Archive | Media release RSS feed for this section

Coalition must withdraw referendum support – or be complicit in rigging democracy

By on June 18, 2013 in Constitutional preservation, Media release

media-release-web

“The federal Coalition must immediately withdraw its support for the local government referendum. If it does not it will be complicit with the Gillard government’s plans to rig Australian democracy”, said John Roskam, Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs.

Mr Roskam’s comments follow the announcement by the federal government on Monday that $10 million of taxpayers’ funds will be given to the ‘Yes’ campaign, but only $500,000 will be provided to the ‘No’ campaign.

“The Gillard government is abusing public money in a cynical and desperate attempt to change the Constitution. It’s not enough for the Coalition to just be outraged that there’s disparity in public funding. If they don’t withdraw their support they’re complicit in rigging Australia’s democracy”, Mr Roskam said.

“Defying the convention that both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ case in a referendum get equal funding sets a dangerous precedent. The government and the opposition must reveal why they believe this constitutional change is such a good idea given they are too afraid to give the public all the facts about it.

“If such unfair and lopsided funding goes ahead, the result of the referendum will be illegitimate.

“The cynical and manipulative way this referendum has been handled, first by rushing it through, and then by giving one side twenty times as much money as the other should set alarm bells ringing with the electorate”, Mr Roskam said.

For media and comment: John Roskam, Executive Director, 0415 475 673

US surveillance scandal a warning against Gillard government data retention proposal

By on June 12, 2013 in Media release, Personal liberties, Rule of law

media-release-web

“The extraordinary surveillance program by the United States government revealed last week is a warning against the dangers of the Gillard government’s proposed data retention laws,” said Simon Breheny, director of the Legal Rights Project at free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

US national security and law enforcement agencies have obtained access to the data of those who use services provided by Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple.

The data collected includes source and destination email addresses, communication times, location information and IP addresses.

“This is exactly the sort of data that the Gillard government wants to force Australian internet service providers to collect and store on all their customers,” said Mr Breheny.

The IPA has consistently argued against the Gillard government’s plan to force ISPs to store information on the online habits of every Australian internet user.

Mr Breheny told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s inquiry into National Security Legislation that data retention “is completely lacking in proportionality, undermines basic freedoms and is in fundamental conflict with a right to privacy.”

“The Australian government and opposition should abandon any attempt to implement mandatory data retention to avoid a similar privacy crisis as is being seen in America,” said Mr Breheny.

For more information visit: freedomwatch.ipa.org.au

For media and comment: Simon Breheny, Director, Legal Rights Project, 0400 967 382, sbreheny@ipa.org.au

Referendum disaster for democracy in Australia

By on May 16, 2013 in Constitutional preservation, Liberal democracy, Media release

media-release-web

The text of the Gillard government’s referendum proposal confirms the worst held fears that Canberra is intent on controlling local government, according to free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

‘The proposed seemingly minor changes to the Constitution would lead to an upheaval of Australian democracy through a massive power grab of local communities,’ said IPA Senior Fellow Dr Julie Novak.

‘Federal dollars tend to come with strings attached, so this plan is really about centralising more power in Canberra, and further away from local communities.’

‘Anything from local planning applications to welfare services for those in need will be affected by federal bureaucratic conditions attached to funding, and not in line with local community preferences.’

‘People living in regional and rural areas will be hurt the most by Canberra infiltrating every town hall, because their shires have a lower capacity to raise their own funds than metropolitan councils,’ said Dr Novak.

The latest proposal to include local government in the Constitution is at odds with the will of the Australian community, expressed in two previous referendums.

‘The Gillard government’s proposal only confirms what average Australians find frustrating about this government, and that it doesn’t pay heed to the will of the people,’ said Dr Novak.

‘In 1974, and again in 1988, the Australian people voted against local government recognition, but this government is outrageously forcing taxpayers to fork out $12 million to fund a campaign for yet another referendum.’

‘It is essential that the Liberal National Coalition, which philosophically supports federalism and our constitutional fabric, doesn’t side with the Labor elites and strongly oppose the proposed Canberra takeover of local government.’

‘If this referendum is successful, that level of government closest to Australians will become the puppet of the most distant and disconnected government, a prospect which should be rejected in September,’ said Dr Novak.

Canberra council grab a disaster for democracy and rates

By on May 9, 2013 in Elections and voting, Liberal democracy, Media release, Rule of law

media-release-web

“Constitutional recognition of local government will lead to a federal takeover of local laws, lead to rate increases, expansion of bad and petty laws and corrode Australian democracy,” said Tim Wilson, policy director at free market think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs.

The Institute of Public Affairs is strongly opposed to constitutional recognition, because it will:

  • lead to creeping Canberra control of local services through funding agreements.
  • undermine the role of the states and their oversight of local government.
  • stop states from removing corrupt councils and amalgamating inefficient ones.
  • lead to rate rises from councils without state government oversight.
  • increase the volume of petty and intrusive laws into people’s lives and businesses.

“Australia should be governed from local communities-up, not Canberra-down,” Mr Wilson said.

“This referendum is about governing bin collections for Broome, Buderim and Burnie from the Prime Minister’s Canberra office.”

“With every single federal dollar comes strings attached, this plan is about centralising more power in Canberra and further away from local communities. Local government rules and regulations, from planning applications to caring for local parks, will be driven by Canberra.”

“The referendum is a rehashing of Gough Whitlam’s failed attempt to bypass the states and promote a level of government that is easier to control from the Prime Minister’s office.”

“Scrapping state government oversight of local government will create fiefdoms for local kingmakers and petty bureaucrats.”

“Often state government restraints stop significant rate rises, once local government sits separately they will raise rates and increase costs to families.”

“Local governments are already the source of the most intrusive rules and regulations into people’s lives from stopping kite flying in parks, to tying community street parties up in red tape and destroying community festivals through excessive food handling regulations. Constitutional recognition will make it worse.”

“If this referendum is successful the level of government closest to Australian families will be taken over by the one most distant and disconnected. It will be a disaster for Australian democracy,” Mr Wilson said.

For media and comment: Tim Wilson, policy director, 0417 356 165

IPA condemns attack on right to silence

By on March 21, 2013 in Media release, Rule of law

“Moves by the New South Wales government to remove the right to silence in the state are an outrageous attack on fundamental legal rights,” said Simon Breheny, director of the Legal Rights Project at free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

Last night, the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2013 passed the Legislative Council with the support of the Shooters and Fishers Party. The bill allows “unfavourable inferences” to be drawn by a jury where a defendant fails or refuses to answer questions when interviewed by police, and then later relies on information that was not produced during questioning.

“The right to silence is a key pillar of our legal system, developed over more than 400 years of English common law. Removing it undermines procedural fairness and creates an unjust legal system. The freedom to remain silent is a vital safeguard against state tyranny and it should never be removed.

“Judges can already instruct juries to draw adverse inferences in certain cases where defendants fail to assist police investigations, so there is no justification for any erosion of the right to silence.

“Fundamental legal rights must not be tampered with.

“The New South Wales government should recognise their mistake and reverse what they have done.

“This is just the latest attempt by Australian governments of all political stripes to remove basic legal rights, such as the right to silence, the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self-incrimination,” said Mr Breheny.

For media and comment: Simon Breheny Director, Legal Rights Project, 0400 967 382

IPA welcomes dumping of media laws

By on March 21, 2013 in Freedom of speech, Media release

“The Gillard government’s decision to abandon its proposal to regulate the media is a victory for freedom of speech in Australia,” said Chris Berg, director of policy at free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

“The media regulation package represented bad law and would have imposed government restrictions on Australia’s news media outlets.

“The critical reaction from the public over these proposals should serve as a warning to governments on both sides of the political aisle that freedom of speech must not be trampled on,” said Mr Berg.

For media and comment: Chris Berg, Director, Policy, 0402 257 681, cberg@ipa.org.au

Conroy media regulation is government licensing in all but name

By on March 12, 2013 in Freedom of speech, Media release

“Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s proposals for media regulation are a de facto licensing scheme for the print media and a fundamental threat to freedom of the press,” said Chris Berg, Research Fellow with the free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

Mr Berg is the author of In Defence of Freedom of Speech: from Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt, published in 2012 in the wake of the Finkelstein Inquiry into media regulation.

If Minister Conroy’s changes go ahead, a government-appointed Public Interest Media Advocate will control the Australian Press Council.

“The scheme proposed by Minister Conroy would be press licensing in all but name: granting journalistic privileges only to media outlets that sign up to regulated press standards bodies like the Press Council.

“Furthermore, the proposed ‘public interest’ test for media mergers will inevitably be a political interest test.

“It is totally inappropriate for politicians complaining about unfair media coverage to use state power to punish their critics.

“Advocates for freedom of speech should be pleased the government has backed away from the extensive and dangerous recommendations of the Finkelstein Inquiry.

“But this new son-of-Finkelstein proposal has almost as many problems and presents as much of a threat to free speech.

“Parliament should reject these proposals when legislation is considered next week.”

For media and comment: Chris Berg, Director, Policy, 0402 257 681

Gillard Government seizure of inactive bank accounts is an attack on property rights

By on February 28, 2013 in Media release, Property rights

“The Gillard government’s plan to take money from dormant bank accounts is a shameful grab for cash and a significant attack on property rights,” said Simon Breheny, director of the Legal Rights Project at free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Act 2012 amends the Banking Act 1959 to lower the threshold for “unclaimed moneys”, which are transferred from banks that hold the accounts to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Previously this was defined as any money in bank accounts that had been inactive for a period of seven years, but the new laws require inactivity for only three years.

“People should be able to leave money in bank accounts for as long as they wish without the fear that the government might come along and steal it from them. To do so is an arbitrary acquisition of property by the government,” said Mr Breheny.

“Parents saving for their children’s education, young people saving for a home and others putting money aside for retirement are all at risk of losing their savings as a result of these changes,” said Mr Breheny.

“The changes could have a number of unintended consequences. Such a regime provides a disincentive to saving money with a bank and may encourage people to hide their money under the mattress and away from the hands of government,” said Mr Breheny.

“The government is desperately attempting to shore up its financial position before the budget is handed down in May 2013,” said Mr Breheny.

“Tony Abbott and the Coalition must commit to repealing these changes if elected to government,” said Mr Breheny.

For media and comment: Simon Breheny Director, Legal Rights Project, 0400 967 382