Economic Freedom

The Rising cost of living is a government phenomenon

Opinion piece by Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts & Australian-American economist Darren Brady Nelson. 


Recent reports of a $13 billion hole in the Turnbull Government’s 2017 budget, once again painfully highlight the urgent need for Trump-like economic policies in Australia as we used to see more of ‘back in the day’ especially under Sir Joh in Queensland. In light of the budget hole, the Treasurer warned that if budget cuts did not pass the Senate then the only options were to increase taxes and/or go further into debt. He presumably meant increase tax rates and/or borrow more money.

We at Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, as well as some of our cross-bencher colleagues, would certainly like to see a non-partisan plan presented to Parliament and the people for greater fiscal responsibility including significant expenditure cuts over time. Cuts could firstly focus on government waste, duplication (between federal and state) and welfare Read the rest


It’s time to say NO to renewable energy targets

‘How will you be able to look your grandchildren in the eye and tell them you didn’t do anything about climate change?’ If you’ve engaged in any kind of climate change or energy policy debate, you will have no doubt heard this question asked. The point of course being that the only moral course of action is to reduce our use of fossil fuels drastically by switching to renewable energy post-haste. If you disagree with this outlook you are a ‘denier’, ‘dinosaur’ or a fossil fuel shill. The reality though is that forcing us onto unreliable renewable energy sources before they are viable is expensive, destructive and morally bereft.

Apart from financing climate change initiatives globally, Australia has committed to the RET which aims for 23.5% of our national energy production to be renewable by 2020 and represents a doubling of our current levels of renewable energy production. Bill Shorten’s Read the rest


You’re not selfish for wanting to keep what’s yours

Often in political discourse those who argue for fiscal restraint are accused of being selfish. Don’t support higher taxes? Stop being so greedy. Don’t think public money should be spent subsidising other people’s lifestyle choices? ‘Well you’re selfish!’ they squeal. But, what if those who talk the most about compassion and fairness are actually the selfish ones? What if their arguments about fairness are nothing more than a disguise for their own self interest? Is it selfish to keep what’s yours?

For many of us these attitudes go back to the lessons we learnt as a child. As children we were taught to share with others. The concept of sharing can be divided into two broad categories, the first is voluntary, where one child voluntarily shares his toys with another child. The classic example is letting the other child have equal time on the Playstation. The second kind of sharing … Read the rest


Queensland Trading Hours: Businesses should be free to choose their own trading hours

 

In response to Queensland Government’s review of the Review of Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990, LibertyWorks Inc. is proposing that all regulations around tradable hours be abolished as soon as possible. Trading hours are an unjust restriction on the freedom of business owners and consumers, they encourage rent seeking, and limit the employment opportunities available to Queensland’s most vulnerable people.

The Nobel prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek warned of the ‘Pretense of Knowledge’, at its core, his argument was that knowledge is unevenly dispersed among different members of society – and that as a result, decisions are best made by those with local knowledge rather than by a central authority. This theory can be applied to trading hours. How can a government agency possibly know what time the local store should open? Should it be 6am or 9am? Can that same government agency know what time the consumer wants … Read the rest


Why Climate Spending Does Nothing and Should Be Scrapped.

The industrial burning of fossil fuels has released CO2 that is purported to be responsible for .7 degrees of planetary warming over the last century, and climate models predict it could be responsible for up to another 2 – 6 degrees over the next 100 years. Despite the fact that very few of the climate change predictions made since the late 80’s have come true (think empty dams, no more snow in the UK and an ice-free arctic) if a warmer earth is going to be problem, what can we do about it?

Mainstream thinking tells that leaving fossil fuels in the ground is the answer. According to the IPCC we must act now to reduce emissions substantially in order to reduce climate risks and increase our chances of adapting to a warmer world. Across the globe various carbon pricing schemes, taxes and renewable energy subsidies have been put in Read the rest


Renewable energy targets are incompatible with the National Electricity Objective

South Australia’s electricity is neither reliable nor cost-effective. The National Electricity Objective, as stated in the National Electricity Law (section 7 the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996), is:to promote efficient investment in, and efficient operation and use of, electricity services for the long term interests of consumers of electricity with respect to – price, quality, safety, reliability, and security of supply of electricity; and the reliability, safety and security of the national electricity system. Why then has South Australia failed to achieve an electricity supply that is neither reliable nor cost-effective?

One possible answer to this question is that, South Australia’s ambitious renewable energy target is incompatible with the national electricity objective. This has huge implications for other states such as Queensland, that have set a 50% renewable energy target by 2030.

Competitive federalism and the South Australian experience has shown that renewable energy targets are a wasteful Read the rest


New welfare model, old welfare results

Justin Campbell argues, Christian Porter’s new welfare investment model won’t create jobs or growth.

Recently, Social Services minister Christian Porter announced that the government intends to introduce a New Zealand style welfare investment model. The model involves the government investing more initially in problem cases early on, with the view that it will reduce the government’s long-term liability. New Zealand much like Australia has had a problem with people moving from normal unemployment benefits to the higher paying disability payments. The investment model would provide more resources for these hard cases; helping them move into employment. However, is this just another big government solution to a micro level problem?

Presently, Australia’s welfare system already provides more resources to the long-term unemployed via Job Services Australia (JSA) or the Disability Employment program (DES). I have previously worked in the Disability Employment Program and the Work for the Dole Program. Nothing I Read the rest