Imagine there was a way to save hundreds of thousands of lives and save the Australian taxpayer hundreds of million dollars a year in healthcare costs.
Imagine if such a technology existed. And experts all over the world have proven that there was no risk involved – just the potential to save lives.
Wouldn’t this be something? Wouldn’t it be miraculous? We would be singing and dancing in the streets!
The fact is that such a technology does exist – and the Australian government has made it illegal.
Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in Australia. Millions of Australians can’t break the habit and die as a result.
Yet now a new technology – vaping – has arrived which helps smokers to quit. By delivering nicotine through water vapour, they still get their fix – but with none of the carcinogenic tars or chemicals involved in the burning of tobacco. It is a proven safe way to get people to quit and save lives.
The evidence is clear: As an expert independent evidence review published by Public Health England concluded: vaping is 95% safer than smoking and helps smokers quit. The UK Royal College of Physicians has begged for governments to support vaping as the best way to prevent death and disability from tobacco use. In fact, 40 of the leading public health activists in Australia and around the world have begged the Australian government to make this life-saving technology legal.
Why is our government standing in the way of saving people’s lives?
This is not a case of the government being wrong or misguided. This is a case of the government standing in the way of saving people’s lives. It is morally reprehensible, and we need to do something about it.
This is why the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance, in conjunction with MyChoice Australia, have launched a new campaign for the Australian government to legalise vaping.
Please join our campaign at www.thrnow.com and tell your representatives that you support legalising vaping.
Because lives are literally at stake. Click HERE to join the campaign. It will take only a minute – but will make a real difference.
The United Nations Health Agency has recently called on all countries to implement of “at least 20%” on sugar sweetened beverages to curb the epidemic of global obesity. This is a sensible suggestion at first glance, but this exact tax has been tried in many countries and has had no or minimal effect on obesity. This is a public policy suggestion based in intentions and not actual results, leading to many unintended consequences.
The tax is meant to increase the price of sugar sweetened beverages which leads to a decrease in consumption and improved health outcomes of people. But this tax has led to a minimal reduction in energy consumption with the Rural Health Minister, Fiona Nash calling this tax “a lazy solution to a complex problem.”
Firstly, the tax gets partly absorbed by the business’ and partly by the consumer. Secondly, consumers instead of reducing energy consumption, have moved to inferior goods which are more affordable, along with substituting energy in other areas like food. People are inelastic with their energy consumption which means it’s hard to tax people into health, without causing many other problems. This was exemplified with the Danish fat tax which saw 90% of people not change their dietary habits. And also New Zealand where sugar consumption decreased 11% for males while obesity soared 63%.
This tax has the potential of threatening many sugar industry jobs and incur huge economic costs for minor health benefits. For every $1 of health savings from the sugar tax in the UK, taxpayers’ pay about $65. The indirect health outcomes are minuscule compared to the tax paid.
This tax, like any other consumption tax, is regressive, and affects the poorest people the most. This is especially bad since the poorest people are the least elastic group with their food consumption.
This is an irresponsible band aid solution from the UN which will cause more harm than good.
Cody Findlay is an intern at The Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance
I am delighted to invite you to a very special event in Melbourne on Saturday October 22: An Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance Symposium on how we can create a positive and pro-liberty agenda for the 45th Parliament.
With serious gridlock in the federal senate, and a lack of firm leadership in the major parties, substantial policy reform is looking harder and harder to achieve. This is why we’ve decided to set a new and improved agenda for the 45th Parliament, showcasing feasible and necessary reforms our politicians can implement!
Joining us shall be:
Professor Sinclair Davidson, RMIT University
Senator James Paterson, Senator for Victoria
Lara Jeffery, Director, MyChoice Australia
Terry Barnes, Director of Cormorant Policy Advice
Dr Mikayla Novak, Economist
Aaron Lane, Legal Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs
Following the conclusion of the Symposium will be a cocktail reception (with nibbles and a 3h drinks package) where I shall be making a short address.
This shall be an event not to be missed and I hope to see you there!
But it gets even better: We will immediately following the Annual Conference of Australia’s leading industrial relations reform organisation, the HR Nicholls Society, and attending both events will secure you a $25 discount!
The HR Nicholls Society Conference, entitled “The State of Reform”, commences with a Friday Night dinner with Senator The Hon Eric Abetz, Former Minister for Employment, and Saturday Day sessions with The Hon Robert Clarke MLC, Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations in the Victorian Parliament, Senator Malcolm Roberts, Senator for Queensland, Economist and writer Judith Sloan, Alternative union entrepreneur Graeme Haycroft, and The Hon Peter Katsambanis MLC from Western Australia.
Both events shall be held at the same venue.
Date & Time
HRN Conference: 6:00 Friday 21st of October through 3:00pm Saturday 22nd of October
ATA Symposium & Cocktail Reception: 3:30pm through 9:00pm, Saturday 22nd of October
A DISCOUNT OF 20% (Adults) or 50% (students) APPLIES ON TOP OF THE BELOW RATE FOR ATA MEMBERS. TO ACCESS THE DISCOUNT ENTER “ATAdiscount” or “studentHRN”UPON CHECKOUT .
ATA Symposium & Cocktail Reception: $75
ATA Symposium & Cocktail Reception (Student): $50
HRN Conference Only: $260
HRN and ATA package – $310.00 or $270 Student
This will be a highly intellectually stimulating, vibrant and worthwhile conference to attend that I have no doubt all our members and supporters shall strongly enjoy!
If you believe in liberty and restoring Australia’s prosperity, these events are not to be missed, and I look forward to seeing you there!
Yours in Liberty,
Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance
Written by Erika Salmon
Currently renewable energy seems to be the new trend in Labour’s and Green’s policy issues, a directive which in typical fashion means tax hikes, increased spending and a conscious blindness to anything that contravenes their do-gooder attitude. Under increasing pressure from international community, Australia is expected to step-up and be the world’s leader in renewable energy. But at what cost? As we’ve seen through the SA experiment, renewable energy isn’t a reliable source of alternative energy, with strong winds making wind mills inoperable and the fact that the renewable energy industry is being propped up via government funding, while at the same time increasing domestic unemployment.
Erika Salmon makes the case against a sexual offender registry in Australia, with a detailed of the negative consequences a registry in the United States. Not only are they ineffective, she argues, but they fundamentally erode constitutional liberty.
Ever since the implementation of the Sex Offender Registry in the U.S. civil liberties have been completely eroded, they are also completely ineffective in preventing and reducing sex crimes. The Sex Offender Registry has eroded constitutional rights to privacy and life while neglecting its core mission to reduce and prevent sexual offences committed. Although the Sex Offender Registry in Australia is a relatively construct, and its public access severely limited, Derryn Hinch expresses sentiments to expanding both the registry and its public availability. This is not only unjust, but as in the US could pave the rode to absurdity, as seemingly harmless crimes are registered under the registry as well.
After the United States introduced the Sex Offender Registry in the 1990s, Australia quickly followed. Since gaining legitimacy and control, the constitutional right to privacy and even to life has been eroded by seemingly well-intentioned government policies. Public access to these registries has only been recently granted in Australia, starting as early as 2012 in Western Australia. This is comparatively better than the US, immediately allowing access to the public in the 1990’s. Following the American example, Australian states and territories insisted on limitations for offenders for up to 15 years after conviction. This included where they can live, who they can associate and what they can read. The consequences of an individual being placed on the sex offender registry by a court are profound. Our courts and legislatures discriminate against sex offenders by treating them differently to others who commit serious offences like murder or fraud.
In 2012, Western Australia was the first of the Australian states and territories to permit public access to specific areas of the sex offender register. This was done through the Community Protection Website (CPW) and the WA government, establishing clear parameters on the level of information available to the public. The register has also inbuilt security and safety mechanisms requiring anyone seeking information to first provide their own. As such, members of the public could only seek information about a convicted repeat offender living in the vicinity of their community. This process enables police to tag any information released and monitor any misuse of information. Recently, the NT government have committed to creating a publicly accessible website listing the names and details of child sex offenders and child homicide offenders. This is all in the name of protecting our children of course, but what’s to stop policymakers from going further? To introducing the same over-arching and over-bearing definitions and legislations concerning sexual offences? In low populated areas, this may also create unnecessary risk for family members of the offender and even make reporting less likely if abuse is perpetrated by a family member.
Currently in the U.S. over one fourth of the people we label as sex offenders are juveniles themselves. The registry currently has over 800,000 people on it, which means that over 200,000 people get put on the registry while they are still in secondary school. The punishment and stigma that can follow them for decades after is inexcusable. A study by Human Rights Watch gave an example of a young boy, Jacob, being found guilty of inappropriately touching his sister when he was 11.Now, 26, Jacob is still on the sex-offender registry, still unable to live near a school, playground or park. (Despite the fact that multiple studies have found residency restrictions redundant in preventing sex crimes. Due to the inherent stigma, and public access of his crimes, he also has an extremely difficult time finding work. The Human Rights Watch concluded, “his life continues to be defined by an offense he committed at age 11”- an offence that most likely didn’t indicate anything other than a young boy’s curiosity and his needing guidance.
Victims of this regime have been persecuted for seemingly harmless acts, such as, drunkenly urinating in public, consensual sex as teenagers, hiring a prostitute, streaking and even sexting. It has become almost absurdist in nature, bureaucratic and governmental tyranny at its finest. The public perception is that “sex offenders” are just child sexual abusers, but the term has expanded ridiculously and considered less than human due to this. In America today, your child is more likely to be labelled as a sex offender, and not be abused by one and isn’t that just twisted?
Sex offender registers were originally built for prevention, not punishment. They were set up as a tool for parents to protect children from child abusers and did not include every sexual offence committed.
In its current form, there is conclusive evidence that registries have little to no impact on reducing criminal sexual behaviour. Registries were never built for punishment, but as a preventative tool. The original goal of the registries was to protect communities not to further punish the offenders. However, in the case of Brock Turner, it is easy to see the supposed benefits of such a registry. Derryn Hinch of the Justice Party was recently elected to Senate and plans on expanding the WA CPW to a national scale, as well as making all information publicly available. Despite Derryn Hinch’s sentiments of hating vigilantism, what measures will he put in place to protect these offenders? And as he’s basing it on the US system will increase stigmatisation as well as even a governmental encouragement for active prejudice and discrimination follows as well?
In the US, people on the Sex Offender Registry are required to document their movements from state to state, and depending on the state and seriousness of the crime, his name, picture, and information will be publicly listed – permanently. When the registry was first introduced, “sexual predators” were seen as not able to control their urges, and thus citizens needed to modify their own behaviour to prevent crime. The idea that criminals can’t control their own behaviour was replaced by attention to institutional and cultural failures that allow rapes to happen and go unpunished, despite this fact the registry is still going strong.
During the “predator” hype, there were mass allegations and a culture of fear, in lawmaker’s eyes predators could not control themselves, thus all the government could do was help the public protect itself. Activists who originally supported the laws have now begun to oppose it, as they never intended the registry to expand so far beyond child molesters. Theoretically, it’s illegal to discriminate someone on the Sex Offender Registry, however, the limitations they face is above and beyond what others committing crimes are restricted to. It would make sense if the limitations placed on the offender are tailored to the specific crime, but as those on the Sex Offender Registry vary so much, the restrictions become aggregate, and that is wherein the problem lies.
The intended benefit of sex offender registries was intentioned as a greater protection of children — with fewer opportunities for recidivism, sexual predators to attack children, there were supposed to be fewer sex crimes against them. That hasn’t happened. The evidence on registries’ ability to prevent sex crimes is mixed at best. The evidence that residential restrictions prevent sex crimes is non-existent. Studies have estimated that recidivism rates among sex offenders are between 5 to 15 percent, which is relatively low compared to other crimes. Contrary to public perception, the vast majority of people on the registry never offend again. Sex offender registries are generally of little utility and a 2008 study found that registries not only do not show any demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offences but is also extremely costly and does not represent value for taxpayers’ money. Sex offender registry laws are draconian and irrational, especially given the evidence that they have little to no impact on sex offending rates.
The concept of the “stranger danger” focused predator has since been rebuffed as the most common type of sexual abuse is at the hands of an intimate partner or family member is statistically more likely. However, due to the strict registry laws, victims are less inclined to report the abuse due to the permanent collateral damage that that entails. It is not an exaggeration to say that the combination of legal restrictions and social stigma has destroyed lives. Sex offender registries don’t prevent crimes; they merely further punish the offender further.
By putting people who commit sex crimes on a permanent list, the law isn’t only supporting the idea that they’re incapable of controlling their urges, it’s also restricting more specific structural and institutional reformist responses that might better address the reality of sexual harm. The existence of sex-offender registries doesn’t change the fact that rape survivors are often treated more sceptically by the police, than victims of any other crime. It doesn’t address the failure of institutions to treat sexual assault cases with criminal seriousness. And it reinforces the attitude that a normal man couldn’t possibly be a rapist.
Currently, sex offender registries that were originally meant to protect our children are now acting as sacrificial lambs to the nanny-state and the do-gooders of the political and legislature spectrum. The quote “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” has never been more relevant than now. Now, underage sexual curiosity and sex have been criminalised and we are crucifying them on the political alters we built to protect them. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, the most common age that people are charged is 14. By trying to protect our children from the monsters under the bed, we have allowed big government to introduce laws that punish juveniles for innocent curiosity. Social conventions and perceived rites of passage have been outlawed and for what? Registries are not preventing crimes or reducing recidivism rates, but they are ruining lives. The government is perceiving children are both the victim and the perpetrator and in turn is making a hit list. Inspired by puritanical American ideals, is that what is to come for Australian sex registries?
Politicians and law enforcement need to acknowledge that people can do dumb things, even sexual things and not be irredeemable monsters. Right now, that’s not a big political talking point, but it should be. In an incident in New Jersey: Two 14-year-olds pulled down their pants and sat on a 12-year-olds face. It is disgusting and reprehensible, but the punishment was even more so. Under Megan’s Law, they are now on the sex offenders’ registry for life. An appellate court upheld the sentence in 2011, consequently both these young men will be on the registry until they die. They’ll be treated are perennial perverts for something they did as adolescents. Frankly, the age that people are being registered as sex-offenders is appalling, but so is the registry itself and despite that is been shown over and over again that it does not make our children any safer it continues to become more extreme and over-reaching. It is pointlessly excessive and give politicians the easy way to act as if they care about children and safety, while actually ruining people’s lives.
Sex offender registry laws are draconian and irrational, especially given the evidence that they have little to no impact on sex offending rates. The idea that a person who is convicted of a sex offence that occurred 30 or 40 years ago and should be placed on a register today and be subject to its hardship is not only retrospective but completely goes against the rule of law. Placing a person on a sex offender register should be viewed as a punishment given the negative impact it has on an individual’s privacy, freedom of movement, economic liberty, and even playing PokemonGo and if the offence occurred prior to the register becoming law then it is unfair to impose this punishment now, this one-size-fits-all approach has pretended to answer all problems – when in reality, answers none. These severe laws and restrictions have led to suicides and executions via vigilantes, the state has become the monster under the bed for these children and is ultimately robbing them of everything for little community benefit.
These laws are now, not so much as protecting them from predators as they are perpetrating them as such. The rise of “youthful sex offenders” is not the result of our kids becoming more perverted or aggressive, but rather criminalising consensual sex between those under the age of 18. They are criminals not because they necessarily violated the life, liberty, or property of another person (unlike are the US government), but rather because politicians are defining them as criminals. People from both sides of the political spectrum are supporting these laws, all in the name of “saving the children”, and extending totalitarian policies of the state to further control people’s lives and values. The sex offender registry has turned into the new Salem witch hunts, it is the new age of McCarthyism and anyone can be the next victim.
The good thing is that most of these horror stories are the products of an American puritan regime and are in no way occurring in Australia. But, how long till our ideals mirror those of the US? Will our ‘good intentions’ get the better of us and follow the American example? Introducing sex offender registries in Australia is discrimination against one type of criminal over others, with little or no reduction in criminal behaviour.
America is rethinking the size and control of these registries and Australia policymakers and courts should follow suit before it’s too late.
Erika Salmon is a NSW Regional Coordinator at Australia and New Zealand for Liberty and is also undertaking an internship with the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance.
By Justin Campbell
Last night the Australian Greens stood up for Australia’s multicultural diversity by walking out of Senator Hanson’s maiden speech. Naturally, they had a cameraman on hand to record this heroic act. Senator Di Natale gave a touching speech on how his own family had experienced racism 50 years ago.
Looking at this group of heroes, I couldn’t but help notice how diverse they were. I mean when your party’s poster child for diversity is a former surgeon from an Italian-Australian background, you’re really grasping at straws. As he spoke, a bunch of white-middle class faces nodded intently behind him. “Yes, indeed Australia’s multicultural fabric needs to be protected.” They all thought in unison.
So just how diverse are the Greens?
Sarah-Hanson Young: White, Female, University Educated.
Richard Di Natale: White, Male, University Educated.
Larissa Waters: White, Female, University Educated.
Scott Ludlam: White, Male, University Educated. (Born in NZ, that’s worth half a minority point)
Rachel Siewert: White, Female, University Educated.
Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson: White, Male, University Educated/Military.
Lee Rhiannon: White, Female, University Educated (Points for being a crazy old communist though)
Nick McKim: White, Male, Former Prisoner/Environmental Tour Guide
Janet Rice: White, Female, University Educated.
That’s a lot of white middle class privilege in one little room. Luckily, white people can understand and interpret the cultural experience of ethnic minorities. Oh wait they can’t.
By Henry Innis
Most people support the lockout laws.
Most people support the greyhound ban.
Yet, since these things have come into play, an odd thing has happened. The Baird Government’s support has been tanking in recent polls, down 4% on the election result that won him government.
People point to these large polls and seem to think that there must be another issue at play. Is it the federal issues (given Baird bucking the trend with Abbott, the evidence suggests no)? Is it economic troubles?
I’d suggest it’s neither. The polls around greyhound bans and lockout laws may tell us more than we think.
By Rowan Cravey
There are many maligned things in political life. Spending money on ski trips or chartering chopper transportation are two examples, but the most incendiary issue of the now, is the one of donations.
In the majority of the public’s eye, donations essentially equal corruption most foul and should be spat on at the earliest possible convenience. They ‘buy’ politicians as serial narcissistic peacock, Nick Xenophon would allege. They influence policy direction for the benefit of the highest bidder, so to speak.
This is foolish. The Greens and some leftist minor parties have made huge hay out of claiming the higher moral ground and greater righteousness simply because fewer people donate to them. Creating a dichotomy between the donated-to and the not-donated-to is just another way for them to set themselves as different to the major parties, and therefore worth paying attention to.
While political games are the usual for the political class, this fallacy and morphed into what is cast as an utter certainty. Donations at their most basic, are supporters of a political party or individual who wish to see them win government or positions of influence, because they believe in what they stand for. This theoretically leads to policy development that will align with the donators beliefs. The more cynical view of donations, as oft proclaimed by the Greens and others like Xenophon, is that the money is given solely for the purpose of bribing a party to shape policy simply for the benefit of those who donate most. But there is a missing link in all of this.
The missing link is action. Governments must still put into action policy that either reflects the donators interests, or the party’s stated beliefs and principles. If the Government receives cash from a donator, then can simply say thank you for your support, and then move on to policy development, independent from the donators wishes. The causal link of donations to action is simply not there.
Indeed, those who are willing to be influenced by donations, such as ‘junior senator’ Sam Dastyari, are a problem, but in the end, garish difference of advocacy and inconsistency between himself and the rest of Labor have led to being outed. While Dastyari’s conduct is deplorable, the presence of mandatory disclosure of donations is a strong force to ensure accountability and transparency. But in the end, donations are simply not the problem, not the root of any problem. Politicians willing to be bought and be puppets for the highest bidder are.
Rowan Cravey is currently interning for the Australian Taxpayers’ Aliance
By Satyajeet Marar
Now, leaving aside the tastefulness of the concept and the message, there’s no denying one thing – this cartoon got people talking. A. Lot. And isn’t that the ultimate aim of satirical commentary? They weren’t just talking about a supposedly racist cartoon – they were talking about the real issues of indigenous kids in custody and whether cycles of family violence and neglect endemic in some indigenous communities were being ignored over concerns of political sensitivity.
Despite repeated complaints and outrage at the cartoon’s racial overtone – the Australian Press Council agreed! “Satire and cartooning should be afforded great latitude in a free and vigorous press’’ said the council’s chairman Professor David Weisbrot. Weisbrot argued that the publication of two opinion pieces in the newspaper, offering contrasting views, had settled the matter.
I’m inclined to agree. I must admit, when I first saw the cartoon I too thought it had crossed the line of good taste. The cartoon’s timing – in the wake of a Four Corners scandal on the abuse of indigenous teenagers in custody, seemed like especially poor form. I could easily empathise with the majority of indigenous parents doing the right thing by their kids, trying to raise them in a world which is, inconvenient truth be told, still plagued by instances racism and prejudice.
But it’s also worth remembering that stories evoking strong emotion can sometimes cause us to forget sides and perspectives which are equally important. In the wake of the twin towers attack, now nearing its 5th anniversary, Oprah Winfrey was the victim of racial and sexist harassment because of her anti-war stance. Today, we have a more nuanced understanding of what happened and know that conflicts in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, could have been handled a lot better and were often conducted in a manner which has left these regions unstable to even more sinister forces in the years since.
There’s no denying the existence of inconvenient questions in the wake of the Four Corners expose – how did these kids get in custody in the first place? Was it even their first offence? Were there factors other than an allegedly oppressive police system responsible for this cycle of behaviour not seen in more stable communities – both indigenous and non-indigenous? It’s no secret that communities facing cycles of crime also often feature broken or dysfunctional family structures with one or more absent parents. This problem intensifies in poor socio-economic conditions, especially those of remote communities which are propped up on taxpayer aid despite a lack of economic opportunities for children forced to grow up there by families unwilling to relocate to where a better albeit less certain future may be.
In a very different situation, the offices of Charlie Hebdo – a magazine known for publishing ‘blasphemous’ images of the Islamic prophet as part of its edgy political and social commentary style, were shot up by terrorists more than a year ago. The incident provoked outcries of support for freedom of speech and solidary with the magazine and those writing for it.
By shutting down or trying to shut down these controversial voices and opinions – are we really any better than the terrorists – lack of firepower, aside? When free speech is held hostage by those inflamed by emotion or missing the bigger picture rather than choosing to engage in the debate – we all stand to lose. Pardon my French, but F&%k that.
Satyajeet Marar is a Macquarie Law student currently interning with the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance.
By Satyajeet Marar
What if I were to tell you that the savings from the government’s superannuation reform which limits your own lifetime earnings is completely offset by the rise in public sector superannuation benefits?
It’s no secret that Australian public servants, especially those in top roles, are some of the highest paid in the developed world, with the heads of several government departments earning almost double what even the US President earns.
To add insult to injury, they’ve taken things a few steps further. A recent article in The Australian has revealed how the public servants’ salaries have been manipulated through the use of remuneration tribunals and other dubious tactics, causing astronomical increases of 70% or more since the GFC in 2006 and drastically outstripping private sector wage growth, with some fat cats now pocketing nearly $1 million a year. This really begs the question, how do people as crafty as this still manage to run technologically redundant websites which fail or crash when the public need them the most?