Australia's Digital Identity Bill - June 2024

Our connected world is very convenient. The things that you can do with your phone were unthinkable just twenty or so years ago. For example, I have a very handy banking app. Not only can I get instant account balances, I can check upcoming regular transactions, past transactions, I can even apply for a loan on my phone. I can suspend my cards if I lose my wallet, or suspect that there’s something nefarious going on. I am also able to self-restrict my own purchasing. Not just “how much” I spend, but what I spend my money on. I can ban my own spending on things like gambling, or overseas purchases, should I wish. Good idea, isn’t it?! At least one other Australian bank has taken their app a little further. It actually calculates how much Carbon emissions your purchases are responsible for. Handy for those who want to keep track of their personal carbon footprint. My boss recently bought himself a new ute. From his phone he can track the vehicle's information, things like engine temperature and fuel level. He can even start and stop the engine from his phone, from anywhere he might be, regardless of distance of separation, as long as there is an internet connection. If someone was to borrow (or steal) his ute, he can track it from his phone in real time. The Australian Digital ID Bill passed the Senate several weeks ago, with Lower House approval passing it into law on the 16th of May, and will take effect around November 2024. For a couple of months now, government advertising about Digital ID has reached my social media pages. (It’s probably on TV and radio, too). Promises like ‘A faster, easier way to prove your identity’ or ‘You are in control’, and ‘Private and secure’ have been suggested. Promises to make your interactions with the Government quicker, streamlined, and all available from your computer or phone. And anyone who has dealt with the government knows, it’s not all that smooth and easy! A digital ID will also make fraud against the government (and possibly private entities) more difficult. For example, the Australian social security system is always getting milked by fraudulent actors with multiple identities. A Digital ID will make such fraud much more difficult to achieve. Of course, our government is not just a single monolithic entity. It is an organism made up of a multitude of departments and bureaucracies all working in separate areas of specialisation. As well as that, there’s three layers of government in Australia: Commonwealth, State and Local (council). The digital ID technology promises to inter-connect your interactions across all levels, departments and sub-departments of government. In my opinion, the allure of time-saving convenience comes with a completely unacceptable price. That is, a certainty that almost every human right and freedom that we take for granted WILL be violated as this system of convenience becomes a system of control. Control over you. I suspect that the use of this technology will not only make it easier for you to deal with the government, but also for the government to deal with you, in any way that it seems fit. There’s no way that the Governmental use of this Digital ID use could become nefarious, is there? And there’s no way that this database can be hacked, revealing so much more of your personal details, ready to be sold to the highest bidder, is there? With recent hacks of massive databases including Optus and Medicare, your personal data needs to be more highly secured. Data breaches like this typically divulge your personal information including banking details, passwords, addresses and health/medical history. In my opinion, if Medicare can be hacked, so can your Digital ID. Our idiotic government, both the current Albanese crowd and the stupid Morrison mob before it, take their clues from the World Economic Forum in Davos. (Refresh your memory about these clowns HERE). The WEF has a page called How digital identity can improve lives in a post-COVID-19 world . I trust these guys about as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat. The page outlines their vision for Digital ID as the key to unlock your access to purchases, to travel, to financial services including banking and investments, to medical services, and government services. Every aspect of your life, your credit and debit cards, your business relationships, your health records, your phone records, your accounts with businesses and utilities… even your social media profile will all be linked and controlled by the Digital ID framework. Now, if the last few years during and after covid has taught us anything, it’s this: anything that the government can see, they can control. And when they can see every aspect of your life… you can lose personal autonomy and control of your own life. In January 2022, Canadian truckers, fed up with the problem of not being allowed to work (because of illogical and tyrranical Covid mandates), assembled in Ottawa to protest government overreach. All the truckies wanted to do was work and provide. Something like 50,000 trucks turned up. Along with several thousand vehicles with family and supporters who braved the freezing cold snow. Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, the gutless narcissistic tyrant, did what you would expect and declared himself Covid Positive and fled the city. But not before he labelled the truckers as “extremists”, “unacceptable”, “fringe” and even “terrorists”. Not that you’d know any of the above. The legacy media refused to report on the protest, and when they did, they downplayed numbers and misrepresented what the truckers actually wanted. The CBC reported 500 trucks, the Ottawa police said 5,000. Of course, even though their trucks were parked up, the truckers themselves needed fuel for their rigs to keep the motors running and keep the sleeper cabs warm. So after some time of panic, the weasel Mr Trudeau ordered the suspension of the truckers bank accounts which meant they were unable to buy food, fuel, or make any kind of payments including their own mortgages.Weather you sympathise with the truckers or not, consider for a moment what it means to have a government take control of your personal banking! The citizens of the greater (global) community rallied,and raised funds via services such as Go Fund Me, which the Canadian Government also egregiously seized. Money in the order of $10 million was unable to reach the intended recipients. Around most of the world, mainly in Western Democracies like ours, during Covid, the people that chose to refuse the jabs were unable to travel, visit a hospital, go shopping or even buy a coffee. In some cases, the unjabbed were not allowed to work and earn their living. The enforcement of these draconian rules entailed, of course, the previously unthinkable act of being asked for your personal medical details from people who, in any other world, had no business in knowing such personal things. So, what does all of this mean for us, you and I? The government has promised ("trust us") that the digital ID will be a free choice, with accreditation and participation being totally optional. Personally, I don’t trust them. It is only a matter of (short) time before those of us that decide to not sign up to the digital ID are ostracised from society. Those that choose to not have a digital ID will have an incremental but increasing amount of trouble accessing everyday government services, social security and pensions, and, as the program rolls out into the private sector, everyday business and even your accessing superannuation. This is how they will bully you into the system. Sort of like how supermarkets bully you into using self serve checkout by reducing the availability of serviced registers. In the event of another emergency (such as a pandemic, or even a "climate emergency"), those that don’t comply with government dictates will face hardships that make Covid restrictions look trivial. There will be no hiding your personal medical details from anyone who is given the right to access them. Even your favourite barista. Remember above how I said that an Australian banking app can track your carbon footprint? Well, under the digital ID framework, so will the government.The declaration of a “climate emergency” under any other name will see restrictions (imposed by government, not yourself), on how much carbon you emit. Too much red meat? Bought too much fuel? Use too much electricity? Consumed too much alcohol? Eaten out too often? Buying too much high-energy input foods? Expect restrictions on your accounts on what you can spend on what and where. It can be done, and it has been done! On top of that, all of your data will now be in one place. Your income and tax information, your medical/health information, your banking information, your business account information, your family information, medicare, licences, tickets, investments, political affiliation, club memberships, rates and land tax, property details, insurance… all in one place. All available to hacking, identity theft, information theft, financial theft and No. Digital Identity is a bad idea. Very, very bad idea. More Here. For the record, the digital ID Bill was formulated by the Liberal Party while in Government. It was supported by Labor and then passed under the Labor Government. Nothing will change until we change the way we vote.

Dear National Party of Australia - April 2024

 Below is an open letter that I presented to a member of the local National Party branch. 
The letter was presented to a meeting which included our (State) local sitting member.
As yet, I have had no reply. I'll keep you posted.

Dear Nationals
I am one of the many thousands of conservative voters looking for somewhere to park my vote.
I have been voting for around 35 or 40 years and while I traditionally voted Liberal or Nationals, I have not voted Nationals or Liberal since the 2007 Federal Election. And I will explain why shortly.
At the recent Tasmanian state election, something like 34% of voters selected a minor party, with the bulk of those votes going to the Greens.
At the most recent Federal election in 2022, the LNP and the Nationals (not including Liberal Party) combined primary was less than 12%. (To be fair, the Nationals don't contend that many seats, but these are the statistics from the AEC Tally Room web page). At the same election, around 20% voted for independents and minor parties.
So. Why are voters turning away from the major parties? While I can’t speak for everyone, I can speak for myself. So this is an attempt to explain why, and me asking you the question, “why should I vote Nationals”?
To me, the Nationals are a party wandering around with no message, and no adherence to their primary banner, ie:  a “Strong Voice for Regional Australia”. As far as I can tell, (and I’m happy to be corrected) the Nationals have no Federal voice at all in the lower house from Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory, Tasmania or the ACT. Same for the Upper house, save the incredible Jacinta Price in the Northern Territory. It looks to me like there are more from the Liberal party representing regional Australia than Nationals. This is despite the Nationals having a reported higher membership base than the Liberals. And despite the Liberals being utterly hopeless.
While my dismay at the Coalition parties started bugging me almost 20 years ago, watching the last four year’s action around Covid, for example, has been like having a tooth drilled. Australia’s two major parties of “Small Government” immediately adapted globalist policy and orchestrated, instructed, supported and implemented gross abuse of human rights. It was a display of totalitarianism the likes of which has never been brought down upon the Australian people since those that arrived here in chains.
Never before have we as Australians had our birthrights, (what Americans call “God-given inalienable rights) removed from us. I’m speaking of the people’s rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to trade, freedom of self-determination, and freedom of bodily autonomy. All of the things that the coalition parties purport to defend, but, by their actions, were trashed, forgotten, ignored and dismissed with the wave of the hand and swipe of the pen.
Now for those of us who live in New South Wales, you may be thinking our state coalition government was the least militant in Australia. And that may well be correct. However (as I’ve suggested several times over the last couple of years) being “less bad” is not a good enough reason for anyone to vote for you.
I could bang on about the stupid covid response for ages, but I won’t, because that is just the tip of the iceberg. And my thoughts on the Covid response are well documented elsewhere on this blog.
These are my current concerns:
Around the world, primarily Europe, farming is under attack. EU members and surrounding governments have declared war on carbon, by attacking and strictly controlling livestock production, fertiliser use, crop protection chemicals, diesel consumption, methane emissions, water use, and imposing strict land use mandates.
But Europe is a long way from Australia, right? Nope. Don’t be fooled. It’s coming here, too.
In my opinion, the stupid and pointless pursuit of Net Zero is fundamentally the greatest risk to our security and the future of our children. A recent report from Victoria states that, in order for the state to reach their carbon emissions target, they will have to surrender 70% of their farm land over to so-called renewable energy production. 70 Percent!! Is anyone listening to this? Farms are being torn up by wind turbines and solar arrays. Farms are being divided up by high voltage transmission lines and access roads. The Nationals should be screaming from the gate-posts of every farm in Australia. But, to date, have remained almost silent. More on that below.
Already, we’ve had thousands of acres of freehold farming land in Northern NSW and Southern Queensland surrendered to Carbon Sequestration. The owners of this land aren’t allowed to farm using broadacre techniques, and the result is the land is being overrun with feral animal and plant species.
Already, we’ve had so much water removed from food and fibre production, and Ms Plibisek is working to remove an additional 44 gigalitres per year as I write. Their gaslighting lies are being pushed on social media and a series of ads on commercial television.
Already, there’s talk about restrictions on chemicals. Farmers and farming communities are more than aware of the loss of production, and lowering of quality, when you cannot use Glyphosate or Dicamba!
Already, the Albanese government has signed up to reduce methane emissions. Their primary target to achieve these reductions, like we have seen in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Ireland, is burping and farting livestock. I fear that livestock reduction legislation is just around the corner. And with that legislation comes mandated livestock culls, a reduced availability of protein, and an upward pressure on meat price.
Already, there’s moves to totally ban livestock exports.
Soon, we’ll be saying “how did we get here?” How did we allow all of these counter-productive measures to be installed? The answer is, ‘one small increment at a time’. It's like the dog on the chain theory. If you remove one link from the dog's chain, he won't notice the loss of movement. Eventually, however, he won't be able to move at all. and have no idea how it became that way. 
Who will stand up for the Australian farmer, rural communities and common sense? Obviously, Labor and the Greens won’t. They have declared their disdain for primary production and obviously want to turn Australia into a nation of import consumption. The "Teals" are no more than virtue-signalling ideologues who contribute nothing except boosting the coffers of Simon Holmes à Court, who funds the Teals, and who coincidentally(?) also invests heavily in renewable energy.
Forget about the Liberal Party. They have lost their way and have abandoned, by their actions, the very ideals that they claim to uphold. They have proven to me at CPAC in 2022 and 2023 that they have little to no self-awareness, and blame the voter for their ills, rather than the party machine that seems intent upon steering them into the headwinds of political correctness and the folly of Net Zero.
The Nationals, despite the bluster of the likes of Barnaby Joyce, appear no different having signed up to the Net Zero madness. In fact, it’s Mr Joyce’s signature on Australia's most recent Net Zero declaration itself.
Add to that, the economic irresponsibility of both the most recent NSW and Federal coalition governments. Both of those governments seemingly embraced the romantic and lazy “Modern Monetary Policy”. The wanton printing of money and shovelling it into the economy has led to the inflation that we are all suffering from now. The coalition’s claim of “fiscal responsibility” is dead and has little prospect of being resurrected. 
THAT is why the minor parties are attracting more and more votes.
THAT is why the likes of One Nation are gathering strength, and why I ‘handed out’ for them at the last state and federal elections.
I am fed up with our current crop of political representation.
I am inspired to become more politically active and join a political party.
What I want to know is…
Why should I, why would I, join the Nationals?

 

Farming is Under Attack - March 2024

 

Farming is under attack. Globally.

I first shared my thoughts on this in 2022. Since then, there's been a movement of action throughout Europe, who's farmers have been the hardest hit. Farmers have been protesting in parts of Europe for a few years now, but over the last few months their numbers have increased immensely. Not that you’d know by watching/listening/reading our mainstream media in Australia. For some reason our legacy media have decided that this uprising across Europe isn’t worth reporting. It’s not that it isn't interesting…. It’s because the protests are standing up to, and fighting against, the accepted common narrative that the elites of our world have commanded.
Therefore, finding facts and pinpointing just what the Farmers are demanding, and which policies they object to, has proven difficult. There’s nothing of substance on any of our major media outlets' websites.
But the protests are in fact big news. In recent weeks the protest activity has ramped up spectacularly. It is estimated that over 15,000 tractors took to the city roads and streets in Germany alone. German protesters were emboldened by the 2022 Dutch protests, in which “The Farmer-Citizen Movement'' (or BoerburgerBeweging (BBB)) grew out of mass farmer protests, and is now the largest political party in the Dutch senate!
It wasn’t long before the French farming community joined in, followed by most countries across the European Union. In fact, as far as I can tell, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are the only EU countries where farmers have not taken to the streets.
For a better understanding of what is happening now, we have to backtrack to the years of World War II when Europe was facing food insecurity and famine. Following the war, European leaders decided to subsidise agriculture to prevent future famines. Their solution was the “Common Agriculture Policy” (CAP). The CAP promised a level playing-field and common rules across borders, and provided subsidies to farmers.
Of course, the problems that always arise with subsidies are now ingrained with European farming. Farmers vehemently protect their precious subsidies and any attempt to change, reduce or remove is met with fierce opposition.
According to European media, this is the farmer’s main problem. But, as always, there is more to the story, and subsidies are actually a minor part of their grievances.
Back to today, and the European Union has pledged to become “climate-neutral” (whatever that means) by 2050. They devised and implemented the “Green Deal” which introduced changes to the CAP. Under the Green Deal changes to CAP, they require farmers across the EU to reduce fertiliser use by at least 20% and set aside somewhere between 4% and 10% (depending on the news source) of their land in an unproductive state; ie no grazing, pasturing, and no cropping.
Farmers, due to these changes, are facing lower yields, and therefore, lower income. Farmers say they are not earning enough, are choked by taxes, green rules, and face unfair competition from imports.
Like I said, finding facts on the farmer’s grievances is proving difficult, as most legacy media outlets simplify the raft of complex matters down to “farmers are not getting enough pay” and are protesting “reduced diesel subsidies”.
All farmers across Europe are are worried about increased government interference in their ability to produce. They see the proposals as creeping socialism, and they don’t like it. And who can blame them? Eastern European nations have an intimate knowledge of the evils of socialism, having experienced it’s murderous ways in recent history.
The EU's green proposals look to be over and above the already unachievable and harmful "Agenda 2030' of the United Nations. Like all of these recent policies, Agenda 2030 looks like a reasonable and sensible set of ideas, until you dig a little deeper. We might look at that in more detail at a later date. But for now we'll concentrate on the Farmers.
It appears that, in addition to all of the above, most nations have their own additional and particular grievances. Here’s what I can glean from a bit or reading:

EU Wide: The EU is imposing strict environmental controls as they target Net Zero by 2050. Carbon and methane are emitted during production of food and fibre. We’re not just talking about fuel emissions, but natural emissions as well. Cattle belch and fart methane, after all. The EU is imposing a tax on all of these emissions to force farmers to reduce their herds and area under crop. Yep, they're taxing farts. And these taxes are on top of the ubiquitous European Carbon Tax, of course.
Also, farmers are faced with pesticide reduction measures and in some cases, total bans. There is a targeted reduction of chemical plant protection by 50% across the EU. Reducing crop protection chemicals means a massive increase in the use of diesel, equipment, and a farmer’s time. These inefficiencies lead to higher input costs, lower yields, lower quality product and reduced (if not diminished) profits. 
This is part of a push to make farming “organic” across the EU. For the time being, the organic farming mandate is set at 25% of land area. While I have no problem with the idea of organic farming, turning such a large portion of productive land over to such practices, again, reduces yields significantly and increases fuel and time inputs. Government is attempting to control land use of privately owned farms and as mentioned above, these restrictions include something like 10% of farmland - on each farm - to remain unused for any commercial enterprise.
Then there's Ukraine. When Russia marched into Ukraine, the EU decided that one of the best ways to support Ukraine was to purchase its agricultural products such as wheat, sugar and meat including poultry. These purchases are in addition to, and in volumes exceeding, normal trade. The EU pays a premium price for the Ukrainian product, which is then made cheaper with subsidies and waiving of import duties and taxes, and even subsidises the freight of the goods into Europe. This has resulted in the market being flooded with "cheap" product. In another example of a lack of self-awareness, the Ukrainian product is produced with chemicals and methods that are already illegal in the EU. But perhaps the most egregious problem with the EU’s purchasing of Ukrainian product is that their purchasing power has cut poorer nations out of the market. So grain in particular is not going to poorer African countries, where it is needed the most.

Netherlands: The Netherlands is the world’s second largest producer of agricultural products. For such a small nation their production of everything from cut flowers to beef is phenomenal.
The Dutch government has a target of a 55-60% cut in emissions by 2030, 70% by 2035, and 80% by 2040. As a result of this policy, the Government proposed compulsory acquisition and permanent closure of farms. I haven’t been able to find evidence of the area that they tried to acquire, but I’ve seen reports of up to 20% of the Dutch farmland is (was) earmarked for closure. That’s one in five farming families having their land seized and being marched off their own property. Like what happened to Ukraine earlier this century, and we know how that ended - millions starved to death.
On top of this is (was) the mandated reduction of herds where all farmers were to reduce their stock by 50%. If farmers did not voluntarily reduce their stock, the Government said that they would enter their farms and destroy excess stock.
Measures like those above make mandated reduction of fertilisers and taxation on Nitrogen seem insignificant, but both measures threaten yields, production and profits.
Another bone of contention is a perceived lack of respect from media and politicians, which bleeds into the general population.
The Dutch farmers have been protesting in one way or another since 2019. Their actions have seen significant shifts in policy, with measures being either watered down or scrapped. Their action has seen massive political change with a new party (the BBB) now holding a senate majority. The BBB has promised to reverse these decisions, but at time of writing, haven't been able to form a coalition government in their complicated party system. Having said that, the farmers are optimistic but remain cautious.
Germany: In Germany, where farmers’ protests peaked with about 30,000 farmers and 15,000 tractors in Berlin in mid-January, farmers are faced with the prospect of increased taxes across the board, as well as a removal of the Diesel Fuel Tax Rebate. Similar to the fuel excise rebate in Australia, the “road users levy” portion of fuel taxes is returned to farmers for vehicles/machinery that does not use the road network. With the German government budget blow-out of recent years, moves to cancel this rebate has met fierce opposition.
France - The French government in early February sent armoured vehicles to protect a wholesale food market in Paris from protesting farmers. Their grief is similar to that of other EU nations, with the added threat of chemical crop protection bans.
The french protests have been the most visually spectacular, with farmers blocking motorways with hay, spoiled silage, old tyres and burning piles of rubbish. Government buildings and infrastructure has been sprayed with mulch and animal effluent.
Italy -  Diesel costs and over-regulation of the sector are the additional concerns.
Ireland - Farmers have been told that, in order to achieve promised methane reductions, the national herd needs to be culled by 20%. If farmers are unwilling to thin their herd then the government has promised to increase taxation and forcing them to comply. The final step is to enter the farms and destroy their excess herd. This applies to dairy cattle, too.
Slovakia - The end of “EU Green fanaticism” is their mantra. If anyone knows about government interference, it’s the Slovaks!
Latvia - protesting cheap imports under free trade and EU CAP
Spain - Farmers have put their grievances into one basket and labelled it “Socialism”. 
Other protests of significant size have been seen in Portugal, Czech Republic, Belgium, Greece (also facing an end to fuel excise rebates), Poland, Romania, Malta, Finland, Switzerland, Turkey, Luxembourg, Austria, Hungary, and Slovenia. And possibly more.
Since I started writing this, other non-european countries have joined in, such as England, Wales, Scotland, India and Canada. Not that you’d know by watching our news broadcasts.
The European Elections this June should be interesting. It remains to be seen the gymnastics that may be performed by national governments and their EU representatives before the elections. 

So what does this mean for Australia? While it’s much more subtle, farming is under attack here too. Thousands of acres of farming land has been surrendered to Carbon Sequestration in northern NSW and southern Queensland. These landowners are not permitted to use broadacre weed clearing techniques by either cultivation or by chemical application. The result? Woody weed infestation and the accompanying feral animal invasion. This was a Howard government idea.
Howard also separated water from land and turned water for irrigation to the control of financial markets. The result has been more and more irrigation water being removed from productive use, which has artificially inflated the cost of water. Over recent years, 1,239 gigalitres per year (GL/y) has been removed from irrigators in the Murray-Darling basin. This is equivalent to two-and-a-half times the volume of Sydney Harbour, per year. 
The Albanese government announced this year that they intend to remove (by way of “buy-back”) a further 44 GL/y. No mention of the costs to our food and fibre production, and no mention of the environmental damage being caused to our waterways as they face increased flows from diverted water.

There’s also talk of bans on certain chemicals. Chemicals such as Glyphosate (“Roundup”) and Dicamba are facing bans overseas and there’s been talk of the same here in Australia. What people don’t realise is the massive gains in yields that these chemicals bring. Use of these crop protection sprays dramatically reduces the consumption of diesel during the preparation of crops, boosts yields during the crop cycle, and improves the quality of the harvested product. If you think that your groceries are expensive now, just wait until farmers have to revert back to 1940’s methods of cropping!
The Albanese government has also signed up to reduce methane emissions. Their primary target to achieve these reductions, like we have seen in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Ireland, is burping and farting livestock. I fear that livestock reduction legislation is just around the corner. And with that legislation comes mandated livestock culls, a reduced availability of protein, and an upward pressure on meat price.
No doubt related to that, Albanese government has also signalled that live sheep and cattle export bans are also around the corner. This government seems to be doing everything it can at the moment to demonise the practice. Many suggest that we (Australia) need to develop a tertiary industry around the exporting of meat that is already processed, and export the meat products in a “ready to sell” state. Great idea, but impossible while our energy costs are so exorbitant and a suitable labour force rare.
Also, farming land is being surrendered to “renewable energy” use. Thousands of acres across eastern Australia is being destroyed by solar arrays, wind turbines, battery storage and associated overhead high-voltage transmission lines. Farms are being torn up by these measures which are reducing productive land, reducing productivity while devaluing the land significantly.
A recent report for the Victorian Government has confirmed that, in order to reach Net Zero, 70% of farming land will be surrendered to power generation. 70% of land that produces our food, fibre, dairy and wine. How on earth do we propose to feed everyone if the productive land is reduced to just 30% of today's area? 
Who will stand up for the Australian farmer, rural communities and common sense? Obviously, Labor and the Greens won’t. They have declared their disdain for primary production and obviously want to turn Australia into a nation of import consumption. The Teales are no more than virtue-signalling ideologues who contribute nothing except boosting the coffers of Simon Holmes à Court, who funds the Teals, and who coincidentally also invests heavily in renewable energy.
Forget about the Liberal Party. They have lost their way and have abandoned, by their actions, the ideals that they claim to uphold. Their web page, “Our Beliefs” is something that they should reflect upon regularly. Sadly, the Liberals' action (and inaction) demonstrate their abandonment of their own guiding principles. And they have proven to me at CPAC in 2022 and 2023 that they have little to no self-awareness, and blame the voter for their ills, rather than the party machine that seems intent upon steering them into the headwinds of political correctness and the folly of Net Zero.
The Nationals, despite the bluster of the likes of Barnaby Joyce, are no different having signed up to the Net Zero madness. In fact, it’s Mr Joyce’s signature on Australia's Net Zero declaration itself.

Bugger the lot of them!

(Photo: Riotact)
I attended the  “Reckless Renewables” protest in Canberra, along with (my estimation) 2,000 other concerned farmers and their supporters in February 2024. The protest was low-key and nothing like we’ve seen overseas. I guess we have to start somewhere. But we do have to say "enough is enough" and draw a line in the sand BEFORE the madness of Europe comes through our own farm gates.
If you feel the same as me, do some research on what political parties will stand against Net Zero, that support small government, that demand freedom of speech, association, movement and bodily autonomy.
What party stands by the farmer? What party can see the value of production? What party values the rural and remote communities of Australia? What party has voiced it's opposition to "fifteen minute cities" where ALL of us will live in massive collective cities? What parties will stand beside you when you decide that ‘enough is enough’ and stand against tyranny? 
What political party understands the Liberal Democratic principle where government is in power at the behest of, and on behalf of, the people? Where it's the people who rule the Government?

Do yourself a favor. Look into it. Because nothing will change until we change our vote.

How to Destroy Australia - January 2024

Last October (2023), I had the great fortune to meet and spend a few minutes in discussion with Professor Ian Plimer. He graciously signed my copy of his book Green Murder that he had recently published. During our conversation, I asked him what his next book might be about. He replied that an idea he was working on was “How to Destroy Australia”.I don’t know if Professor Plimer is actually working on such a book, but it got me thinking. Here’s my list. (With apologies to Prof Plimer) How to ruin Australia (according to Howard, and in no particular order)

1. Destroy the family unit

Make Dads optional
Sublet the raising of children by institutions

Blur gender roles of parents
Destroy traditional family roles

Put Men and Women into competition with each other

Make children ignorant of religion and Judeo/Christian ethics and values

Leave it to schools to teach morals, virtue and ethics

Minimise child-to-grandparent experiences

Propagate and enforce an atmosphere of fear.

2. Destroy the honour and/or memory of previous generations

Pay lip service to our ANZACS and avoid teaching about freedom and liberty

Concentrate on the negative facets of our past and ignore the positive

Demonise our ancestors and ignore their sacrifices, courage and hard lives

Ignore and take for granted everything that they created and gifted to us. 

3. Destroy belief in true religion. 

Ridicule those who do believe

Ridicule entire institutions based on the actions of a few

Promote false religions of fear such as Climate Change

Worship the false deity that is the Environment

Ignore social gains brought to us by the Judeo/Christian beliefs

Ignore the doctrine that all people are created equal and have the same inalienable rights.

4. Destroy capitalism and free markets

Oversee massive debt and budget deficits

Trigger inflation to swallow government debt

Over-regulate the market

Distort markets with subsidies

Teach our children that capitalism is evil

Ignore massive humanity gains brought to us by free markets

Punish successful entrepreneurs with excessive taxation

Punish successful entrepreneurs with social condemnation

Attack the concept of private property

Stifle competition with regulations and unequal taxation and/or subsidies

Empower unelected bureaucrats to govern without consequence or recourse 

Enlarge government and the executive while paying the sector above-market wages 

Increase taxation to unreasonable levels which increases the need for coercion which lowers freedoms.

5. Make the necessities of life rare and expensive.

Make housing availability low and expensive

Make housing development difficult, bureaucratic and expensive

Make energy unreliable and unaffordable

Subsidise inefficient power generation

Tax cheap power generation 

Disrupt food supply chains making distribution delayed and expensive

Make water for producers difficult to obtain and expensive
Make food production, handling, distribution and retail prices expensive

Make food limited in variety, source and nutritional value.

6. Destroy education
Discourage free thought and discovery

Declare “the Science settled” and ignore the ‘scientific method’

Suppress or outright ban ideas that conflict with the common narrative

Ban books and ban movies

Re-write history and present new hypotheses as indisputable truth

Introduce sexually explicit literature to young people

Remove religion and religious instruction from schools.

7. Destroy the beauty in architecture

Make buildings bland and uninteresting

Turn buildings into monuments to wealth or technology, not beauty
Make new suburbs a carbon copy of the last

Build new suburbs totally bereft of, and considerable distance from, natural bushland

Make housing blocks a minimal size and fill it with a maximal house

Fill shopping centres with the same stores as every other centre

Make retail spaces too expensive for small and family businesses.

8. Destroy beauty in the arts. 

Make Visual arts ugly and uninterpretable
Make Music angry, violent and racist
Make Comedy bland and edgeless, and ban the offensive 

Use law and compulsion to change the language and meaning of words.

9. Suppress the People’s inalienable rights and freedoms

Restrict and censor free speech 

Restrict freedom of association

Restrict freedom of movement

Restrict private property rights

Track people or make people self-report when exercising these rights.

10. Destroy the worth of money

Print money and flush it through the economy

Flood selected markets with subsidies

Channel public money into untested and uncosted social welfare schemes

Spend taxpayer money where private enterprise can and would be spent

Print money to service debt

Use inflation as a debt reduction tool.

11. Destroy “Equality” by insisting on “Equity”

Abandon the principals of meritocracy

Demand equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity

Divide people by race, ethnicity, gender, etc and label it “inclusion”

12. Make Politicians wealthy 

Allow politicians to personally profit from their decisions around water, energy, mining

Rely on governments for our own safety, personal security, financial security, fixing the uncontrollable. 

13. Take everything we have for granted

Remove the tradition of family conversation, personal reflection, and giving thanks.

So there you go. By no means an exhaustive or complete list. Just the ones that are bugging me as I write. I’m sure there’s a plethora of ideas and life choices that are being attacked that I have not addressed here.

Australia is the greatest country on earth. But our Governments (the system, not necessarily the party in charge) are changing our society. As government expands it becomes, by virtue of the sheer amount of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, removed from the very ideals that have built Australia into what it is today. In Canberra, at Macquarie St, or at the location of your local council chambers, government is reaching further into our lives to control and coerce us into living the way that they think we should. They have dozens of departments, agencies and ministries that are dedicated to doing just that. 

It’s time to stand up. Say no to authoritarianism. Yes to freedom, liberty, individualism.  Nothing will change until we change the way we vote.

(Thank you David M for your help with this article, and Prof Plimer for the inspiration)