthy discussion about the science and challenging of orthodox views.  Barbara introduces the group's aim, which is to:  "Gather together the brains trust of ABC staffers to develop ways to report on and inform Australians about the climate crisis using a solutions journalism approach.  To report back to ABC Management our ideas and strategies for responding to the climate crisis both internally and externally."

The first item on the agenda is what ABC staff members can do around the office to make a more climate friendly workplace.  Hands go up and voices start bemoaning the lack of solar panels in the Melbourne Southbank studios.  One staff member states, "There are so many other things that should be happening but aren't in this building ... We should be encouraging the café on site to charge much more for coffees in takeaway containers and a bigger discount for keep cups."  Another staff member from Hobart pipes in on the teleconference, "We have a large surface area of roofing, perfect for solar panels."  At this juncture, you decide to ask a question.  "Isn't Tasmania 100 per cent Hydro?  Why would we need solar panels if its 100 per cent renewable anyway?"  The group stares at you for a moment and moves on.

Another voice asks from Brisbane, "Sometimes when I'm on the late shift in Brisbane I go around and try to find remotes to turn the TVs off.  They're everywhere and no one is watching them, often during the day ... Best to avoid hypocrisy where possible."  "But surely, it's the main job of staff at a news station to monitor what's on our channel?" you ask, but once again, you are ignored.

The staff move on to discuss their journalism on the topic of climate change.  Many speak glowingly of what is commonly referred to as an internal newsletter, the Guardian Australia, and their model of "advocacy journalism".  "We need a solutions-based journalism approach.  Why don't we get one of the ageing Chaser boys to do a documentary about how our pesky politicians have failed on climate?"  "Great idea!"  The room applauds.

You have had enough.  You stand up and object:  "How can we expect the ABC to cover very serious policy discussions like the cost of climate policies impartially, when so many of you hold an activist position on the topic?  Just last year we had what many journalists in this room described as 'the climate election'.  Voters have rejected divisive climate policies at election after election.  You are funded by taxpayers to be impartial, yet you are clearly seeking to push a narrative, that is against the ABC's charter."

The room erupts with laughter.

At 5:00pm you then decide the public broadcaster is not for you and quit.  It is clearly not your ABC, it's not even ours, it's theirs.

A Target Of Zero Cases Means Zero Jobs, Zero Freedom And Zero Hope. Here’s A Better Way

Australia needs a COVID-19 reset.

After seven hard months of social isolation, economic pain and despair about the future, the time has come to change course.

COVID-19 is not going anywhere.  It never was.

This virus cannot be eliminated;  there is no vaccine.

It will not be avoided;  global transmissions are surging.

What is clear is that the virus spreads faster than influenza and without a vaccine, it will kill more people than it.

These facts alone justify a unique response.  But that response must be proportionate to the risk.

Children should be educated, family must be cared for, and debt has to be serviced.

None of these things are possible under a never-ending lockdown.

Lockdowns do not work because they are a flawed solution to a complex problem.

They curtail personal freedom by ignoring demographic resistance.

They lack proportionality by outlawing activities which pose a minimal threat to public health.

And they polarise communities by divvying up exemptions based on employment and social status.

These realities are anathema to Australian society.  We have never lived this way and we can't be expected to any longer.

COVID-19 is already changing Australia for the worse.

As you read this, our people are further dividing into two Australias.

The first part comprises those Australians whose employment remains unaffected by the crisis ― predominantly public sector workers.  This group of Australians have kept their jobs, grown in number, and even enjoyed pay rises.

The second part are those Australians whose lives now lie in ruins.  They are young Australians, small business owners, the self-employed, and those otherwise employed in the productive, private part of the economy.

Twelve months ago, the later were the backbone of Australian prosperity.  Today, they are the victims of government decision-makers immune to adversity.

Embittering the public mood has been the uneven application of lockdown enforcement.

Again, two distinct Australias have emerged.

Celebrities like Shane Warne leave the nation to commentate on cricket in the UK, while regular Australians are refused travel for funerals or palliative care.

Black Lives Matter protestors take to the street in defiance of social distancing orders, yet mainstream Australians are the ones fined for holding picnics and BBQs.

And foreign students can easily traverse our country, but agricultural workers living along state borders cannot.

Sadly, all of this has been done in the pursuit of a goal which cannot be achieved ― virus elimination.

Without a proper debate or public approval, governments across the nation have dumped the goal of "flattening the curve" in favour of "virus elimination" ― an ambition which is unachievable without a vaccine or an end to global transmissions.

And as each government demands greater and greater sacrifice from the public in pursuit of this goal, the Australian community suffers ever more.

Intentionally or otherwise, Australia's COVID-19 response has placed the nation on a highway to nowhere without an off-ramp.

A target of zero cases means zero jobs, zero freedom, and zero hope.  And we have had enough.

Australia needs a plan to live with COVID-19 where the risks of infection are balanced against the risks long-term lockdowns impose on greater society.

Recently, I released my Medical Capacity:  An Alternative to Lockdowns report, offering a pathway for achieving that balance.

Medical Capacity confirms that the cost of a COVID-19 elimination strategy is over $319 billion.

This figure is the equivalent to 2.2 times the total annual value of Australia's entire Health Care and Social Assistance industry ($142.9 billion) and is equal to the 2018-19 Commonwealth Government expenditure on defence, education, health, and social security and welfare combined.

Medical Capacity charts a more reasonable course.

It acknowledges the risks posed by COVID-19 ― and manages them.

It recognises the human costs of lockdown ― and alleviates them.

Critically, it incorporates the latest learnings about the virus to ensure our risk management approach evolves alongside it.

The best COVID-19 response has always been about balance.

Governments should put in place measures to protect the elderly and vulnerable, implement high-quality contact tracing, continue with random community testing, and maintain international border control measures.

Equally, they must put an end to extreme lockdowns and relax social distancing measures so that economic, social, and recreational life can return to normal.

It is never too late to correct a mistake.  It is never too late to restore freedom.

A new approach is required to steer Australia through the next stage of this pandemic.

And that approach is ready right now.

We Know Daniel Andrews Has Maimed Melbourne. He’s Also Wreaking Ruin In The Regions

The implementation of Victoria's lockdown restrictions highlights the growing divide between Melbourne and regional Victoria.  The Melbourne centric Victorian government has ignored the issues faced by regional Victorians, failing to implement measures in proportion to the varying risk of coronavirus across the state.

To understand why many regional Victorians are frustrated with the restrictions one has only to look at the active cases map of Victoria.  There are 139 active cases in Melbourne but only five cases across regional Victoria, a landmass larger than most European countries.  These five cases are just beyond the border of metropolitan Melbourne.  Yet, the Andrews government has inexplicably tied any further easing of restrictions in regional Victoria to case numbers in Melbourne.

In the shire of Corangamite in south-west Victoria, there have only ever been three cases, there has been no community transmission, and there are zero active cases.  Yet the restrictions in place are still more severe in many respects than the restrictions imposed on the hardest hit councils in Melbourne between March and August.

The Andrews government's Melbourne-centric policy has failed to account for the lower risk of transmission in regional Victoria.  The Corangamite Shire, for example, has 0.04 people per hectare compared to Greater Melbourne's 5 people per hectare.  It doesn't take an expert in epidemiology to work out that the risk of viral disease is not uniform between regional Victoria and a city with 135 times the population density.

When questioned as to why it is mandatory to wear a mask outside when there is no one in the same square kilometre, Daniel Andrews dismissed the issue as an "esoteric debate".  It is hardly esoteric for the many Victorians who work in wide-open outdoor spaces, who may encounter 50 head of cattle for every human, and are far removed from the world of packed trains and office elevators.

Shutting down businesses and preventing social interaction in areas with zero cases of coronavirus is indefensible, especially when the government maintains that it is not pursuing an eradication strategy.  There is no science or rational risk assessment that supports making masks mandatory for those walking the streets of Mildura, a town more than five hours drive from the nearest known case.

Not being allowed to have people in your own home, visit loved ones, or operate your business to capacity when there are no cases of coronavirus in the district is an absurd restriction, and would not have been believed possible several months ago.

There is no reason why restrictions cannot be further eased in low-risk areas to minimise the cost to the social and economic wellbeing of Victorians while maintaining the mitigation of the spread of the virus.

The restrictions that have needlessly damaged the social and economic health of regional Victoria have been implemented by a government with no incentive to care about regional Victoria.  The Victorian Labor party can comfortably form government by controlling Melbourne electorates and the electorates between Bendigo, Ballarat, and Geelong.  Even with its landslide victory in 2018, Labor only won the one electorate outside of this corridor.  The concentration of political power into Victoria's cities has resulted in a blanket treatment of regional Victoria as a broad region that can be safely ignored.

Victorians are increasingly being divided into two, in more ways than one.  One Victoria can be categorised as regional and suburban, being employed in small productive-sector businesses, with higher rates of self-employment, and without political connections, while the other Victoria is centralised in the cities, employed in the public service, health or education, and politically connected.

The Victoria in the private sector experienced a 4.2% decline in wages in the June quarter in the wake of the current crisis while the other Victoria in the public sector has seen their wages increase by 0.7%.  This has been made possible by a Labor government that The Herald Sun's James Campbell describes as "simply a machine for shovelling money to public sector workers.  Nothing more, nothing less."

The Andrews government's Melbourne-centric approach has prevented vast segments of Victoria from reopening and returning to their normal way of life built on enjoying and caring for family, religious worship, the ability to run businesses and experience the dignity of work.  The restrictions have been implemented in a way that has caused needless damage and widened the gap between two Victorias.

This Massive Debt Is With Us Till 2080

"Insouciance" is a word Australians don't use very often.  Maybe we should.

It perfectly describes the popular reaction to this week's federal budget and the news the country faces more than a trillion dollars of government debt.

Australians are also insouciant about the jobs of a quarter of the nation's workforce now being dependent on wage subsidies from the government.

And the Coalition seems insouciant about the political consequences of government spending going from $549 billion and 28 per cent of GDP in 2019-20 to an estimated $677 billion and 39 per cent of GDP in 2020-21.

To be insouciant is, according to various definitions, to be "apathetic", "carefree", "unconcerned", and "with no feelings of worry or guilt".  That's been the prevailing attitude to the national economy for the past decade, and it looks set to continue.  It's an attitude that's the product of 29 years without a recession.

To take the last point first, eventually it's going to dawn on the Labor Party, as it already has on the Democrats in the United States, that such massive increases in government spending can pave the way for the introduction of a universal basic income (basically a non-means-tested guaranteed government welfare payment for every adult).  A universal basic income is already advocated by the Australian Greens.

Leaving aside the philosophical arguments against the concept, the biggest hurdle to its implementation is what it costs ― if it were paid at the rate of the minimum wage, it would cost at least an additional $100 billion a year in government spending.

Before March, that was an astronomical sum.  Now, not so much.  A universal basic income is a lot closer to reality than it was six months ago.

With the Coalition for all intents and purposes guaranteeing the government would pay at least part of the wages of workers who would otherwise have been unemployed because of COVID-19, it's now not that big a step for Labor to guarantee a "wage" to everyone, whether in work or not ― which is the "income" part of the universal basic income.  (The genius of the left is in describing a welfare payment not as "welfare" but as "basic income".)

BASIC INCOME PLAN COULD CHANGE THE DEBATE

As soon as the ALP declares itself for a universal basic income, all the contours of the country's political debate will change.  Labor will be seen to have a plan, and it will take the policy initiative.

Meanwhile the Coalition will be left attempting to explain why, if it's already willing to increase government debt by hundreds of billions, it doesn't want to borrow just a little bit more to provide an adequate standard of living to the hundreds of thousands of Australians, especially young Australians, whose job prospects and futures have been blighted by the pandemic.

My analysis following the release of the budget reveals that even on the most optimistic assumptions, the federal government will not pay off its debt until the 2080s ― even if future governments wanted to.

While interest rates are less than 1 per cent, it's easy to be insouciant about the consequences of gross debt at more than 50 per cent of GDP.  To expect interests will stay at their current level for the next 40 years is as heroic an assumption as that made by Treasury when, in preparing this year's budget, it assumed "a population-wide Australian COVID-19 vaccination program [would be] fully in place by late 2021".

To all of this the Prime Minister and Coalition ministers respond, not completely unreasonably, "What's the alternative?"

Many of the government's fiscal measures are appropriate and are necessary to maintain the country's social and economic fabric ― especially in the face of mismanagement and parochialism on the part of state governments.

An additional $100 billion of government spending could have bought a lot of reform.

Income tax scales could have been properly flattened, social security could have been redesigned to focus on getting people into work, and state governments could have been given the fiscal incentives to cut their red tape.

The problem with the 2020-21 federal budget is not even so much what's in it.  It's what's not in it that's the problem.

It remains to be seen for how long Australians will be insouciant about their country's economic condition.

Unprecedented Panic Over Bushfire Impact

The word "unprecedented" is often applied to des­tructive climate-related events, as though they could not have been predicted, and have never happened before.  Last summer's bushfires were no different.  But were they really unprecedented?

This narrative creates anxiety because it follows that there really is a climate emergency and that we have pushed nature out of ­balance.

Appearing as a witness to the Royal Commission into bushfires earlier this year, Andrew Johnson, the head of the Bureau of Meteorology stated confidently that parts of Australia had experienced a rapid decline in rainfall.  He used this to state "unequivocal" and "there's no doubt" that climate change was having some sort of an impact on Australia's bushfire seasons.

One can assume he was referring to the southeast of Australia because vast areas of eucalyptus forest burnt in the southeast last summer.  Yet you only have to look at the official statistics from the Bureau of Meteorology's own website for this region to see that annual rainfall is variable, and while the 1950s and 1970s were wetter than recent years, there is no evidence of long-term decline in rainfall.

Whichever way the statistics are scrutinised, there is no evidence of a long-term decline in rainfall in the southeast of Australia for the summer period just past, or even considering the data for all of Australia for all months since 1900.

The wildfires that burnt so much of Australia during the summer of 2019-20 have been repeatedly described as unprecedented and blamed on climate change.  But without supporting statistics.

In reality, areas as extensive and fires as ferocious have burnt Australia since at least 1851.

Rainfall data indicates it is getting wetter (not drier) in southeastern Australia, the region worst hit by the recent fires.  While the official statistics show unambiguously that summer rainfall has been increasing, not decreasing as claimed in the mainstream media, it is difficult to know if air temperatures are increasing, or not, because of all the changes to how Australia's Bureau of Meteorology measures temperature.

The change from mercury thermometers to electronic probes in 1996, and the more recent change from numerical averaging to just taking one-second spot readings since 2012, makes it impossible to construct meaningful continuous historical temperature series.  In other parts of the world where electronic probes are used to measure air temperature, the instantaneous one-second readings are averaged over at least one minute, and in the US over five minutes.

Vast areas of open eucalyptus forests did burn in southeast Australia this last summer.

These wildfires incinerated millions of hectares of important habitat for rare and endangered animal ­species, and koalas in East Gippsland.  The impact on local human communities has also been devastating, with so many lives lost and so much property destroyed.

As much as 5.4 million hectares burned in NSW this past summer.  This was used to claim the fires were unprecedented in extent and further proved the climate change link.  Except that somewhere in the vicinity of 7.2 million hectares burned during the summer of 1951-52.

A CSIRO report titled the "Bushfire History of the south coast Study Area" details fires at Bega, Nowra, Mt Dromelly and other parts of southern NSW in 1951.

Fires consumed that same coastal strip again in 1994.  So rather than ­unprecedented, regular in occur­rence would be a more accurate way of ­describing bushfire events in ­Australia.

Severe bushfires like the fires ­experienced this past summer are weather-related, in that they are usually preceded by high temperatures, low relative humidity, strong winds and a rainfall deficit.  But a key fact often forgotten at places like the ABC is that there must also be critically high fuel loads for fires to take hold.

Fuel is live and dead vegetation ­accumulates over time.  When fuel loads are kept low though regular hazard reduction burning, fires are unlikely to kill all the understorey plant species or the tree layer.

The area of forest in the southeast of Australia has been expanding even as public support for the necessary hazard reduction burning has been waning.

Support has been waning because hazard reduction burning involves ­active management, which is generally considered incompatible with wilderness values.  The concept of wilderness derives from the idea of a balance of nature, which does not actually have a basis in the ecological sciences.  It is a myth:  a widely held but possibly false belief or idea.

Excluding appropriate fire regimes from open eucalyptus forests will not keep them in their current state, ­rather it can have the effect of simply making them more prone to severe fires that will eventually destroy them.

Across Australia, a better understanding of traditional Aboriginal burning methods, and the types of vegetation that existed before European settlement, could result in more support for the active management of wilderness areas, including for more hazard reduction burning.

A focus on hazard reduction burning to keep landscapes generally more open and thus safer for people and wildlife, would be more useful than blaming climate change — at least until there is better quality ­assurance of actual temperature measurements.

Those pushing the line that our ­recent bushfires have been unprecedented should check the facts.

Australia's Travel Strategy ― Imprisoning Its People Until A Vaccine Arrives ― Is Illiberal And Naive

If you were thinking of seeing friends and family from Australia next year, think again.

Maybe after living under Boris Johnson's restrictions for the next six months, you'd want to get as far away from your house as possible.  Or maybe Australians ― some of whom haven't been able to leave the house for more than two hours since July ― wanted to visit you.

But our federal government won't let you.

And it is hard to be optimistic when you read two key assumptions Frydenberg made about the budget when speaking to the National Press Club on Wednesday:  "International travel, including by tourists and international students, is assumed to remain largely closed off until late next year and then gradually return over time, and a vaccine to be available around the end of 2021 is one of the assumptions in the budget."

The vaccine assumption is naivety.  The travel assumption is economically catastrophic and hurts the freedoms of Australians and those who want to visit our country.  Frankly, that anyone facing 60 years of debt would cut off a major revenue stream, especially when there are safe alternatives, is astounding.

International travel is vital to the Australian economy.  In 2019, there were 9.4 million international visitors ― 344,000 of those from the UK ― and the tourism industry employed 666,000 people ― 5.2% of total employment, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

And as of 2019, international students brought $34.9 billion a year to Australia.

Australia cannot afford to lose this money for another full year.  And potentially more years to come.

Because that's the reality of waiting for a vaccine.  No one knows when a vaccine will be available.  And even when one does become available, there are now doubts about whether it will be effective.

The Oxford University vaccine, which Australians have thought of as our saviour, needed to be paused after a participant experienced an adverse reaction.  Clearly, we're still a long way from a cure.

These are only the economic problems with this ban on travel, but there is bigger picture here ― a liberal democratic government is stopping citizens from leaving its country, and preventing our friends and family from overseas visiting us.

Between March 25 and July 31, 69,310 Australians were prevented by the government from leaving the country, and only 22,640 were granted permission.  Among those was Shane Warne, who was allowed to leave to the UK commentate cricket.  Among those prevented was Donna Burton, who couldn't see her only daughter get married and had to forfeit her £1,100 air fare to London.

These numbers have improved as Australians find ways to increase their chances of the governments accepting their application ― such as moving to another country for three months as opposed to the traditional length of "however long you would like".  Yet still 13,311 applications to travel overseas have been outright rejected, over 10% of applications.

This banning means Australia joins Belarus, Namibia and the Ivory Coast as countries that have stopped its residents travelling overseas, even though they can quarantine themselves on their return.  New Zealand, famous for its aggressive eradication strategy, never even went that far.

And 27,000 Australians have registered to return home from overseas, some have been waiting months.  They will have to wait longer.

For Brits, and the rest of the world, the border is closed.  As Frydenberg says, it will be until late next year, assuming a vaccine is found.

Britain has a much worse problem with coronavirus infections than Australia.  There are less than 250 active cases in Australia, and keeping its citizens safe is one of the most fundamental roles of government.

That does not mean a ban on Brits travelling here is the right response.  There are safe ways in which the government can stop coronavirus spreading rapidly while also keeping key freedoms alive and money coming in.

Outside of Victoria, most of Australia has done well with installing mandatory hotel quarantine for international arrivals and keeping the virus out of the community.  Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently praised how well home quarantining worked at the start of the virus as well for returning travellers from China.

But the plan can't be locking down until a vaccine is found.  Eradication has not been achieved anywhere in the world, and if the Australian government continue down this path, no cases will mean no hope for the 666,000 people employed in tourism last year and no hope for the thousands cut off from their friends and families by Australia's border closure.

The Australian government, like all governments, must learn to live with this virus and keep us a part of the world.

REVEALED: Get Set For Debt Until 2080

Australia is unlikely to be debt-free until 2080 as a result of the lockdowns implemented in response to COVID-19.  The much anticipated 2020-21 Budget does not even attempt to highlight a path out of debt and deficits, leaving mainstream Australians with little hope that the bill for the largest public policy failure in the nation's history will be paid off in their children's lifetimes.

My modelling has estimated that it could take until 2045-46 for the Commonwealth government to deliver a budget surplus, with total debt expected to peak at $2.05 trillion and not be paid off until 2079-80.

This modelling is based on a scenario where nominal gross domestic product grows at an average rate of 3% per year, and where the federal government is committed to fiscal responsibility by pursuing Howard-era budget surpluses equivalent to about 1% of GDP.

In reality, there is little hope that any Australians alive today will be around to see the nation released from this debt burden.  And if there is another economic shock between now and 2080, which there almost certainly will be, the debt and deficit situation can only get worse.

All Australians will be paying for the lockdowns over their lifetimes.  From the young people who have disproportionately suffered and are at greatest risk from economic "scars", to small business owners who have lost everything, mainstream Australians are suffering.  Meanwhile, the public sector continues to grow, with about 20,000 new jobs added since March, while the productive, private economy has been hammered.  As the nation is plunged further into debt, senior bureaucrats and politicians who have no "skin in the game" are happy to maintain a fanciful strategy of elimination.  Not one of them has lost their job, and many have received pay rises.  It's no wonder they see little that is wrong with the lockdowns.

The only path out of this catastrophic debt situation is for the Morrison government to pursue real liberal reforms based on reducing the size of government and allowing the private sector to flourish.

Rather than subsidising companies that hire young people receiving JobSeeker, for example, the Morrison government should engage in structural reform of the industrial relations system.  Carving small businesses out of the Fair Work Act 2009 would be a far more efficient way to create jobs than by betting against the current policy settings.

The bloated public sector should be also reduced, and wages for senior public servants and politicians earning more than $150,000 should be frozen until the unemployment rate is back to around 5%.  According to a poll published in April, 74% of Australians want public servants and politicians earning over this amount to take a 20% pay cut to demonstrate that we are all in this together.

Structural reform and massive cuts to red tape are vital for getting the economy back on track.  This means reducing the $176 billion red tape burden, which robs Australians of job opportunities and pay rises each year, and permanently reducing the size and scope of the government.

One of the only positive features of the Budget was that Stage 2 personal income tax cuts were brought forward from July 2022 to July 2020, meaning that workers will receive an almost–immediate boost to their take-home pay.  While this was a welcome move, the Morrison government should have brought Stage 3 forward as well.  Stage 3 will be the most significant reform to the tax system in recent years, providing a significant step towards a more efficient and fair income tax arrangement.  The cuts were voted for at the 2019 election and have since been legislated, so it would make perfect sense to bring them forward in recognition of the fact that individuals and families know how to spend their own money better than government.

Commonwealth budgets are likely to remain in the doldrums for the next half a century.  The only way out is for the Morrison government to commit to liberal values, reduce the size of government, unleash the economy through industrial relations reform and red tape cuts, and to practice fiscal responsibility.

Identity Politics Will Destroy The Arts

When Australia's most generous musical theatre scholarship, the Rob Guest Endowment, recently published the names of thirty semi-finalists who were in the running to win a $50,000 scholarship, fellow actor and performer Hayden Tee seized upon the list, scrutinised the names and arrived at the conclusion that the line-up did not meet his expectations of racial diversity.  Mr Tee then took it upon himself to write an open letter to the selection committee in which he described its choice of nominees as a "whitewash".  Presumably, the pun was not intended.

Instead of sticking to its guns, the Rob Guest Endowment swiftly capitulated, issued a grovelling apology, vowed to do better and cancelled the scholarship for 2020.  So much for supporting the younger generation and "helping them achieve their dreams" as the endowment proudly purports to do.

Worse still, it was not only the Rob Guest Endowment that took heed of Mr Tee's objections.  In what can only be described as the ultimate display of virtue signalling, the semi-finalists who had spent months of blood, sweat and tears working towards the competition, resolved collectively that their overwhelming whiteness indeed rendered them unworthy of financial assistance in the form of a scholarship.

By way of interest, Mr Tee, who has had a glittering international career thus far treading the boards of productions such as Les Misérables, Matilda the Musical and My Fair Lady has also pledged to "create an anti-racist and decolonised Australian Theatre Industry" and "to be a lifelong ally".  Interestingly, he is yet to add to his list of pledges the promise that he will "Reject any future lucrative offers to appear on Broadway or in the West End".  It seems that Mr Tee would like to be woke, but not just quite yet.

This total surrender by both the Rob Guest Endowment and the nominees to the forces which seek to undermine the culture of Western civilisation, including musical theatre, is hardly surprising.  In this day and age, it takes an immense amount of courage to push back against this fanatical element of our society which is going about the business of denigrating, deconstructing and cancelling everything we have with a prodigious and terrifying energy.

In Australia, the arts world is replete with activists who have embarked upon a path of career suicide from which there is no return.  Last year for example, a group of musicians and composers penned a peculiarly entitled petition, "Opera and the doing of women", in which they claimed that they had had enough of "entrenched bias, the structural nature of sexism and other exclusionary forces that are reflected in many of the norms, expectations and practices of opera as an artform" and demanded that Opera Australia do something about it.  Thankfully, artistic director Lyndon Terracini roundly rejected the hysterical calls, saying in no uncertain terms that "it would be irresponsible of us to decide that some of the major works in the Western canon shouldn't be seen".

Unfortunately, the Rob Guest Endowment does not have a Lyndon Terracini on their books to point out how ludicrous this all is.  Neither, it seems, does the Australia Council of the Arts.  Since April, the Council has generously dished out over $7.6 million worth of taxpayers' money under an emergency "Resilience Fund" to a range of artists clearly obsessed with identity politics and whose works range from sitting in cubes in order to express their disdain for conservative ideologies;  to smashing the patriarchy by sending things into outer space;  to knitting giant blue scarves as a protest about coal mining.

But perhaps the most pernicious venture that the Australia Council for the Arts is funding in conjunction with the Victorian state government's Create Victoria, is an organisation called Creatives of Colour.  This group operates under the assumption that the Australian arts scene is so dangerously racist that non-white artists need "survival strategies" in order to safely make it through each day without being lynched by the mob.

Among the many pieces of advice proffered to minorities, it says "Align yourself with those who have lost the most and who have the most to lose from colonisation, i.e. First Nations and BIPOC.  If it is not safe for them, it will not be safe for you.  If a predominantly White space does not treat a First Nations person or a 'Blak' person as a full human being, they will not see you as a full human being either".  It also warns the following:  "It is very rare to meet a White Ally whose actions are not self-serving in some form or another (e.g. they do what they do to make themselves feel good, rather than actually understanding that they have a responsibility to 'pay back' some of the privilege that has helped them to coast through life, by 'doing' as an ally would)".  The language used by Creatives of Colour is offensive and bigoted and there is no place for it in Australian society.

It would not be at all surprising to find out that the folk at Creatives of Colour have been taking notes from a document called "White Supremacy Culture in Organisation".  Currently doing the rounds in Canada, this piece of critical race theory thinly disguised as a management guide is being hastily adopted by a great many arts organisations who are vowing to use it as a manual to completely remake their organisational structures in the coming years.

The upshot of the document is that white people need to acknowledge that attributes like hard work, perfectionism, meritocracy, the written word and individualism are trappings of "white privilege" and thus need to be expunged from any organisation.

If it were it to be adopted by the Australia Council for the Arts, for example, it would signal the death knell for the entire arts community.  This kind of dangerous and short-sighted identity politics does nothing but create division and resentment.  It diminishes the quality of the arts, creates a resistance of highly talented people who are missing out on opportunities and is an insult to the talented and hard-working people of other cultures.