Australia’s Looming Thugocracy

Polling suggests we may soon have a government of thieves, thugs and constitutional vandals. That’s no exaggeration—it accurately describes Labor’s policies. Shocking as they are, much of what they’re proposing is half-baked. For example, they were caught verballing the Australian Bureau of Statistics over negative gearing; they preach for electric cars with no idea of the time and expense involved in recharging, and planned to close down most of our remaining manufacturing and many farms because of the increasingly discredited theory about man-made CO2 emissions. Yet Labor’s deputy leader, when quizzed, had not the foggiest idea just how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere.

Having seen the PR disaster of Julia Gillard’s open alliance with the evermore extremist Greens, Labor now hides its absolute dependence on them, the price of which will be the application of many of their destructive policies. A Shorten government will steal billions of tax refunds from older Australians, most of limited means. Their crime? They have organised their affairs in an attempt not to be burdens on the taxpayer. Shadow Treasurer Bowen dismissed their plight with an arrogance often, and falsely, attributed to Marie Antoinette. And it’s not only the elderly who will be mugged by Labor. A young person entering the workforce now on average earnings will have half a million dollars lifted from his or her super if he doesn’t kowtow to Shorten’s union mates.

Labor will also govern for the explicit benefit of law-breaking union thugs. Expect the few constraints on their bullying — including those made law by previous Labor governments― to be removed. Why, they’ve even revealed they’ll override the very same umpire that Labor predecessors created. The building industry is especially targeted for thug rule, while independent mum-and-dad businesses will be driven out of road transport. The unions will be allowed to enhance their stranglehold on the rivers of gold that flow from ordinary workers into superannuation and without being subject to the rules that apply to directors of corporations. Workers’ savings will be diverted to turn union bosses into multi-millionaires, keep Labor politicians in power and place union puppets on the boards of public companies.

Australia will come to resemble the Mussolini fascist corporate state model which the Chinese communists adopted to save them from the fate of the Soviet communists. Little wonder Paul Keating has praised the Communist Chinese regime as the best government in the world.

Then there’s the obsession with “climate change”, the fake name chosen for the former global warming when it failed to occur as the “settled science” and legions of rent-seekers and academic careerists predicted. Just when has the climate not changed? We’ve already moved from having around the world’s cheapest electricity to amongst the dearest, but under Labor prices will rocket even higher. That will say goodbye to our surviving manufacturing concerns, while many farms go under as belching cows become the next target. Beholding as they will be to the Greens, Labor will insist on stopping coal exports.

If all of the above is not enough, this will be topped off by a government of constitutional vandals. This won’t be about turning Australia into a real republic like the US or Switzerland. It’s about reworking a crowned republic as a politicians’ fake republic stripped of crucial checks and balances. Shorten knows Australians are far too smart to fall for this if presented honestly. He knows that in a real referendum, where he’d have to reveal his politicians’ republic before the vote, a bigger defeat than in the 1999 landslide would await. So he’s using a tool made popular in the French Reign of Terror and by subsequent authoritarian governments:the blank cheque constitutional plebiscite. This is where you get the details after you vote. Authoritarian government typically use trick questions in plebiscites. Shorten’s question will be based on the untruth that we don’t already have an Australian as head of state, the governor-general.

Australians would never elect such a government if they knew the facts. We will have a long time to rue the result if they do.

Professor David Flint is National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy which ran the No case in the 1999 referendum

11 thoughts on “Australia’s Looming Thugocracy

  • Simon Morgan says:

    If this nightmare scenario does come to pass, I think we should use Mays’ Brexit strategy – i.e we just don’t accept the result and insist on a ‘peoples’ vote’. After all the precedent has now been set. And it was set by Left wingers.

  • ianl says:

    I regard the Constitution as a bulwark defence against those who lust for power. My long experience in Aus tells me that said lustfuls regard it as an irritating constraint on their aims.
    So we will get at least two questions (perhaps together): the “Republic” and the (indigenous) “Voice”. Both questions will be couched in simplistic emotional style, with the details left to the Parliament. Resistance to this constitutional thuggishness will be treated by the meeja as racism.
    I’ve already seen op-eds from activist lawyers opining exactly along the lines of this model.

  • ianl says:

    I should have added that the “Republic” will have as its’ central effect the negation of the GG’s (or whatever the position is called) ability to dismiss an errant elected Govt and force a DD. Negation of the Senate’s ability to block or refuse Supply is also likely. Then 1975 will be avenged.

  • SB says:

    Regarding Labor’s ‘absolute dependence’ on the Greens, maybe there’s more strategy to Labor’s campaign than at first seems. At the start of the campaign a Labor landslide looked certain. Maybe they were prepared to give up some of those votes in exchange for the votes of Greens supporters, hoping that that would give them control of the senate in their own right. After that Labor could do whatever it pleases.

  • pgang says:

    So has anybody started going to church yet, to start turning things around, or are we just going to whinge about it?

  • lloveday says:

    “So has anybody started going to church yet…”

    Au contraire, I’ve stopped until the current pope is replaced, and will then reconsider.


  • Jody says:

    Firstly, I blame the Coalition for not taking on the culture wars. Timidity isn’t leadership. The people have abandoned both major parties and that’s why we have the terrifying prospect of Greens calling the shots. Morrison’s career will be terminated and the Coalition will fight amongst themselves (as Paul Kelly predicted 6 months ago). But the bedrock of the problem is 3-fold:
    1. 49% of the nation are not NETT taxpayers; they receive more in welfare and subsidies than they pay in taxes. The remaining 51% have to be further taxed to support them. Ergo, the structural problems with that percentage was never dealt with; Morrison should have cut that figure off at the knees to give itself a chance at a constituency.
    2. The idea that Australians can have the best for nothing on an increasing scale of expectation – reinforced by the Coalition – will eventually destroy BOTH major parties when the illusion is exposed;
    3. Australia cannot influence the world climate; you cannot reduce 1.3% of anything. But propaganda – on a scale of which the politburo would be proud – has convinced people that our actions will be heroic and necessary. Personally, if the world is on board I’m all in!! Again, I blame the Coalition for its silence.

    The government doesn’t deserve another go because of its timidity. Australia is going to get the dose of salts it votes for. As for us, we are already divesting ourselves of shares in super, building rental housing and determined we will not pay death taxes. Be ahead of the curve or pay the “49ers”!! At the end of the day it’s ALWAYS, always, ALL ABOUT WHO GETS WHAT.

  • lloveday says:

    “49% of the nation are not NETT taxpayers; they receive more in welfare and subsidies than they pay in taxes”.
    I’ve often read those figures or variations thereof, but have never been able to fathom out how anyone calculates how much individuals pay of each of the 120 taxes listed by the Treasury, but to get an accurate figure that is what has to be done.
    A specific example – for 19 consecutive years, I had a taxable income of $0 and received no welfare or subsidies, not even Medicare. My returns were accepted by the ATO, but in just one of those years, I paid over $600,000 in other taxes, little of which could be attributed to me by whoever claims to be able to determine the 49/51% split. How would they determine which group I was in? Were they right? When someone puts a figure at 49%, they should be accurate to within 0.5, viz the real figure being 48.5 to 49.5, and I have zero doubt they are unable to do that – reminds me of the “97% of scientists…”

    At least 90% of the times I read “tax” in articles, the author is apparently referring to “income tax” but leaves off the adjective.

  • Jody says:

    These 49/51 tax figures have been around for a while and are based on income tax assessments and welfare payments and other concessions. The rest of us ALL have to pick up the other incidental taxes to which you refer – but it’s hard to imagine the 49ers being in a position to pick up most of them, since they have limited purchasing power. Ergo, income tax, welfare and concessions are what that figure refers to. It’s absolutely shocking to read and know this because it means structurally Labor will have a ready-made constituency going forward. This cargo cult mentality WILL stop after Shorten has his followers rushing into the showers and this country continues to borrow exponentially.

    The Coalition will be called in, inevitably, to clean up the mess. People talk about debt blowing out under the Coalition since 2013 but when you inherit huge amounts of fiscal lead in a saddle and have to continue running the country it’s nearly impossible to bring it under control. As in any household, if you are burdened by debt sometimes you have to borrow more just to eat – and you’re unable to pay down the debt. This has been the fate of the Coalition.

  • lloveday says:

    “…are based on income tax assessments and welfare payments and other concessions”.
    Obtained from where by whom, collated, evaluated and reported on by whom?
    My $600,000 in 12 months did not seem incidental to me.

  • Salome says:

    Perhaps the heading could be amended to read ‘The Bullet Australia Dodged’.

Leave a Reply