Dear FreedomWatch readers,
This site will no longer host new FreedomWatch articles. From now on, all new articles will be uploaded to the IPA’s new website at https://www.ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/freedomwatch.
Dear FreedomWatch readers,
This site will no longer host new FreedomWatch articles. From now on, all new articles will be uploaded to the IPA’s new website at https://www.ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/freedomwatch.
IPA calculations reveal that a Trump-style “one-in, “two-out” rule to regulation would have cut red tape by over 107,000 pages since 2013. The Australian today covered the IPA’s latest report:
Analysis by conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs found that if at least two regulations were scrapped for every new one introduced under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, there would be 107,885 fewer regulatory pages and 6990 fewer rules.
It follows revelations in The Weekend Australian that the number of pages of commonwealth environmental laws had ballooned more than 80-fold since they began in 1971…
Small Business Minister Michael McCormack said the Coalition had reduced red tape by $5.8bn in the past 3½ years but was “certainly open to considering how a one-in, two-out rule may work for small business”.
“By making sensible and simple changes to paperwork, we will enable Australian businesses to spend more time on their business — pursuing new ideas, growing and creating jobs — and less time on unnecessary paperwork, boosting competitiveness,” he said.
Declaring red tape was one of the “primary factors holding back prosperity in Australia”, IPA research fellow Daniel Wild said the rule being used by US President Donald Trump would provide a structured approach to reducing red tape…
“Countries around the world have dedicated regulatory reform programs, but it is noticeably absent in Australia. This makes us less competitive and hinders our ability to attract international investment,” Mr Wild said.
“My main concern is the cumulative effect regulation has on our economy … We need to have a process that forces government agencies to think twice before they (add) regulation.”
The Weekend Australian today reported on the IPA’s recent report into the growth of federal environmental laws since 1971:
In 1971, when the McMahon Liberal government introduced the first commonwealth environment laws under the new Department of Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, they covered just 57 pages of legislation and regulation.
Last year, federal environmental laws stretched to 4,669 pages… after peaking at 5,004 pages in 2014 just after the Coalition ousted the Rudd-Gillard Labor government.
According to an analysis by the conservative Institute of Public Affairs, the size of the environmental bureaucracy had grown “persistently larger” since 1971.
The growth in federal environmental law dampens investment beyond the vexatious use of court challenges that have separately been estimated to have cost $1.2bn in investment in recent years. The IPA’s assessment of commonwealth environmental regulation finds “the burden of environmental laws has grown considerably, contributing to the significant red tape problem”.
The institute has calculated that red tape, not just so-called green lawfare that activists employ to delay and frustrate large developments, is costing the economy $176bn a year in foregone output.
“The burden of red tape is incurred across all industries and results in a range of economic costs,” the report says. “Environmental law is a significant part of this regulatory framework. Environmental red tape and regulation in particular has grown significantly in recent decades.”
The IPA argues that the commonwealth should devolve its environmental laws to the states to prevent duplication and red tape, while avoiding “a one size fits all” solution that suits activists opposed to development…
Simon Breheny, director of the free-market IPA think tank, told The Weekend Australian the “massive growth in federal environmental law places a significant burden on the economy”… He called for the federal government to “look at ways to address Australia’s red-tape problem”.
The study highlighted the plight of the Adani Carmichael mine project in central Queensland, which has been targeted by activists trying to stop the Galilee basin opening to coal mining.
The Adani central mining project application has been running for seven years and faced more than 10 court challenges. It includes a 22,000-page environmental impact statement.
In the Pilbara in Western Australia, the Roy Hill iron ore mine had to obtain 4000 separate licences, approvals and permits just for the pre-construction phase. The Productivity Commission reported in 2013 that one project had to meet 1500 government-imposed primary conditions and 8000 sub-conditions…
The Turnbull government vowed to review environmental laws to prevent activist groups’ legal challenges to development projects ranging from dams and roads to coalmines. It said challenges under section 487 of the Environment Act, which allows anyone with a “special interest in the environment” the right to challenge, were becoming more “vexatious and frivolous”. Of 32 legal challenges under the act that went to court, developers spent a cumulative 7,500 days — or 20 years — in court even though 28 of the environmental cases were defeated and three required only minor technical changes to go ahead.
Chris Merritt in The Australian today reporting on the ALP’s plan to resurrect the Gillard government’s failed attempt to consolidate federal anti-discrimination laws in 2012:
Mr Dreyfus has confirmed that if Labor is elected to government he will be considering imposing a general standard for speech that infringes anti-discrimination law.
Under Labor’s proposal, advocates of same-sex marriage would be empowered, for example, to take legal action under 18C-style laws if they felt offended or insulted by those who publicly defended the traditional definition of marriage. Those at risk would include priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders who publicly oppose same-sex marriage.
Labor’s proposal also opens the prospect that debate over the cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme could be truncated because of the risk of litigation by those who might feel offended or insulted.
Mr Dreyfus outlined Labor’s thinking during a panel discussion on Wednesday last week with Liberal backbencher Tim Wilson, hosted by the Jewish Community Council of Victoria.
In the video of the event, Mr Dreyfus said a Labor government hoped to consolidate all federal anti-discrimination legislation and would consider whether there should be a general standard for the type of speech that would attract liability under that law. At the moment, separate federal laws make it unlawful to discriminate against people because of their race, age, sex and sexual orientation, disability and indigeneity.
When Mr Dreyfus was asked by an audience member if section 18C should be extended to cover gender and disability, he said Mr Wilson had reminded him of the “failed project which I hope to return to of consolidating the five anti-discrimination statutes when we are next in government”.
“One of the things we’ll be looking at is this very point of whether or not we should set a standard about speech generally,” Mr Dreyfus said.
“I want to have standards set in a community which respect the dignity of every Australian. I think it’s very important and something to be fought for.”
When asked yesterday about his remarks, Mr Dreyfus said Labor would never support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
“The consolidation of discrimination law was a policy of the Gillard Labor government,” he said. “My discussion of this issue last week was clearly hypothetical, and is not relevant to the current proposed changes to section 18C which will do nothing but weaken protections against racial hate speech in this country.”
Labor’s proposal has come to light at a time when the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with a surge in complaints by those claiming to have been offended and insulted under section 18C. Section 18C makes it unlawful to do anything that causes people to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour or national or ethnic background.
From the Wall Street Journal on the extent of the red tape problem in the United States:
[President Trump] will need every bit of political skill he can muster if he wants to provide emergency relief to citizens caught in another blizzard that is emanating daily from Washington. According to a report out today from the indispensable Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, on top of the thousands of rules the federal government churns out, the feds have also been issuing nearly 25,000 “notices” every year telling Americans what to do in the absence of any new law or regulation. Mr. Crews also finds that not even federal agencies can agree on how many federal agencies there are. Estimates range from 61 to 443. The United States Government Manual guesses there are 316. It seems that our government has forgotten more of its departments than some countries will ever know.
Yesterday we mentioned Mr. Trump’s plan to reorganize the government. He’s giving his budget director Mick Mulvaney a year to produce a plan to cut agencies that are redundant, fail to provide public benefits worth the cost or “would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise.”
This might seem like a hopeless effort, like so many previous initiatives dedicated to fighting Beltway waste, fraud and abuse. What makes this effort more intriguing is that Mr. Trump has nominated to the Supreme Court a judge who actually cares about this stuff and even seems to understand the problem.
“Executive agencies today are permitted not only to enforce legislation but to revise and reshape it through the exercise of so-called ‘delegated’ legislative authority,” wrote Judge Neil Gorsuch in a 2016 opinion. “The number of formal rules these agencies have issued thanks to their delegated legislative authority has grown so exuberantly it’s hard to keep up. The Code of Federal Regulations now clocks in at over 175,000 pages. And no one seems sure how many more hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) of pages of less formal or ‘sub-regulatory’ policy manuals, directives, and the like might be found floating around these days,” added Judge Gorsuch.
Once on the court, perhaps he can persuade his new colleagues to strike down rules issued by regulators whose existence cannot be verified.
Continue reading here.
Bill Leak wrote his last public speech for the launch of his new book, Trigger Warning, which he delivered at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney on Wednesday night. Here’s an excerpt below:
Ladies and gentlemen, I know it’s International Women’s Day, so first I must apologise for not being a woman. It’s particularly regrettable that I’m not a glamorous Sudanese-Egyptian-Australian woman who wears a hijab promoting a book about what it’s like being a glamorous Sudanese-Egyptian-Australian woman who wears a hijab. If I was, this wouldn’t be the only event I’ve got lined up on my non-government-funded whirlwind Trigger Warning awareness-raising tour.
When I met the great cartoonist Bill Mitchell about 34 years ago, he said, “Mate, a cartoonist only has to be funny once a day, but it’s a lot harder than you’d think.” He was right, but he had no idea how much harder it would be for me than it ever was for him.
For a start, for Mitchell to come up with a cartoon, all he had to do was take a serious political issue, exaggerate it to the point of ridiculousness, then draw what he saw when he got there. But I can’t do that because the ideas our politicians come up with these days are utterly ridiculous to begin with. And if you’re starting at the point of absurdity, where do you go from there? I mean, what am I going to have to come up with to make teachers in the Safe Schools program look ridiculous when they actually start giving jobs to gimps? And how long do you think it will be then before some gimps’ rights campaigner accuses me of gimpophobia? It’s only a matter of time.
Another reason the job’s so much harder now than it was for Mitchell is because, unlike him, I can’t just breezily assume people are looking at my cartoons hoping to get a laugh. Ever since conceptual art supplanted transcendent art, all art has been reduced to the level of graffiti. And to people reared on postmodernism and cultural relativism who can’t tell the difference between Picasso and Banksy, I’m not a cartoonist drawing cartoons for a newspaper; I’m an artist exhibiting his work in a gallery that gets hundreds of thousands of visitors through the doors every day. And the work of a man like that has to be taken very seriously indeed. It has to be analysed. It has to be deconstructed. It has to be decoded by these people in a search for hidden meanings. And because art, like political activism, is a form of therapy, it’s supposed to reinforce and confirm their prejudices, not challenge them.
Well, bugger that. Political correctness is a poison that attacks the sense of humour. Luckily for Mitchell, it was tipped into our water supply at around the time he retired and, since then, it’s infected an awful lot of people. As the senses of humour of people suffering from PC atrophy, their sensitivity to criticism becomes more and more acute until they get to the stage where everything offends them and they lose the ability to laugh.
For people with chronic PC, feeling offended is about as good as it gets. A good cartoon gives them an excuse to parade their feelings of moral superiority in 140 characters or less, scrawled on the toilet door of social media where every other humourless halfwit who’s seen the cartoon and felt offended too can join in.
Well, I don’t twit, and I don’t face, so most of the time I’m blissfully unaware of all the howls of outrage and indignation directed at me in response to my cartoons — but not always. Two years ago I realised that sometimes I really do have to worry about whether people think my cartoons are funny when I discovered that bloodthirsty barbarians aren’t immune to political correctness and their delicate sensibilities are just as easily offended as those of any precious little snowflake you’ll find in a gender studies faculty at a university. And for your average Islamist terrorist, firing off a few impassioned obscenities on a Twitter feed is no substitute for the sort of satisfaction you can get by hunting down the person who’s offended you and chopping his head off.
Then, in October last year I realised there’s another group of people who are just as capable of making life hell for me if they fail to be amused by my wit and artistry. It’s just my luck that causing offence has been made an offence at the same time that taking offence has become fashionable. So now there’s a mob that won’t only punish you if your cartoon offends them, they’ll punish you if it’s offended someone else. They may be a little less murderous than your Islamist terrorists, but they’re no less unhinged and dangerous. They’re also driven by the same authoritarian impulse to silence anyone who transgresses against the unwritten laws of political correctness. I’m talking about the thought police at that rogue totalitarian outfit, the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Well, bugger them, too. Thank goodness for deplorables like you, that’s all I can say. I knew I was in the company of fellow subversives, dissidents and weirdos when I opened my remarks with a potentially explosive “ladies and gentlemen” and no one complained.
The Australian has the whole speech here ($).
The IPA’s latest report, the Legal Rights Audit 2016, was today featured in the legal affairs section of The Australian ($):
An audit of federal legislation has found that the erosion of fundamental rights by the nation’s politicians shows no sign of ending despite the expenditure of millions of dollars on publicly funded human rights agencies.
… “The extent to which legal rights are being eroded poses a significant threat to the rule of law in Australia,” the audit says.
… The growing erosion of legal rights is outlined in a report that calls for the repeal of all breaches of fundamental rights and urges politicians to show greater respect for the rule of law by refusing to pass bills that breach fundamental rights.”The research we have conducted shows the critical state of fundamental legal rights in Australia,” said Simon Breheny, the IPA’s director of policy who co-authored the report with Morgan Begg.
“It is of deep concern that the problem Australia faces when it comes to fundamental rights is getting worse and it does not seem as though there is any end in sight.”
… The report says fundamental legal rights are necessary to achieve justice within the legal system and act as a vital constraint on the coercive power of the state.On the burden of proof, it says difficulties experienced by prosecutors in proving the elements of an offence or civil remedy are an insufficient justification for reversing this right.
Mr Breheny said it was disappointing that nothing practical had been done to reverse the erosion of rights — despite an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission and statements by Attorney-General George Brandis.
“It is deeply concerning that we have the apparatus of the state — in the form of the Australian Human Rights Commission — actually championing legal rights abuses rather than recommending changes to the law that would protect our fundamental freedoms,” he said.
“The best example of this is that the Human Rights Commission is basically set up to enforce anti-discrimination law rather than defending our fundamental freedoms.”
This could be seen from the fact that the Human Rights Commission strongly supports “speech-restricting provisions” such as section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. That provision makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people because of their race, colour or national origin.
Mr Breheny noted that the Human Rights Commission also favoured a proposal from the previous federal Labor government that would have reversed the burden of proof in human rights and anti-discrimination law.
“That is just unforgivable, particularly when the problem, as our research has shown, is as significant as it is,” he said.
Kevin Donnelly in The Australian on Tuesday argued that it’s now clear that the education sector’s ‘politically correct embrace of diversity and difference – the new code for multiculturalism – reigns supreme’:
As reported in yesterday’s The Australian, school officials at Sydney’s Hurstville Boys Campus, based on a literal interpretation of a hadith, told Muslim students that it was permissible to refuse to greet females in the customary way.
So much for the Christian admonition “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. And so much for the fact that Australian society only prospers and grows when there is a shared understanding of what constitutes civility and good manners.
… Education now embraces identity politics where the rights and privileges of particular individuals and groups nominated by the cultural Left are granted positive discrimination… Whereas in times past schools would teach all students about the values, beliefs and institutions that bind us as a nation and the debt owed to Western culture, the focus is now firmly on what divides us instead of what we share in common.Even worse, instead of their arguments being properly analysed and evaluated, anyone questioning multicultural groupthink is quickly condemned as Islamophobic, racist and intolerant.
As noted by the British journalist and author Patrick West: “Tolerance in the name of relativism has become its own intolerance. We are commended to respect all differences and anyone who dis-agrees shall be shouted down, silenced or slandered as a racist. Everyone must be tolerant. And that’s an order.”
The Australian National Curriculum advocates identity politics and the belief that all cultures must be treated equally. Christianity, instead of being acknowledged as one of the foundation stones on which Western culture rests and continues to depend, receives the same weighting as Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.
While the National Curriculum stipulates that subjects and areas of learning must celebrate diversity and difference, with a special focus an Asian and indigenous perspectives, scant time or attention is given to the history and significance of liberalism within the Western tradition.
The NSW Statement of Equity Principles endorsed by the recently established Education Standards Council also illustrates the way education has been captured by the cultural Left’s long march through the institutions. The school syllabus, associated materials and assessment guidelines all focus on “difference and diversity in the Australian community” where all must be respected and treated equally regardless of “cultural and linguistic heritage, gender, age, beliefs, socio-economic status, location, sexuality or disability”.
… Multiculturalism ignores the reality that some cultural practices and beliefs are un-Australian and that unless we want to follow the example of Britain and Europe, where the policy has led to ethnic ghettos, violence and social fragmentation, education must teach how to discriminate between what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable beliefs and values.There is also the irony that the very values that cultural relativists champion, such as tolerance and respect for others, are culturally specific. The liberties and freedoms we take for granted are embedded in Western culture, our Judeo-Christian heritage, and historical movements like the Enlightenment.
You can read the full article here ($)
From The Australian today:
Australia’s gross public debt is on track to rise from $474bn as of last month to more than $600bn within the next three years — even including the government’s reform measures — which will amount to around $23,500 a person. Such calculations include swaths of the Australian population who will shoulder little of the debt repayment.
There are 5.5 million Australians aged under 18 who can’t yet vote, and 3.3 million aged over 65, who can, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates. The debt burden per capita and per Australian under 18 has exploded since the financial crisis from $2600 and $11,100, respectively, to $20,300 and $90,300.
Read the full article here ($)
The following remarks were given by the IPA’s Simon Breheny to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights’ hearing into section 18C in Melbourne yesterday. The opening statement was followed by questioning directed to Simon and the IPA’s Dr Chris Berg. Readers can watch the video at this link.
Freedom of speech is a basic Australian value.
A survey commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs, published today, finds that ninety-five per cent of Australians say freedom of speech is important. Fifty seven per cent say it is very important.
Australia’s commitment to freedom of speech makes this country one of the most diverse, prosperous and socially welcoming on the face of the planet.
Laws that undermine free speech put at risk our success story as a socially inclusive nation.
Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is one of the most significant restrictions on freedom of speech in this country.
Along with the rest of the provisions in Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act, Section 18C ought to be repealed outright.
It is an excessive, unnecessary and counterproductive restriction on Australians’ liberties.
Alternative proposals for reform would not solve the problems with the legislation that have been identified by recent court cases involving section 18C.
Simply removing some of the words from the section or, worse, replacing them with new words, would be, in our analysis, either ineffective, or redundant, or create even more uncertainty about the scope of the law.
Some participants in this debate argue that freedom of speech is protected by section 18D. But section 18D is a weak and unstable foundation for such an important right.
Section 18D has been applied in just three out of more than 70 cases that have been decided by the courts since Part IIA was first inserted into the Racial Discrimination Act in 1995.
Nor should parliament imagine that section 18D provides any certainty about the law. In the QUT case Judge Jarrett noted a “conflict in the authorities about the way in which s.18D might operate.”
More fundamentally, section 18D places a burden on the respondent to prove why he or she should have the right to speak freely. This is not a requirement that a free country like Australia should be proud of.
Offence is not a moral trump card. Australia is driven by other values – including individual freedom and democracy. Section 18C harms these values.
We urge this committee to recommit to the liberal democratic values that make this country great, and to recommend the full repeal of Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act.