The Federal government this week has brought in an interim 120 day ban on synthetic drugs. Over 19 different pharmaceuticals have been prohibited. These drugs are manufactured variants of illegal substances, that mimic the effects of cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine. Though not the “real” product, they are promoted as “legal highs,” without the downer of jail time. The Commonwealth intends to work with the states and territories during the ban to write legislation that will prohibit the drugs altogether.

As already proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice Jason Clare, the yet-to-be-written legislation plans to  ’implement a “reverse onus of proof” scheme.’

It’s extraordinary that this proposed legislation has been put forward by our federal Minister for Justice. His office is meant to uphold the key principles of law that have made what our legal system is today.

By reversing the onus of proof, instead of the government having to establish that your product is a banned substance, it is automatically assumed that anything new coming into Australia is illegal. This creates significant added costs to private enterprise, who will have to foot the legal, administrative and pharmacological fees that will be required to prove that their drug is a licit substance. On a legal rights notes, it is assuming that legitimate businesses are all criminals, unless they can prove their innocence to the government.

By all means, if the government is concerned about synthetic drugs, they can investigate companies and new products as they see fit. However, the onus, manpower and money should be expended by the accuser, not the accused.

Many of Senator Smith’s colleagues share his views – but not all of them have said so publicly, because the Coalition has officially resolved to support the referendum. Full credit to Senator Smith for having the courage of his convictions.

Sanchez argues:

…the appropriate question is whether the creation of a system of surveillance perilously alters that balance too far in the direction of government control, whether or not we have problems with the current use of that system. We might imagine a system of compulsory cameras installed in homes, activated only by warrant, being used with scrupulous respect for the law over many years. The problem is that such an architecture of surveillance, once established, would be difficult to dismantle, and prove too potent a tool of control if it ever fell into the hands of people who—whether through panic, malice, or a misguided confidence in their own ability to secretly judge the public good—would seek to use it against us.

While I hold much of Epstein’s and Pilon’s work in high regard, I believe both their research and their reasoning in this case to be faulty, and hope they will reconsider their position on this important issue. If they remain unpersuaded, then I at least hope that readers who look to Cato for guidance on these questions will recognize that theirs is not the position held by all—or, indeed, most—Cato scholars.

The piece is well worth a read.

I made the point that the problems that have arisen in the US are the same as those that will arise in Australia if the government is successful in its push for a mandatory data retention regime.

Listen to the full podcast here.

This follows Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s letter to Julia Gillard demanding equal funding, revealed exclusively on FreedomWatch this morning.

Of course, the IPA would much prefer that the Coalition opposed the referendum entirely. But it is welcome that they are fighting to ensure the referendum is conducted on an equal footing.

If the Gillard government persists with the unequal funding, the Coalition should oppose the referendum as a matter of principle. A change to the constitution should not be rammed through in an illegitimate process.

The National Security Agency surveillance keeps getting more significant. In the Australian Financial Review on Friday, the IPA’s Executive Director John Roskam said this was a watershed moment for small government:

Barack Obama could end up doing more for the cause of small government than Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek and the Tea Party put together.

Last week’s revelations about surveillance by the United States government of the phone records of millions of Americans would have been a major story at any time. But this has a special significance because it follows in the wake of a series of scandals involving the Obama administration’s abuse of political power and the abuse of confidential information.

And in the Sunday Age this week, I argued that Australians should worry about the scandal too:

Australia has not gotten quite that bad. But every policy change goes one way – towards more state power.

The Attorney-General’s Department wants Parliament to approve a suite of new security powers. This would include a massive data retention scheme, where records of all our internet usage would be kept by internet providers just in case we are later suspected of committing a crime.

The government is not transparent about what exactly these new powers would entail, or what they are supposed to solve. We have to piece together disparate pieces of information to figure out what our own government is doing.

The bad faith of the referendum was put on full display yesterday when the Federal government announced it would top-up the existing $10 million of ratepayer’s money for the ‘yes’ campaign with another $10 million of taxpayer’s money.

In response the Victorian Local Government Minister, Jeanette Powell, yesterday condemned the announcement:

“It is treating the Australian people with disrespect to run such a lop-sided propaganda campaign in a desperate bid to sway voters before the September referendum,” Mrs Powell said.

“The fact that the Gillard Labor Government has to bias funding by such a degree shows a lack of confidence in the strength of their referendum argument.”

Mrs Powell said funding should be equally allocated to both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns given the opposition of the states to Labor’s referendum question.

Powell isn’t the only one raising concerns. Tony Abbott has hit back sending a letter to the Prime Minister demanding equal funding. Abbott should reject the referendum all together as the Queensland government is now doing.

Queensland’s Local Government Minister is now speaking out about this referendum. In a press release today the Minister made a last ditch plea to the PM to change the wording in the referendum so it won’t lead to Canberra controlling Councils:

Local Government Minister David Crisafulli said legal advice had confirmed the change would allow the Federal Government to control local councils.

“If this was about simplifying the rules so councils could directly receive federal funding then you would find no greater advocate for change,” Mr Crisafulli said.

“However, the referendum question in its current form is little more than a Trojan Horse for a Canberra power grab that could have far reaching consequences.

“At a time when people in places like Noosa, Livingstone, Mareeba and Douglas have shown overwhelmingly just how important local councils are, the last thing we want to do is allow federal tentacles to tamper with the controls of local government.”

“Legal advice has confirmed the question’s current wording would allow the Federal Government to make funding dependent on whatever conditions it liked.”

Tony Abbott and the Coalition should take a leaf from the Queensland government’s book. This referendum is a naked power grab by Canberra. The unfairness of funding is a sign of the bad faith of this referendum and deserves to be opposed and defeated.

The Coalition believes it is not up to the Government of the day to pre-determine the outcome of any referendum question: a referendum is a decision for the Australian people to make. By funding one side over the other by a factor of 20, the government looks like it’s trying to buy the result it wants.

…

Anything less than equal funding for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases puts at risk the fairness of the process.

The Opposition Leader’s response to the government’s outrageous attempt to rig the result of this referendum is a step in the right direction. But the Coalition should go one step further and immediately withdraw support for the local government referendum in light of this assault on the democratic process. Supporting the referendum would make Abbott complicit in the government’s attempt to rig the vote.