Fellowship Dinners Australia

Australia is at a fundamental crossroads with regards to its economic future.  It is therefore argued by Dr. David Bennett that it is in the best interests of the  nation, that the Liberal Party does not allow its internal debate over the 2050 Net Zero Emissions Target to destroy itself. 

It is time to see through the charade which is currently convulsing the Liberal Party regarding the adoption of a Net Zero Emissions Target by 2050.   The ‘controversy’ concerning this avowed target is nothing more than a pretext by which the hard right of the Liberal Party is trying to force moderates out of the party.  This intended purge on the part of the Liberal Party’s hard right is being undertaken so that Regionalisation can later be introduced and so that they (i.e. the hard right) will have the party brand name and consequent voting base in order to run the new super regional councils.

As has been in argued in previous Social Action Australia (SAA) articles, Regionalisation will see mega councils eventually replace Australian states.  For Regionalisation to be facilitated, Section 51 of the Australian Constitution, which sets out the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament, will have to be expanded to include responsibility for local government.   Such an amendment to the Constitution must be approved by popular referendum in at least four of the six Australian states.

The major problem for the hard right of the Liberal Party and the powers that be within the Nationals Party, is that such a referendum on amending Section 51 will probably fail.  This is because too many people in the know who are pro-states rights will mount an effective campaign against Section 51 being amended should such a referendum be held.

Unfortunately, in the process of seeking the unattainable (i.e. amending Section 51 of the Constitution) the hard right will have fatally eroded the future viability of both the Liberal and Nationals’ parties.  It is therefore better for the anti-state elements within the two aforementioned coalition parties, that they fall in behind the federal Opposition Leader Sussan Ley.   For if she is deposed as Liberal leader the moderates within her party will probably split away, therefore destroying the contemporary Liberal Party.

Alternatively, if Susan Ley prevails then hard right elements within the Liberal Party may defect to the Nationals Party.  However, this would still be a futile outcome because Regionalisation will probably not occur because constitutional referendums in Australia rarely, if ever pass, when there is concerted opposition.  

                                                                                                                                                                                           The Marvels of Succession Planning

 

Consequently, the better scenario for the Liberal Party (and for Australian democracy) is that deal-making be undertaken on the basis that Regionalisation will not ever be introduced.  Succession planning could therefore be implanted by which the current federal deputy Liberal leader, Ted O’Brien graciously steps down in favour of a leading figure from the hard-right, such as Angus Taylor, Andrew Hastie or Senator Jacinta Price.

A new federal deputy Liberal leader who comes from the party’s  hard right could then publicly pledge their loyalty to Susan Ley as the Opposition Leader between now and the next federal election.  As part of this deal-making process, Susan Ley could privately undertake to retire as Opposition Leader if the coalition does not substantially improve its position at the next federal election. 

If there is to be a successor to Susan ley as Liberal leader following the next federal election, his or her deputy, should also come from a rival faction so as to minimize the chances of a future Liberal Party split. 

                                                                                                                                                                         How The Nationals Can Still Redeem Themselves

 

As for the rent-seeking elements within the federal Nationals Party they should realize that their party is strongest when it is in coalition with the Liberals under a Westminster parliamentary system.  Historically, this was illustrated when the New South Wales branch of the Nationals Party allowed the Liberals to retain the leading position within the state coalition despite the Liberal Party being decimated by the 1978 and 1981 state elections in the so-called ‘Wranslides’. 

The New South Wales Nationals during this period in the 1970s and 1980s strongly attacked the Wran government which helped the Liberals become a viable opposition party following the 1984 state election and to eventually win government in 1988.  This support by the New South Wales Nationals was very helpful to the Liberals because there was a stage when a majority of parliamentary members of the state Liberal Party room had served either as leader or deputy leader at one time or another! Such a pattern of leadership churn could re-occur for the contemporary federal Liberals if Susan Ley is deposed as party leader. 

Also relevant to the issue of continued Liberal Party viability in relation to the dynamic of state politics, is the catastrophic (but still generally unseen) economic position of the Victorian economy.  Consequently, the federal coalition could win most of the parliamentary seats in Victoria by the time of the next federal election, due in 2028.  

Australia’s Precarious Trading Position

It should also be pointed out that the federal ALP Albanese government is also vulnerable, and this could tremendously help the Liberals if they were to remain a viable party in the short to medium term.  For the acute problem which Australia currently faces is that our trading position with Communist China is possibly about to become very disadvantageous.  

This looming Australian trade crisis with China is because there are substantial iron/ore deposits in the West African nation of Guinea which Beijing could access by providing the necessary capital for exports to be facilitated.  Alas, for Australia, it is only a matter of time before this will occur! 

It should be pointed out that Australia has been able to maintain its high standard of living in spite of the de-industrializing impacts of the respective Hawke and Howard eras due to its lucrative export of minerals to China.  Consequently, it must be a priority of the Albanese government to re-position this nation economically by the time that China can access Guinea’s iron/ore deposits. 

It is not as though some of Australia’s senior political leaders are unaware of this fundamental threat to the nation’s living standards.  Alarmingly, there are still rent-seeking elements within the nation’s political elite who envision receiving capital from mainland China as Australia’s trading position substantially declines.  According to this perspective, future super regional councils could be a direct recipient of such capital inflows.  

However, there is no guarantee that Regionalisation will ever be introduced because referendums to amend the constitution rarely succeed when there is concerted opposition.  Therefore, Australia needs a re-directed focus on the part of its senior leadership to fundamentally adjust to our impending changed trading relationship with China.  It is in pursuit of achieving this important objective that SAA advocates that the Liberals do not depose Susan Ley as their leader.

                                                                                                                             Caveats in Relation to Australia Adopting a 2050 Net Zero Emissions Target

Currently, Susan Ley has been placed in an invidious position by rent-seeking elements within her own party over the issue of the 2050 Net Zero Emissions Target.  The current circuit-breaker to this fundamental, if not strategically generated problem, is for the federal Opposition Leader to endorse the 2050 net zero emissions target but only on the basis that it can be demonstrated that the replacement renewable technologies are;

1. clearly able to provide an energy capacity that is at least the equivalent to the fossil fuel process it is replacing.
2. The cost to consumers of the replacement technologies is at least equivalent to what it is replacing.

.

This approach will require a carefully managed and evolutionary scientific methodology to achieve a non-disruptive implementation of the new renewable technologies. The corollary to this process is that if both of the aforementioned conditions are not met, then the renewable proposal will not be introduced until it can be demonstrated that it will meet these requirements.

  It is a pity that the rent-seeking elements within both the Coalition and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) have not demonstrated the same skill regarding the renewable revolution as they are in attempting to stealthily introduce Regionalisation.

LEARN MORE

Dr. David Bennett argues in this article that Australia is going ‘down under’ due to there being a dangerous potential rent-seeking nexus between the onset of regionalisation and superannuation ‘reform’.  

The mooted introduction by the Treasurer Jim Chalmers of a tax (‘the Super Stupid Tax’) on the unearned (or the unrealised) value of superannuation funds of three million dollars or over is a potential disaster.  Not only is this proposed tax non-indexed for inflation but the methodology of how the unrealised value will be calculated is not clearly defined.  The structural flaws in the Super Stupid Tax could lead to the effective destruction of self-managed superannuation funds. 

The effective destruction of self-managed superannuation funds by massively discouraging private investments via the application of the Super Stupid Tax to these private funds could serve to consolidate existing industry funds which are administered by either trade unions or big business for the intended benefit of individual contributors. The capital in these industry superannuation funds is directly derived from compulsorily acquired superannuation contributions on salary/wages for the benefit of employees when they reach retirement age. 

Most Australian employees were prepared to accept the introduction in the early 1990s of a compulsory superannuation on the basis that they would eventually reap the benefits of a financially secure retirement.   This social contract between Australian employees and the state would be grossly violated if industry unions and/or big business were to utilise superannuation funds to substantially control the Australian economy and in so doing gain a socio-political ascendancy.  Currently, trustees of superannuation funds are legally obliged to make investments for the financial benefit of their members. 

The question therefore emerges as to how such control of the economy by trade unions and big business would be gained?   The answer is by constitutional recognition of local government.  Should section 51 of the Australian Constitution (which refers to the legislative powers of the Commonwealth Parliament) be amended to also include powers to make laws about local government, then the potential to paradigmatically shift socio-economic power in Australia will be facilitated. 

The constitutional recognition of local government in the Constitution under section 51 would potentially allow the federal government to amalgamate councils, set local government rates/levies and to legislate concerning the spending power of local councils.  The process could therefore be initiated by which local councils could utilise monies from industry superannuation funds to help finance government at a regional level, thereby substantially determining the possible future political distribution of power in Australia.

Existing financial and local government laws would still have to be amended so that superannuation funds could be used by local government  authorities to substantially fund a new regional tier of government.  However, once section 51 of the Constitution is amended to recognise local government then this objective could eventually be realised.   The realisation of this transfer of power via constitutional recognition of local government could also lead to the ultimate phasing out States which is an outcome that Social Action Australia (SAA) has long forewarned. 

There is of course the seeming reassurance that the Australian voting public is too loathe to amend the Australian Constitution which will ensure that the aforementioned scenarios will never come to fruition.  However, a referendum proposal to recognise local government will be presented as an innocuous change.  Such a proposal therefore stands a very good chance of passing.

Another reason why a constitutional amendment to section 51 of the Constitution might pass could be due to forthcoming bi-partisan support.  Whether this occurs depends on the Liberal Party, particularly as there are self-serving rent-seeking elements within this party and their coalition partner, the Nationals.  It will therefore be a major test of the new federal Liberal parliamentary leader Sussan Ley to decide whether to oppose any proposed constitutional amendment to section 51 to recognise local government. 

For the sake of Australia and the Liberal Party itself, Sussan Ley will hopefully oppose any move to constitutionally recognise local government.  However, rent-seeking elements within the federal coalition, who have long sought the eventual phasing out of Australian States, will possibly put up a strenuous fight to ensure that section 51 is amended. This will be because they might envisage the financial dividend of expanded regional councils being able to spend the capital derived from superannuation funds. 

 

Why The Liberals Must Avoid Splitting

The above cited scenario assumes that there will be a Liberal Party in the distant future.  However, right-wing rent-seeking elements within the coalition parties might hope that the Liberal Party will survive into the future as an avowedly socially conservative party which is regionally based.   This re-configured Liberal Party might also exist in major urban areas due to a rusted-on loyalist vote which could still be garnered at a local government/regional level.  Such a re-modelled Liberal Party might eventually merge with the Nationals Party to help facilitate greater rent-seeking access to resources at a local government level. 

As for the moderate/progressive wing of the Liberal Party, they could team up with the Teals to help form a new major political party which is socially progressive.  Already there are signs of a party split being engineered in the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party. 

The September 2025 State Conference of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party could set the groundwork for this party split to occur.  The ostensible issue which could lead to this split will probably be whether the State branch should lend money to former State Opposition Leader, John Pesutto to pay for defamation costs he owes. 

Should John Pesutto be denied a Victorian Liberal Party loan to pay for court costs and become bankrupt, he will have to resign from his State seat of Hawthorn, thereby causing a by-election which a Teal candidate will probably win.  Such a scenario could consequently become a catalyst for moderate/progressive Victorian Liberals to split from the party. 

A formal division within the ranks of the Victorian Liberals could well precipitate a nationwide split within the Liberal Party which would also have the probable consequence of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) winning the Victorian State election due in early November 2026.  It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the ALP could win re-election in Victoria in 2026 due to preferences from a Liberal break-away party.

Therefore, the right-wing elements within the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party will hopefully not push the moderate/progressive wing of their party out because they will also be consequently cast out into the political wilderness for generations to come.  A factor motivating the right-wing Liberals is that they might hope to gain complete control of the State party branch’s money and assets if there is a party split. 

Should the right-wing Liberals win control of the governing Administrative Committee in elections to that executive at the party State Conference in September 2025, they might be in a position to cause a party split.   To avoid such an outcome, the federal Liberals should be prepared to intervene in the Victorian branch of the Liberals to ensure that no one faction gains control of that division’s money and assets. An intervention would also ensure that resources are equitably distributed to the Liberal Party’s Victorian branch’s opposing factions at election time. 

It should not be forgotten that Gough Whitlam probably would not have won the December 1972 federal election for the ALP had he not authorised intervention in the Victorian branch of the Labor Party in 1970.  This bold action on Whitlam’s part re-assured the public that he had the mettle to be prime minister by standing up to the hard left of the party* which was then based in Victoria.  

(*Subsequent events however demonstrated that Gough Whitlam as prime minister between 1972 and 1975 lacked the backbone to rein in the hard left of his party, but this is another story). 

Similar to the right-wing Liberals in Victoria, right-wing factions within the Liberals in other States might believe that by holding onto their party brand name following a split, they will gain a rusted-on vote which can then be utilised in urban areas to win representation at a local government level.  However, a presumption underlying this calculation is that section 51 of the Constitution will be amended to include powers over local government, which is an added reason as to why such a proposed constitutional change should be opposed.

Furthermore, if a new regional tier of government is later introduced, the Greens, a Teal type party (which could have Liberal breakaways within their ranks) and the ALP will always combine to keep the continuing Liberals in a minority at a local government level in urban areas. 

At any rate it is a dereliction of political purpose that one of the major parties in Australian politics (i.e. the Liberal Party) should aspire to be a recipient of local government largesse in lieu of being a national contender for power in a Westminster parliamentary system.  Those within the Liberal Party seeking to amend section 51 of the Constitution may believe that their party is no longer a contender for national power due to the political rise of the Teals. 

 

Future Liberal Party Pre-Selections: The Early Bird Catches the Worm!

Indeed, the Liberal Party faces the fundamental and vexing question as to what to do about the Teals?  The answer to that question is that the Liberals should pre-select their candidates on an early basis so that they (i.e. the pre-selected Liberal Party candidates) can recruit people on the ground into their campaign to retake Teal held seats.  It should not be overlooked that Teal parliamentarians hold seats in mainly affluent areas so it should not be that difficult for pre-selected Liberal candidates to give their Teal opponents ‘a run for their money’. 

One Liberal Party candidate who not only waged a competitive campaign against a Teal incumbent (Zoe Daniel) but actually won back the south-eastern Melbourne seat of Goldstein at the May 2025 federal election was Tim Wilson.   Since losing Goldstein at the May 2022 federal election, Tim Wilson had waged a determined campaign to win back this seat against Zoe Daniel who is a prestigious former journalist.  That Tim Wilson was able to win Goldstein back is demonstrative of the value of undertaking an organised campaign which harnesses local human resources and talent.

Pessimists for the Liberal Party may claim that their party had failed to win the previously blue-ribbon seats of Kooyong and Menzies in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs despite having very talented candidates.  The counter to this perspective is that future socio-economic factors will eventually favour the Liberals such that they could not only win back Teal held seats but also be in contention to win safe ALP seats! 

These external socio-economic factors are the underlying parlous state of the Victorian and South Australian economies.  With regard to the former, the State of Victoria has accumulated over two-hundred billion dollars in debt which now threatens Victoria’s credit rating.  It is no exaggeration to say that within the next eighteen months to two years, the Victorian government may not be able to finance its day-to-day operations.

 

Victoria’s Big Build Con

Furthermore, when the Victorian government’s public works program comes to an end and with it the accompanying economic stimulus, Victoria could be in an economic position which is even worse than during the Cain-Kirner era of the 1990s.  A potential escape route for the ALP in Victoria and South Australia could be to co-operate with the ALP federal government to introduce regionalisation by amending section 51 of the Constitution.  

The ‘benefit’ of the onset of regionalisation will be that a new tier of government can take over from and eventually help phase out bankrupted States.  These new regional authorities could attempt to access superannuation monies by union and big-business superannuation funds making investments into and on behalf of new regional councils.  For this to occur, local government will have to be added as a responsibility of the Commonwealth by the aforementioned amendment to section 51 of the Constitution.  

Because rent-seekers within the ALP and the coalition parties have not been transparent about the future regionalisation process, the technical legislative aspect as to how laws governing the administrative functioning of industry superannuation funds will be changed cannot be revealed or detailed by SAA.   However, with billions of dollars currently being held by industry superannuation funds, the nexus between regionalisation and government de facto appropriating superannuation monies cannot, alas, be ruled out.  

 

The Liberal Party Cannot Advance by Retreating

If the Liberal Party is to disrupt this rent-seeking agenda on the part of nation’s hard left, then the first step that the Liberals can take is not to split!  It is rare that there are any winners when a political party splits and this will particularly be the case in regard to the Liberal Party.  Accordingly, delegates to the Liberal Party’s Victorian State Council in September 2025 should not allow the controversy over the payment of court costs concerning the Moira Deeming defamation case to be manipulated by party faction leaders so that a party split can be engineered.

As previously cited, the Victorian Liberals have a lot to lose by splitting, particularly because the underlying fundamentals of the Victorian economy are so bad.   The real question therefore is whether the terrible condition of Victoria’s economy becomes apparent to the voting public before or after the next State election which is due in November 2026. Should the Liberal Party begin the process of splitting then the Victorian ALP will almost certainly win the 2026 State election so that the continuing ruling Labor Party could proceed to introduce regionalisation.

Surely, a far better scenario for the Liberals would be that their party remains united so that the next Victorian State election is won by them.  Even if the Liberals lose the 2026 Victorian State election - because the voting public is currently so disenchanted with them and are not yet aware as to how disastrously bad the economy is - the Liberal Party will most probably win the 2030 State election with possibly the biggest landslide in Victorian history.  Similarly, the chronically divided South Australian Liberal Party can also win an historic landslide election victory by 2030 at the latest because the economy in that State is possibly worse than Victoria’s!  

 

How and Why the Liberal Party can Federally Revive

The voting resurgence that the Victorian and South Australian Liberals will inevitably experience in the future is predicated on them not splitting but also on the federal Liberals strenuously opposing regionalisation by dint of amending section 51 of the constitution.  The Australian economy by the time of the next federal election due in 2028 will be in such a deplorable situation due to the disastrous conditions of the South Australian and Victorian economies. This could prompt the Albanese government to try to  possibly try to amend section 51 of the Constitution to facilitate regionalisation. 

Sussan Ley will therefore have to be the strongest person she can be to oppose any proposed amendment to section 51 to recognise local government because there are very powerful rent-seeking elements within the coalition parties.   The potency of these rent-seeking forces was previously apparent when they manipulated climate/energy policy to twice bring down the courageous Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal leader.

 

The Liberals Should Utilize the Lynton Link

If Sussan Ley is to successfully counter these rent-seekers within her party, then she will have to place nominees of former Liberal Party Federal Director Lynton Crosby within the Liberal Party’s State and federal secretariats.  Lynton Crosby has the superlative political skill to ensure that effective operatives are inserted into the party machinery to secure election victory.  

Even if reform of Liberal Party secretariats is not undertaken, the Liberal Party in the next election cycle (or the election after that, at the latest) is bound to win landslide election victories due to the disastrous conditions of the South Australian and Victorian State economies.  The only factor which could prevent this outcome from occurring is for the Liberal Party to split.  

Concerning the dynamic of splits, the federal Liberals must be prepared to split with the Nationals should this political party insist upon the coalition supporting an amendment to section 51 to recognise local government in the Commonwealth Constitution   There is a strong rent-seeking orientation within the Nationals which makes them inclined toward helping to engineer regionalisation in the future. 

Already, the federal Nationals have announced their opposition to the goal of achieving the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.   This opposition by the Nationals may have less to do with climate change scepticism than a desire by them to ensure that the coalition loses the next federal election as part of the process of later facilitating regionalisation.

It should be pointed out at this juncture that SAA is opposed to the setting of carbon emissions targets because this is a prescriptive top-down process and as such is an inherently flawed.  However, SAA still agrees with the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch that the climate should be given the benefit of the doubt by promoting de-carbonisation.  The rapid onset of technological change is having the effect of facilitating de-carbonisation and is therefore to be encouraged within a public policy context. 

 

Sussan Ley Must Not Forget Australia’s ‘Forgotten People’

Whatever policy stance the federal Liberal leader Sussan Ley takes in relation to setting carbon emissions targets she will have to stand up to the rent-seekers within the coalition and the media.  To do so would constitute an upholding of the Menzies’ Tradition of supporting the ‘forgotten people’ which Robert Menzies identified in his 1942 radio broadcast as those in society who were neither supported by big business or trade unions, such as small businessmen and housewives. 

Sir Robet Menzies fought for the ‘forgotten people’ during the immediate post-war period by opposing the Chifley socialist government’s attempt to nationalise the banks and its unnecessary and economically detrimental maintenance of petrol rationing.  

Today’s ‘forgotten people’ are Australia’s everyday superannuants whose funds could be mis-directed in the future via investments being made by local government authorities under a new regionalised regime.  These regional councils (should section 51 of the Constitution be amended) will be able to make politically motivated investments which ultimately benefit their self-seeking interests as Australia reconfigures to ultimately become a rent-seeking economy. 

Therefore, Sussan Ley, who has a had a varied and interesting working life, will hopefully have the courage and foresight to strenuously oppose both the proposed Stupid Super Tax and any future attempts to amend section 51 of the Constitution to recognise local government.  Should the Liberal Party leader follow these courageous courses of action then her party’s future will be virtually assured. 

 

In Defence of Australian Social Democracy

For a social democratic organisation  such as SAA, it may seem unusual and contradictory to be temporarily supporting a centre-right political party such as the Liberal Party of Australia.   However, SAA is social democratic as opposed to being socialist.  The distinction between these two concepts is that the former (i.e. social democracy) supports private property rights and a market economy.  Socialism by contrast advocates state economic controls to the extent that private property rights are not necessarily respected.  

Social democracy is however still different from market liberalism due its support for state intervention in the employment relationship between employers and employees.  This state intervention can take the form of state industrial tribunals promoting and/or protecting labour rights such as enforcing the minimum wage and the right of employees to undertake collective bargaining. 

Therefore, integral to SAA’s advocacy of social democracy is an endorsement of trade unionism.  For SAA, trade unions fulfil a vital role in a market economy of safeguarding labour rights by helping to ensure that employees receive just remuneration and that the human dignity of all employees is safeguarded within their employment relationship. 

It should not be forgotten that Marxism is ideologically hostile to trade unions on the basis that they accept and therefore legitimize the operation of a market economy.  From a Marxist perspective, trade unions should only exist as vanguard organisations which are agents of class struggle seeking the ultimate attainment of power by the working class. 

It is therefore of historical interest and pride that it can be said that Australia led the world in promoting a social democratic approach to trade unionism at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  Indeed, the ALP’s first federal leader, John Christian ‘Chris’ Watson (1867 to 1941) led the world’s first social democratic government when he served as prime minister of Australia between April and August of 1904.  

Mr. Watson’s tenure as prime minister was too brief to detail any significant governmental achievements.  However, Mr. Watson brilliantly utilised his party’s balance of power position between the Protectionists Party of Alfred Deakin and George Reid’s Free Traders’ Party to advance Australian social democracy. 

Ironically and amazingly, the landmark Conciliation and Arbitration 1904 Act (the 1904 Act) was passed by Reid’s anti-union Free Traders Party in return for ALP support.  However, the co-operation between Reid and Mr. Watson was short-lived due to their personal and ideological aversion for each other so that the ALP resumed its alliance with the Protectionists.  Indeed, the national joke at the time was that Deakin’s most used phrase was, ‘Yes, Mr. Watson’.

 

SAA is still saying ‘Yes, Mr. Watson’.  

SAA is still saying ‘yes’ to the Watson Tradition because this provides a practical model by which Australian social democracy can be facilitated.  For the 1904 Act ushered in an Australian industrial relations system with the creation in 1907 of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration Court (The 1907 Court) which after 1956 became the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (The Commission). 

The 1907 Court issued its famous decision by the great Justice Henry Bourne Higgins (a onetime Protectionist Party member) known as The Harvester Judgement which established a minimum wage based on an employee’s capacity to support a family.  This judgement also facilitated an instrument known as an award.  Awards were institutional instruments issued by the 1907 Court on an industry basis stipulating minimum wages and employment conditions.

There was however a Marxist perspective (which the Russian totalitarian Vladimir Lenin articulated) which was negatively critical of Australia’s system of conciliation and arbitration.  From this Marxist perspective, arbitration supposedly made Australian trade unions ‘dependent’ upon external state institutional supports thereby diluting working class militancy by conferring legitimacy upon the capitalist system. 

It should be pointed out that even though the Marxist Left has often decried trade unions as bureaucratic organisations which neglect their members’ interests, Australian trade unions up until the early 1990s thrived due to external arbitral supports which they accessed.  This was because trade unions, regardless of their size and industrial strength, were able to effectively represent their members by utilising external arbitral supports.  

Because craft based Australian trade unions were relatively smaller, they were inherently more democratic because rank and file union members did not become lost in a morass of large-scale union bureaucracy.   Therefore, Australian trade unions were amongst the most successful in the more or less free world up until the early 1990s.  This was reflected by high rates of union membership density with the 1976 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census showing that 51% of the workforce was unionised! 

The high rate of union membership was achieved despite years of non-ALP rule with the Liberal Party holding continuous federal office between 1949 and 1972.  Actually, the then Liberal Party was not hostile toward trade unions per se as this party was previously generally supportive of Australia’s system of arbitration and conciliation.

Ironically, it was under the ALP with Bob Hawke as prime minister (1983 to 1991) and Paul Keating (who served as prime minister from 1991 to 1996) that economic rationalist (or neo-liberal) policies were pursued.   These ALP federal government policies had the effect of lowering Australian trade union membership by engineering a transition from an economically protected national economy toward a free trade one in which tariffs and industry support were wound back.

 

Superannuation and The Australian Union Movement

That is not to say that the hard Left of the trade union movement did not gain a dividend for their acquiescence of neo-liberal reform during this era.  This dividend took the form of the introduction of compulsory superannuation in the early 1990s with unions initially administering employees’ industry superannuation funds.  Furthermore, with the introduction of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (the 1988 Act)-which unfortunately replaced the 1904 Act- the profoundly de-unionising process of trade union amalgamation was inaugurated. 

Employee disenchantment with union amalgamation, which really took off in the 1990s, was reflected by steeply falling Australian union membership with union density now hovering at around 15% of the workforce.  Many union rank and file union members, who had felt a psychological attachment to their craft-based unions as part of their work identity, departed the Australian union movement because they no longer felt a sense of belonging to the new amalgamated industry unions.

However, the hard left of the union movement was probably not that distressed by this steep fall in Australian union membership, because there was an accompanying decline in union democracy. Furthermore, for the Australian union movement’s hard left, the gauge of success is eventual control of Australian superannuation monies, which are now valued at approximately one trillion dollars!!

The proposed Super Stupid Tax might therefore be seen as part of the process by which non-industry superannuation funds are discriminated against so that a transition to a rent-seeking Australian economy can be facilitated.  The final form that this rent-seeking model will take cannot be identified by SAA due to the lack of transparency inherent in this socio-economic reconfiguration process. 

However, with regard to regionalisation there is bound to be some form of nexus between the onset of this political restructure and industry superannuation funds’ monies being diverted to help underpin the future funding of new regional councils should section 51 of the Constitution be amended to include local government.

 

Why the Liberals Must Avoid Rent-Seeking

It is consequently incumbent on the federal Liberal Party to oppose any move to amend section 51 of the Constitution.  The Liberal Party can also help its cause by its State branches not splitting.  This is particularly the case in Victoria where tensions within the Liberal Party in that State will hopefully not be manipulated by rent-seekers within the competing factions to engineer a split at that branch’s State Council to be held in September 2025.

For even if the Victorian Liberal Party loses the November 2026 State election, this State party branch will sweep all before it at the time of the late 2030 State election providing that Victoria as a State is not dismembered by regionalisation.  This will be because the effects of the economic stimulus of the so-called ‘Big Build’ will by then have well and truly worn off. 

Due to the ALP-run States of Victoria and South Australia inevitably facing credit downgrades because these two States are effectively bankrupt, the Albanese Labor federal government might very possibly try to introduce regionalisation by amending section 51 during this term of office.  For this reason, Australia which is known as the land ‘down under’ could actually go under! 

LEARN MORE

 

Social Action Australia (SAA) has shifted its stance to now reservedly endorse the Trump-Vance Republican presidential ticket for the November 2024 presidential election. This shift in position is made on the basis that the GOP presidential ticket is the ‘less of the two evils’ because the Democrat presidential ticket of Vice-President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is too left-wing. Nevertheless, the Harris-Walz ticket will probably win this November because it is being accepted as ideologically centrist.

This projection of political centrism by the Harris-Walz campaign is disingenuous but the Democrats will probably ‘get away’ with it because the majority of Americans support political centrism.

The fact is that opinion polls conveyed that up until June this year an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want to vote for either President Joseph (‘Joe’) Biden or former president, Donald J Trump. This consequently created the groundwork for excitement and relief to be generated when Vice-President Kamala Harris stepped into replace President Joe Biden as the Democrat presidential nominee.

This switch however was a manifestation of ‘wish-fulfilment’ on the part of the Democrats. Wish fulfilment is where there is a belief that because you desire something it will consequently occur (Similar to the ‘Cargo Cult’ mentality of Pacific Islanders that was prevalent in the Second World War.). However, as the evil Vladimir Lenin astutely pointed out we must learn that there is a distinction between hope and expectation!

Nevertheless, the relief which millions of Americans felt because President Biden withdrew in favour of Vice-President Harris has led to wish fulfilment impact on the campaign. A reinforcement of this wish fulfilment was engineered at the Democratic National Convention in August when former president, Barack Obama and his wife Michelle spoke of ‘hope’. The Obamas have previously campaigned on the theme of ‘hope’ but this emotion by itself rarely facilitates achievement.

Why Action is more Important than Hope

It is true that the Obamas have promoted hope in a context of self-empowerment. However, this offer of hope has been made on the basis that what you want will necessarily occur by simply voting Democrat. When such an intangible offer is made based on wish fulfilment there should be no subsequent surprise when the actual results fall short of expectations.

The Obama administration (2009-2017) fell short of its initial promise. Millions of Americans were not lifted out of poverty and the United States position in the world order vis a vis mainland China and Russia declined. This was reflected by communist mainland China successfully and illegally asserting itself in the South China Sea via a military deployment that ignored Obama mandated ‘red lines that were not to be crossed and Russia occupying Crimea which until 2014 was part of Ukraine.

The main positive domestic achievement of the Obama administration was the introduction in 2010 of the Affordable Care Act (‘Obamacare’). The passage of this legislation was mainly due to the determination and political leadership of the then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nevertheless, the political polarization which ensued because of Obamacare helped consolidate the division of America into Republican ‘red’ states and Democrat ‘blue’ states. This has occurred despite Barack Obama’s sterling rhetoric advocating national unity.

The sense of national discord enabled a maverick outsider such as Donald Trump to win the Republican presidential nomination and the presidency in 2016. The presidential campaign which Donald Trump conducted in 2016 was essentially intuitive and ad hoc. Trump was not at that time supported by the GOP’s political mainstream (‘the establishment’). Nevertheless, due to Trump’s Nietzschean determination to return to the presidency he has paradoxically moved to the political centre by reconciling with the GOP’s political establishment.

This reproachment has been manifested by non-Make America Great Again (MAGA) GOP operatives integrating into the Trump campaign to see that it is run in a more disciplined and systematic way. There has also been a policy shift by Trump due to his reproachment with his party’s mainstream with him moving away from his previous and disgraceful action of helping to block military aid to Ukraine by Congress. That the US Congress in 2024 voted in favour of needed and deserved military aid going to Ukraine was due to the courage of centrist Republicans and Democrats.

Why Political Centrism Counters Isolationism

An outstanding Republican who is helping to move American foreign and defence policy away from the acute dangers of isolationism is Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. He has previously and courageously spoken out in support of the interests of the people of Hong Kong. If there is to be a second Trump presidency Senator Rubio will have to ensure that the United States and its allies, such as Australia and Japan, will help defend the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan against any future Chinese communist aggression.

It is therefore a pity that Donald Trump did not select Marco Rubio as his vice-presidential running mate because an ‘establishment’ Republican such as the Florida senator would have orientated a possible second Trump presidency away from isolationism. To engage in such a political battle would help ‘blood’ Senator Rubio to contribute to making him an excellent (and much needed) future American presidential candidate.

Indeed, the two greatest American presidents of the twentieth century; Frankin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Ronald Reagan were both blooded to prepare the way for their respective presidencies. FDR as a polio survivor and Governor of New York (1929 to 1933) went onto successfully navigate the United States through the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Second World Ward during the 1940s.

Ronald Reagan (who had been a successful Governor of California between 1967 and 1975) was blooded by his narrowly unsuccessful bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 1976 against President Gerald R Ford. The role that the Reagan administration (1981 to 1989) fulfilled in ultimately bringing down Soviet communism was vital.

Senator Rubio may be blooded in the future by opposing the far-left policies of a possible Harris - Walz administration. Even though Vice-President Harris is now an avowedly centrist political leader who ostensibly wants to support the middle class her selection of Governor Walz as her vice-presidential running mate suggests otherwise. Governor Walz is a hard left politician who is ideologically in sync with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Had Vice-President Harris selected a genuine centrist such as Governor Joshua (‘Josh’) Schapiro of Pennsylvania then this might have been an indication that Kamala Harris is a bona fide political centrist or at the very least really moving in a moderate philosophical direction.

As a supporter of Israel, Governor Schapiro might have helped ensure that the Jewish state is supported by the United States against the existential threat that Iran poses to Israel. Furthermore, a Vice-President Schapiro might also have helped ensure that the ROC in Taiwan was supported against a possible invasion by communist mainland China.

Afghanistan and the Politics of Abandonment

At any rate Kamala Harris’s record as vice-president does not inspire confidence that she will as president support threatened nations. The vice-president has admitted to giving her approval to the United States’ precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. Not only did thirteen American service personnel lose their lives in the pull-out, but forty-five million Afghans were subsequently condemned to now live under the primitive, brutally barbaric and misogynist rule of the Taliban.

All the United States had to do in order to avoid this horrific scenario was to have provided the government of Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani with air support so that the Taliban could have been fended off. It must also be said that the preceding Trump administration negotiated with the Taliban to in effect abandon the Afghani people to them.

Nevertheless, it was the Biden administration which shamefully abandoned Afghanistan. A deal between the Taliban and the Biden administration may have been reached whereby these guerillas were allowed to take power in return for their breaking with Islamic State (IS) so that Afghanistan would not again be utilized as a base for international terrorist operations. Any deal struck between the United States and extremist forces such as the Taliban should as a matter of principle be avoided particularly when this involves betraying an ally.

While the preceding Trump administration may have entered into negotiations with the Taliban, Donald Trump is still correct when he says that the United States retreat from Afghanistan probably emboldened Vladimir Putin to subsequently invade Ukraine the following February.

It should be pointed out that President Biden’s initial re-action to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was to offer Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky

air transport to the Polish capital of Warsaw. This offer was possibly made by President Biden on the basis that this would help the Russians quicky conquer Ukraine.

If the above scenario is correct this would indicate that President Biden was prepared to ‘sell out’ the more or less free world to Russia, communist China and their allies. This possible pattern of American betrayal of her allies has also occurred with regard to the Biden administration inexplicably terminating US military aid to Saudi Arabia concerning this kingdom’s fight against the Iranian backed Yemini Houthi rebels.

Most alarmingly the Biden-Harris administration eased sanctions against Iran so that the United States lost its leverage to prevent Tehran from developing its nuclear arsenal which now has the capacity to threaten America and Israel. This appeasement of Iran has also resulted in Tehran utilizing its proxies of Hamas (based in the Gaza Strip) and Hezbollah (based in southern Lebanon) to attack Israel so that the Middle East now tetters on the brink of a regionwide war.

Should there be a Harris administration in place next year which continues the Biden administration’s appeasement policies then Israel might very well step into the void to utilize her nuclear weapons to defend itself. It does not need to be pointed out that the adverse environmental and atmospheric ramifications of a possible nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran could endanger the world.

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that Israel in 1981 under Prime Minister Menachem Begin militarily took out an Iraqi nuclear reactor which was possibly being used to develop nuclear weapons.

The Alignment Between Political Steel and Political Centrism

It is an impossibility that the Biden - Harris administration will take military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Indeed, the interesting question emerges as to who is really running the United States due to President Biden’s serious cognitive decline? It is possible that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who is the real ‘Iron Lady’ of American politics) is now exercising her power to ensure that Isreal and America’s Arab allies are now being protected by the United States? 

It is therefore an alarming question as to what might have occurred if President Biden was actually in control of the White House? The United States policy of calculated betrayal of her allies might have continued unabated. Indeed, had the Ukrainians not successfully resisted the Russian invasion of their nation then the world might now be under an even greater threat of Sino-Russian domination.

Why the United States must not Betray The ROC in Taiwan

Despite Ukraine’s effective resistance to Russian aggression there is still the prospect of a communist Chinese invasion of the ROC in Taiwan. Should communist China’s president Xi Jing-ping order an invasion of the ROC in Taiwan then the world’s computer systems might be massively disrupted because this island produces over eighty percent of the world’s microchips! Therefore, even if a future Harris administration was to betray American allies such as Australia and Japan by refusing to help defend the ROC in Taiwan, the US economy would also suffer tremendously.

The communist Chinese military should, if need be, apply its political power to restrain President Xi. It should be remembered that the Chinese communist military acted unilaterally to remove the Gang of Four from power in October 1976. Furthermore, it was due to the backing of the Chinese military that Deng Xiao-ping emerged as China’s paramount leader in late 1978 and that the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 1989 was carried out by the army despite Deng’s deep reservations.

Deng could not have re-emerged as mainland China’s strongman in late 1991 had the military not backed him. This renewed support was given to Deng because the Chinese military was alarmed by the disillusion of the Soviet Union at this time. China’s generals therefore gave their support to Deng reviving market economic reform so as to avoid a Soviet style implosion.

At each juncture at which the Chinese military politically intervened it was undertaken on the basis of not directly assuming power in order to avoid the potentially fatal pitfalls of warlordism that had previously operated in pre-communist China.

It should also be pointed out that the ROC government in Taiwan of President Lai Ching -Te (William Lai) should not declare the island to be independent of China by no longer constitutionally styling this country as ‘The Republic of China’. Such a constitutional abandonment might ensure that the Chinese communist military gives its support to an invasion of Taiwan. It is therefore best that Taiwan continues as the Republic of China under the aegis of the pre-communist 1947 Chinese constitution.

Concerning the ROC in Taiwan, Nancy Pelosi showed great courage when as Speaker of the House of Representatives she visited this island in August 2022. This American stateswoman also displayed political integrity by exercising her power to ensure that the United States still supported Israel despite tension between Wahington and Jerusalem during the Obama and Biden presidencies.

However, should Vice-President Kamala Harris become president it is an open question as to whether Nancy Pelosi will be able to exercise a moderating political influence in either a domestic or a foreign policy context. This prediction is derived from the vice-president’s selection of Governor Tim Walz as her running mate and the disingenuousness to date of Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign.

Biden Economics Bidding Down Wages

Vice-President Harris has based her presidential campaign on the theme of strengthening the middle class. She has also spoken out in support of trade unions being able to freely organise so that workers can be lifted into the middle class.

However, working Americans have been betrayed by the Biden-Harris administration’s open border policy in which over twenty million refugees have been  allowed to enter the United States since the end of the Trump presidency. A calculated ramification of this open border policy has been to bid down the price of labour – which is the essence of Biden economics- by having an excess of employees. The consequent reduction in wages has temporarily helped keep prices down for middle class Americans and is also a reason why big business is currently making substantial donations to the Democrats.

While the American middle class is currently economically benefitting from Biden economics the long-term effects of this policy approach are unsustainable. This is because

billions of dollars will eventually have to be spent on these undocumented migrants and their families in terms of higher taxes ‘down the road’ which the middle class will have to pay for. Biden economics is also unfair on working and economically vulnerable Americans because resources, such as social security spending upon which many of them depend, will eventually become strained due to the massive migrant intake.

 

These long-term structural flaws in Biden economics make it untenable for Kamala Harris to fulfil her campaign pledge to build an ‘opportunity economy’ for either the American middle class or the American working class because what this open border policy- which is the main facilitator of Biden economics- is really intended to achieve in the long term is to build up future voting bases for Democrat politicians. This is why there are so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ for these new migrants so that they will eventually, as future American citizens (and consequently voters), tip the balance in favour of the Democrats in local, state and national elections.

It therefore can be expected that a Kamala Harris presidency will not stop the unregulated inflow of migrants into the United States until there has been a shift in favour of the Democrats with regard to voting patterns. Furthermore, and consequently, a possible Harris administration could well advocate ‘electoral reform’ by seeking to abolish the Electoral College so that the Democrats will consolidate their anticipated political advantage as a result of these changes to the popular vote.

Vice-President Harris, in a highlight of her acceptance speech at the August 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, pledged that she would be a president who placed her country before her personal interests and those of her party. Her actions with regard to supporting an open immigration policy as the so-called ‘border czar’ suggest otherwise.

Why Disingenuousness Generates Political Polarization

Furthermore, the campaigning claims that the vice-president have made against Donald Trump and the Republicans are disingenuous and as such call into question Kamala Harris’s honesty with the American people.

The Democrats and America’s mainstream media are warning against a so-called ‘Project 2025’ which they falsely claim is Donald Trump’s secret agenda should he return to office. Project 2025 was drawn up by the right-wing think tank, The Heritage Foundation. There is no credible evidence that Donald Trump is an adherent of Project 2025 which seeks to extensively re-organise the executive branch of America’s federal government to make it more politically partisan.

Concerning the policy positions of establishment Republicans, it is true that they are unfortunately vehemently opposed to public health care. However, Donald Trump is not an establishment Republican! Trump’s support among millions of economically vulnerable Americans which he has garnered due to the Biden-Harris’s open border policy will be jeopardized should he repeal The Affordable Care Act.

The Harris - Walz ticket has also campaigned strongly on the right of American employees to undertake union organising and their right to join a trade union. The implication of this avowedly pro-union stance is that a future Trump presidency would be a threat to union rights. Nothing could be further from the truth because Donald Trump – who has been endorsed by the leadership of the Teamsters Union - needs the support of American wage earners whose socio-economic interests are now being severely undermined by Biden economics.

Kamala Harris has also falsely claimed that Donald Trump will support national legislation to ban abortion and create the position of a National Co-Ordinator who will have the power to monitor pregnancies to ensure that they are carried to full term. Trump -who is possibly not genuinely pro-life- has already paid his political price to America’s pro-life movement via the appointment of three constitutionally conservative Supreme Court justices when he was previously president.

The United States pro-life movement will subsequently focus on state legislatures to overturn abortion. A possible future President Donald Trump will probably give his support to pro-life campaigns at a state level but to claim that he will go further than this when he has made no such policy undertakings is disingenuous.

However, the Harris -Walz ticket will continue to make extraordinarily negative campaign claims against Donld J Trump no matter how unfounded. Such claims, which have already been cited in this article, unfortunately have credence. This is due to the rhetorical excesses of this former president, the most notorious of which was the public support he gave to the January 6^th, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill opposing certification by the Senate of the 2020 presidential election result. The claim which Trump made that these election results were rigged was also ludicrous.

The Transformation of Donald Trump and the United States

These rhetorical excesses by Donald J Trump should be seen as part of the bizarre process by which he is transforming American politics and by which this former president is himself being transformed. Donald Trump needs the support of millions of economically marginalized Americans if he is to regain the presidency. Due to the social ill effects -effects of Biden economics, Trump is the potential catalyst by which the Republican Party can permanently gain the support of millions of American wage earners, the economically poorer sections of society and of organised labour.

Donald Trump therefore has the potential should he return to office to be a twenty-first century equivalent of a Teddy Roosevelt, who was president between 1901 and 1909.  Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican who was pro-union while being very supportive of small business.

By contrast because Biden economics is undermining the socio-economic position of working-class Americans, Kamala Harris is now trying to cultivate middle class support. Middle class America should not be fooled because the immigration policies of the Biden-Harris administration are already expanding the population base of the American poor. The middle class will consequently have to pay the socio-economic cost for this tragic expansion of the American poor. Kamala Harris is therefore playing for time so that the social ill-effects of Biden economics do not eventually become apparent to either middle class or economically poorer Americans.

Unfortunately, the Harris -Walz campaign is achieving a political balance of cultivating both middle and working class support due to reservations concerning Donald Trump.

Moving to the Pollical Centre with Donald Trump

It is true that if the process by which Trump is both transforming and being transformed by the changing dynamics of American politics is to be positive, then establishment Republicans such as Florida’s Senator Marco Rubio will have to step up should there be a second Trump presidency. Non-MAGA Republicans, such as Senator Rubio, must ensure that millions of illegal migrants are not deported while also still seeing to it that the United States’ borders are secured.

By contrast should there be a Kamala Harris presidency it will be virtually impossible to expeditiously rein in illegal migration. This will be due to the Democrat desire to fundamentally change American voting patterns which will be derived from unfettered migration. It will therefore be untenable for Kamala Harris to fulfil her campaign pledge to build the middle class by creating an ‘opportunity economy’ when the pool of poor people in the United States will continue to expand. This will be due to the politically calculated migration policies being pursued by the Democrats.

Therefore, SAA with reservations, advocates that Americans vote for the Trump -Vance presidential ticket in the genuine belief that the United States will transition to a centrist political course by ending the manipulation of migration policy for socio-economic and political purposes.

LEARN MORE

Social Action Australia (SAA) unfortunately cannot support the United States of America (USA) Republican ticket of Donald J Trump and JD Vance for the November 2024 presidential election because should this presidential ticket prevail then the indications are that the USA could terminate its military aid to the Ukraine. Such a scenario would be disastrous for Europe and the world because should Russia conquer Ukraine then Moscow will have a base from which to launch further wars of aggression within Eastern Europe.

There is also the distinct prospect that should the Trump/Vance ticket prevail in November 2024 that communist mainland China might subsequently launch an invasion against the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan. Although Senator J D Vance has declared that a future Trump administration will engage against Chinese communist aggression in Asia, such assurances might be rendered obsolete should Ukraine fall to Russia.

Having said all that, it is not axiomatic that the SAA supports the nomination and election of Kamala Harris as president.

The Biden-Harris Administration’s Reprehensible Open Border Strategy

Under Vice-President Kamala Harris’s watch as the so-called ‘border Tsar’ the Biden administration deliberately opened up the USA’s southern border to facilitate a massive influx of refugees (estimated at over ten million who arrived in three and a half years) which can only be described as reprehensible. It was a policy undertaken so that these refugees could later be amnestied to be given the right to vote based on the calculation that these future new citizens would then be able to tip the outcome of future elections in favour of their sponsoring Democrats.

The Republicans are aware of the Democrat’s demographic electoral strategy. Therefore, the impending Democrat nomination of Kamala Harris, will inevitably orient the subsequent election campaign into a continuation of the already festering southern border issue which will not only firm up the Republican’s own base but will also potentially win over millions of undecided voters to the GOP, possibly including many traditional Democrat supporters.

Already the signs are there that the Democrats’ electoral base is coming under assault from the Republicans on the immigration issue. The president of the Teamsters’ Union Sean O’Brien spoke at the Republicans’ July 2024 Milwaukee Convention to support the Trump/Vance presidential ticket. This potential defection of sections of organized labour to the Republicans is not a surprising development because the massive influx of migrants in the contemporary American context is placing a downward pressure on wages so that millions of American workers may very well shift their support to the Trump/Vance presidential ticket.

Why the Abortion Issue will not Broaden the Democrats’ Electoral Strategic Choices

To attempt to shore up their electoral base the Democrats will undoubtedly campaign on the red-hot issue of abortion. The USA’s Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn the 1973 precedent of Rowe vs Wade is welcomed by SAA due to our pro-life policy stance.

However, because millions of Americans unfortunately support the availability of abortion they voted Democrat in the November 2022 mid-term congressional elections. As a result of this so-called ‘pro-Choice’ vote, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives was smaller than expected and the GOP failed to regain control of the Senate.

It should however be pointed out that Donald Trump has brilliantly and successfully defused the abortion issue by correctly pointing out that the judicial overturning of Roe vs Wade removes the previous constitutional barrier for state legislatures to ban abortion. Therefore, Donald Trump will be able to effectively argue in the upcoming presidential election campaign that abortion is a state issue and not a federal one.

Consequently, should there be a-Harris led campaign based on abortion it will only serve to reinforce the pro-life vote for the Trump-Vance ticket while failing to pick up as many ‘pro-Choice’ (sic) voters as the Democrats might hope for.  

 Should Kamala Harris win in November 2024 and subsequently fulfil her campaign promise to sign legislation legalising abortion then her presidency will be a colossal failure. This will be because such an action will serve to polarize the nation so that the United States will not have the subsequent capacity to successfully counter communist Chinese and Russian ambitions to dominate the world. The same scenario would also occur if a pro-life American president was to sign national legislation outlawing abortion.

Why a Democrat ‘Eisenhower’ should have been Nominated

The Democrats could have avoided possible Republican victories in the respective presidential and congressional elections in November 2024 by adopting an ‘Eisenhower Option’ of drafting a prestigious retired military hero or a very talented civilian technocrat to run for president. Such a presidential candidate could have subsequently served as an excellent president.

Because the Democrats will nominate Vice-President Kamala Harris, the Republicans will deservedly attack this vice-president for her culpability for the Biden administration’s open border policy which was integral to the Democrats’ long term electoral strategy of expanding their potential voting base at the expense of the nation’s well-being.

Had the Democrats gone with the ‘Eisenhower Option’ at their August convention in Chicago, then such a presidential candidate could have defused the very potent southern border issue by advocating that effective border controls be re-established.

This would not necessarily mean that the Democrats’ immigration policy would have become indistinguishable from the Trump Republicans. This is because Senator J D Vance has publicly declared that a future Trump administration will deport millions of illegal migrants who have entered the United States due to the Biden-Harris administration’s open southern border policy.

Why Immigration Controls Will Bolster the Political Centre

To deport millions of illegal migrants would be a logistical and humanitarian nightmare which might pave the way for authoritarianism to creep into American domestic policy. The drafting of a future Democrat ‘Eisenhower’ presidential candidate could have seen the public ruling out such a horrendous policy of mass deportation while still publicly undertaking to secure the USA’s southern border.

Centrist Democrats should not shy away from re-imposing border controls regarding immigration. This is because as recent European politics has shown in relation to France, Italy and Germany, that untrammelled migration precipitates the rise of the far-right. In the American context the ramifications of the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policy is shifting the USA to the hard right with the distinct possibilities of authoritarianism creeping into American domestic policy and isolationism prevailing in American foreign policy.

LEARN MORE

The Murdoch media has recently made much about the need for the Liberal Party to engage in grass-roots campaigning because of the relatively low number of federal metropolitan seats which that party currently holds.  Social Action Australia (SAA) agrees with this focus on the Liberal Party returning to its roots because Australian democracy is enhanced when there is greater public participation in electoral politics.  It will be argued in this article that the Liberal Party needs to revive party branch democracy while remaining vigilant against the threat of regionalization.

By the late 1940s the Liberal Party had a strong branch structure as many recently returned defence personnel joined this relatively recently formed political party. The primary motivation for joining and participating in Liberal Party local branches was because of the recognition that the federal coalition had successfully diverted Australia from an over-bearing statist direction to which the then ruling Australian Labor Party (ALP) had been taking the nation.

Strong Liberal Party branch democracy helped it to achieve a run of twenty-three years of coalition government between 1949 and 1972 until the ALP federal electoral victory in December 1972. Malcolm Fraser as Opposition Leader in 1975 was probably endowed with the political backbone to block supply in the Senate because of the reports he received from Liberal Party branches about public discontent with the Whitlam government. This discontent was reflected in high rates of recruitment into Liberal Party branches accompanied by financial donations to the party. At the time of the ALP’s return to power in March 1983 Liberal Party membership stood at over one hundred thousand members!

The reasons for the Liberal Party’s malaise during the 1980s and 1990s were manifold. However, one of the factors which bears citing is the party’s transition from the Menzies’ tradition by supporting economic rationalism so that the voting public had no effective counter to the neo-liberalism of the Hawke-Keating era (1983 to 1996).

The decline in the Liberal Party’s fortunes during this period coincided with a shift away from party branch democracy and participation in the political process. This decline in Liberal Party branch democracy and consequent political effectiveness can be delineated in the south-eastern state of Victoria due to the impact of Liberal Party power-broker Michael Kroger. At the age of thirty in 1987, Kroger was elected Victorian state president of the Liberal Party. Under his leadership ‘reforms’ were brought in by which the state party executive unfortunately increased its role in pre-selecting parliamentary candidates at the expense of local party branches.

A ramification of Kroger’s political activities was that the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party became factionalized. Kroger’s opponents coalesced around Victorian Liberal Party parliamentary leader Jeff Kennett, who was state Opposition Leader between 1982 and 1989 and from 1991 to 1992 and who served as Victorian premier from 1992 to 1999. This factionalization of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party was either a cause or a symptom of that state branch’s ultimate decline.

Premier Kennett’s harsh neo-liberal reforms were accepted by most Victorian voters as necessary ‘tough medicine’ to overcome the colossal economic incompetence of the Cain-Kirner era (1982 to 1992) when the ALP had held office in that state. Consequently, the Kennett led coalition was comfortably returned to office in the March 1996 Victorian state election. However, due to Premier Kennett’s neglect of Victorian Liberal Party local branches during his tenure as premier he failed to discern that there was fundamental discord in regional and rural Victoria so that this government was voted out in a stunning upset in late 1999.

Jeff Kennett and Sir Joh Compared

Interestingly, the demise of the Kennett government contrasted with the political longevity of the government of Sir Johannes (’Joh’) Bjelke Petersen in the north-east state of Queensland. Sir Joh who served as premier between August 1968 and November 1987, presided over a populist government which consistently kept its ‘finger on the pulse’ with regard to public opinion.

Although Sir Joh was a quasi-authoritarian leader, he still respected party branch democracy. The Queensland premier appreciated that his initially rural based National Party branches were depositories of human resource talent which could be utilized to help maintain his political dominance. It was partly due to this political dominance that Sir Joh’s party was able to reduce the Liberals to a rump in the wake of the October 1983 state election.

This comparison between the respective Bjelke-Petersen and Kennett governments is instructive in helping explain why the former (which was also supported by a loyal and capable state public service) was able to last as long as it did. The Kennett government by contrast conspicuously failed to protect itself by utilizing its party branch structure so that this government lost a crucial component of its electoral base in its loss of government in late 1999. 

Liberal Party Factionalism

Another ramification of the reduction in party-branch democracy is rampant inter-party factionalization. While the Victorian division of the Liberal Party was bedevilled by the division between the Kennett and Kroger/Costello factions, the New South Wales Liberal Party branch is deeply split into three factions, the Moderate, the Centre-Right and the Right factions.^[1]

The South Australian division of the Liberal Party has long been delineated by a division between its Moderate and Conservative factions, lasting more than fifty years. Similarly, the Queensland division of the Liberal Party in its post-1983 state was also polarized into two factions with this state branch later being absorbed into the Queensland branch of the National Party to form the Liberal National Party (LNP) in July 2008.

The Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party was also factionally divided, with the previous existence of the eponymous non-ideological Noel Chriton-Browne (NCB) faction and its opponents. This state branch is now endangered by being reduced to a mere two seats following the March 2021 state election!!

However, in the eastern island state of Tasmania, Liberal Party branch democracy is alive and well. The operation of the Hare-Clarke electoral system of proportional representation resulted in the respective factions within both the Tasmanian branches of the Liberal Party and the ALP being able to compete with each other to win parliamentary election at a state level.

Consequently, in this context, there is linkage by both parties to the Tasmanian community’s grassroots. It is therefore no surprise that the Liberal Party in Tasmania at a state level holds office and will still be viable in the future should it lose power. By contrast the Liberal Party in New South Wales, while currently holding office, is still under a fundamental threat should that state division lose the scheduled March 2023 state election due to the predominance of its three aforementioned factions.

The Need of Liberal party Internal Reform

It may be impossible to overcome factionalism within Liberal Party state branches but that does not necessarily mean that branch democracy cannot be revived at a local party level.  For example, in Victoria the apparent demise of the Kroger-Costello faction means that there is now ample opportunity for branch democracy to be revived.

The recent Victorian state election of November 26^th, 2022, saw the Liberal Party increase its share of the vote in the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne.  This increase in the Liberal Party vote did not translate into increased parliamentary representation because this swing occurred in safe ALP areas.

Therefore, the Victorian division of the Liberal Party should not lose heart and indeed should consequently look at internal reform. One such reform which the Victorian Liberals could contemplate undertaking would be to specifically employ paid party organisers or ‘party agents’ for areas such as the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne who would be charged with the task of developing local branches in those areas.

Similarly, it might very well be a necessity for the Victorian Liberals to have paid party agents for its regional areas who can crucially assist, but not dominate, the process of developing party branches. Indeed, there arguably could be Liberal Party agents throughout Victoria who could be allocated areas of responsibility based upon that state’s parliamentary upper house regions.

Furthermore, for both existing and new Victorian Liberal Party branches the executive positions within them should be based upon portfolios directly related to functions which will enable a seat to be won. For example, if there is to be a local branch vice-president then let the person who holds that position be responsible for recruitment activities. Such specialized responsibility might be very important if the electoral region has several ethnic groups which could be recruited to crucially assist the Victorian Liberals to win a particular seat.

It should also be pointed out that local Liberal branches anywhere in Australia could employ their own staff and/or maintain permanent offices. For example, Liberal Party branch members in the Melbourne federal electorate of Higgins could ‘pass round the hat’ to employ their own party agent with his or her own office base.

It is a disgrace that the Liberals cannot hold a ‘blue ribbon’ seat such as Higgins which takes in some of Australia’s wealthiest suburbs such as Toorak with that seat having fallen to the ALP in the May 21^st, 2022, federal election! The emergence of the Greens Party as a viable contender for the seat of Higgins was a factor in the Liberals losing that seat because Greens’ Party preferences helped to deliver Higgins to the ALP.

The Liberals must be able to pre-select early and to carefully vet their candidates if they are to have any chance of winning back seats which are in their heartland. This is particularly the case if the Liberals are to win back the six seats which were won by the so-called ‘Teal’ independents in the May 2022 federal election.

The Teal Threat to the Liberal Party’s Base

The Teals are not a formalized political party as they ran as independents. However, the Teals were primarily funded by Simon Holmes a Court’s Climate 2000 organisation. The campaigns of the Teals were distinguished by their high degree of engagement with the local community. If the Liberals want to take back the House of Representatives seats which they lost to the Teals, then a combination of the Teals’ campaigning strategies and techniques would not go astray. It could be argued that the Teal electoral strategy strongly resembles the original Liberal Party post-war branch structure that delivered so much of its early success.

Although Cathy Mc Gowan was not a Teal, her successful campaign to take the north-eastern Victorian federal seat of Indi in 2013 set the template for the Teals to follow in winning seats.  From a Liberal Party perspective, the community campaigning techniques which were utilized by the Mc Gowan campaign have not been subsequently applied by the Liberals.

Similarly, Zali Steggall utilized community campaigning strategies and techniques to take former prime minister, Tony Abbott’s Sydney seat of Warringah at the May 2019 federal election. Tony Abbott’s loss of his seat was probably a blessing in disguise for the Liberals because he still could have led his party down the ‘garden path’ towards a policy of regionalization.

The Dangers of Regionalization to the Liberal Party

Regionalization is a process which has been analysed in previous SAA articles but is now briefly reviewed and defined in order to provide a critical context. The regionalization process if applied will ultimately involve the dismemberment of Australian states and their usurpation by new super regional councils which would receive direct funding from Canberra. Although the role of states was enhanced by the recent Covid crisis with the state premiers and territory chief ministers serving on the national cabinet, regionalization remains a distinct threat to the states and by extension to the Australian political system.

A future regionalization process will be a means by which political power in Australia may be reconfigured. If the Liberals lose the New South Wales state election in March 2023, then every mainland state will be held by the ALP. It is therefore a viable future scenario that with both a predominately hard- left Albanese led federal government in place and New South Wales possibly in the Labor column that the long-threatened regionalization process will commence.

There well may be elements within the federal coalition which could support regionalization out of a misplaced belief that they will be able to gain control of future regional bailiwicks as a form of compensation for having lost power at both a federal and state level. However, the recent success of the Teals demonstrates that there is a viable voting critical mass which will support an alternative socially liberal political force.

Consequently, a Teal type of political operation could well gain control of some of the future super regional councils at the expense of the Liberal Party so that its future viability could be fundamentally threatened. If the Liberals and Nationals parties are to survive into the future, then they must oppose any referendum question to recognise local government in the Constitution (the Trojan Horse for regionalisation). Peter Dutton as federal Opposition Leader would lose control of the political situation because the Liberal Party would ultimately not survive the onset of this process.

Peter Dutton: Where Preparation Meets Opportunity

It is therefore to be hoped that should there be a referendum question regarding local government recognition in the Constitution that Peter Dutton will lead the ‘no’ campaign. For Peter Dutton is a leader who is highly politically skilled. He first demonstrated his extraordinary political skill in November 2001 when he won the Queensland federal seat of Dickson from the ALP’s high-profile Cheryl Kernot. This campaign was followed by Peter Dutton successfully holding that seat since then, even though it had previously been considered to be a safe Labor seat.

Becoming a junior minister in 2004 Dutton subsequently advanced after holding the Health and Immigration portfolios under Tony Abbott before acquiring the super-ministry of Home Affairs under Malcolm Turnbull in late 2017. Even though Malcolm Turnbull gave Peter Dutton enhanced administrative power, Dutton still launched a political challenge against Prime Minister Turnbull in August 2018.

This leadership challenge cleared the way for Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg to respectively become prime minister and federal treasurer. Peter Dutton probably did not launch his ‘dark horse’ leadership challenge to become prime minister but to ensure that Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg moved into their respective positions so that with Malcolm Turnbull out of the way the federal coalition could pick up seats in Queensland.

Malcolm Turnbull was not popular in Queensland. Consequently, there was more of a chance for the coalition to win seats in that state once he had been removed. Not only did the Liberals/LNP manage to win seats in that north-eastern state, but the coalition overall won the May 2019 federal election overall due to this swing to it in Queensland. This Queensland based swing combined with the broader electorate who had become sceptical about Bill Shorten becoming prime minister which in turn ensured that the ALP did not win seats outside of Queensland to compensate for the loss of seats north of the Tweed River.

The Liberals might have faced an electoral wipe-out outside of Queensland in the event of Peter Dutton becoming prime minister in 2018 in the wake of Malcolm Turnbull’s deposition. However, Peter Dutton was intelligent enough to know that this would have been the case, so he gave his subsequent support to the Morrison/Frydenberg leadership ticket, which may have been his intention all along.

Why Malcolm Turnbull’s ‘Ghost’ Still Haunts the Liberals

Nevertheless, there was still unease among the broader Australian public about the way in which Malcolm Turnbull had been deposed so that the electorate never really took to the Morrison/Frydenberg leadership team. Consequently, despite the Morrison federal government’s adroit, if not brilliant handling of the Covid pandemic 2020-2021 crisis public unease remained concerning Australia’s national leadership. This public scepticism degenerated into hostility which resulted in the coalition being voted out of office in May 2022.

Had Malcolm Turnbull not been deposed in August 2018 then Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg may not have reaped the subsequent whirlwind of electoral hostility. This was particularly the case with Josh Frydenberg stunningly losing his once Liberal blue-ribbon seat of Kooyong in Melbourne’s affluent eastern suburbs to a Teal candidate. This turn of events ultimately benefitted Peter Dutton because the way was then cleared for him to become Opposition Leader following the May 2022 federal election.

Even though Josh Frydenberg had been a conscientious member for Kooyong and his formulation and application of Job Keeper subsidy programme was instrumental in saving Australia from socio-economic disaster, both his local electorate and the broader voting community still mysteriously turned on him. However, mysteries should be delved into to be solved!

Analysis of the above scenarios concerning Josh Frydenberg and why the Teals won six federal seats in the May 2022 federal election can be traced back to the way in which Malcolm Turnbull was deposed in August 2018.  Socially liberal voters in the Liberal Party’s heartland were alienated from the Liberal Party because of the way in which Malcom Turnbull had lost office as prime minister. Therefore, had Josh Frydenberg not taken advantage of Malcolm Turnbull’s fall in 2018 then he may have held his seat in 2022.

Commentary within the Murdoch media in 2022 that Malcolm Turnbull should either resign or be expelled from the Liberal Party was from a coalition perspective, extremely ill-advised. Should Malcolm Turnbull leave the Liberal Party then the Teals will not only entrench themselves in the seats which they currently hold but they could go onto win more parliamentary seats in future federal elections.

While the Murdoch media have questioned Malcolm Turnbull’s loyalty to the Liberal Party it should be appreciated that this former prime minister’s action when in office of scrapping Tony Abbott’s White Paper on ‘federation reform’ did the Liberal Party a great service. Had Tony Abbott not been deposed in September 2015 then the Liberal Party’s future demise might have become unstoppable. This is because the onset of regionalization under Tony Abbott would have enabled a Teal type of socially liberal operation to emerge to fatally eat into the Liberal Party’s electoral base by their winning control of super regional councils.

There is still the distinct possibility that the federal coalition could move to again toy with regionalization should Tony Abbott fill the senate vacancy caused by the recent death (January 2023) of New South Wales Senator Jim Molan. With a Senator Abbott again within the federal coalition’s parliamentary ranks there might be a renewed push for the Liberals to re-engage with regionalization.

However, given the emergence of the Teals, a regionalized political regime might prove fatal to the Liberal Party so that it would be best from a coalition perspective that the New South Wales Liberals not pre-select Tony Abbott to fill the Senate casual vacancy. Let the New South Wales Liberals instead focus on generating greater grass-roots participation within their ranks so that they can remain politically viable.

Will Bad Public Policy Lead to Liberal Party Renewal?

Similarly, Peter Dutton should examine means by which he can help engineer greater membership participation within his party’s ranks if he is to have any prospect of winning the next federal election.  The contemporary question which currently requires focus is whether Peter Dutton can, given his electoral unpopularity outside of Queensland, win the next federal election for the Liberal Party?

The answer to the above question is yes! This is because the economy under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is facing an uncertain future threat which may get worse because of the application of dubious public policy. The relatively high inflation rate that the current federal government inherited will probably unfortunately increase as a result of its policies.

The recent introduction of multi-employee agreements (‘pattern bargaining’) will help lock in the currently high inflation rate. This outcome will occur because the facilitation of higher wage rates via pattern bargaining will be offset by consequent further increasing inflation because the wage increases will not be underpinned by productivity gains.

It has been recently argued in an SAA article (‘Pattern Bargaining, NO! Enterprise Bargaining, YES!’) that the Australian union movement should seek to achieve union renewal by applying the union organising model (the organising model) in an enterprise bargaining context. The organising model is strategically designed to devolve key organising tasks to voluntary workplace delegates and other rank and file union members at a workplace level so that union effectiveness can be facilitated.

The Australian union movement’s endorsement of pattern bargaining represents a disengagement with genuine enterprise bargaining. The previous golden age of the Australian union movement which existed between the late 1900s and the early 1990s was due to a combination of external and internal factors. The external factors were the arbitral supports of the Australian industrial relations (IR) system, such as industry-wide award coverage.

However, such an external support could not have had such a beneficial impact for Australian trade unions had it not been for the internal factor of trade unionism being based upon the employment craft to which union members belonged.

The shift in Australia toward industry-based unions in the early 1990s via trade union amalgamation was therefore a profoundly de-unionising process. Although Australian unionism now languishes at just under fifteen percent of the workforce the existence of industry- based trade unions has led to a concentration of power within the ALP.

This is because amalgamated industry trade unions now form voting blocs within the Labor Party at their state and federal conferences. It is therefore not beyond the realms of possibility that industry-based trade unions could, under the aegis of the ALP, gain control of super regional councils should regionalization later be introduced.

It is therefore imperative that the Dutton led federal coalition oppose any constitutional referendum proposal to recognise local government. For if such a constitutional amendment was to be approved then the way would be cleared to legally introduce regionalization.

Political Mastery:  Where Internal and External Factors Align

Peter Dutton is a leader who possesses the political skill to align external political contexts to his advantage and this pattern would re-occur should a constitutional proposal to introduce constitutional local government recognition be opposed by him. Currently, while unemployment is low, external socio-economic conditions do not align to support Peter Dutton’s prime ministerial aspirations. However, it is detrimental to the quality of public policy in Australia for oppositions to win office based solely upon a government’s inadequacy.  Therefore, let the Liberal Party also focus on enhancing the role of its branches to complement it in its highlighting of bad government policy.

The Albanese government’s existing policies of rapidly trying to shift Australia toward energy renewables may adversely impact on Australia economically so that higher rates of unemployment will ensue by the second half of 2023. Therefore, Peter Dutton may then be on track to win the scheduled 2025 federal election.

Instead of rapidly transitioning Australia toward renewable energy and consequently driving unemployment up, the Albanese government will hopefully put the ‘horse before the cart’ by spending more on Research and Development (‘R&D’) with regard to first gaining the scientific knowledge to effectively combat human induced climate change. Because Australia’s contribution to global climate change is relatively small, time is still on this nation’s side so that there can be a more gradual shift toward energy renewables.

What is being asked of the Albanese government therefore in environmental policy is that it create the necessary scope to align external factors to Australia’s socio-economic advantage. If such a public policy balance is achieved, then the Albanese government will be able to emulate Peter Dutton in terms of aligning both internal and external factors to each other. While Peter Dutton should focus on external factors by highlighting inadequate government policy, he can also enhance internal factors to favour him by supporting greater Liberal Party branch democracy.

 

^[1] The Kroger/Costello faction appears to have now dissolved due to the breakdown in the political relationship between Kroger and the former federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, with the former apparently reaching an accord with the Kennett faction.

LEARN MORE