The Australian Liberal Students Federation (ALSF) is a university group of liberal students who support smaller government and free markets. They have an informal association with the Liberal Party, but they are much more sympathetic to libertarian ideas.
The President of the ALSF (Tim Andrews) kindly gave me the opportunity to send an open letter to the ALSF. He pointed out that most ALSFers would vote for the Liberals, but that they would probably be interested in preferencing a moderate libertarian party like the LDP. My open letter is over the fold…
An open letter to the ALSF – Introducing a new libertarian political party for Australia
Australia hasn’t had a libertarian political party for over 30 years, since the ironically named “Workers Party” (funded by John Singleton) faded away. Until this year. A few months ago the “Liberty and Democracy Party” (LDP) was federally registered and is running 61 candidates in the coming election, covering every State and Territory.
Under Australia’s compulsory preferential voting system you have more than one decision to make. Every voter must choose between Liberal and Labor. In the House of Reps, your vote will very likely end up with one of the major parties, even if you put them last and second last. Personally, I recommend always voting for a small party to save $2 of taxpayer’s money that goes in electoral funding to all parties that receive more than 4% of the vote. Your vote will still end up with your major party of choice once preferences have been allocated.
But I imagine many ALSF members are committed Liberal voters. In that case, if the LDP can’t get your first preference we would still like your second preference.
The LDP is a moderate libertarian political party based on the principles of small government, free markets and individual liberty. The party is inspired by the philosophy of Milton Friedman, Frederick von Hayek (who both received the Nobel Prize in economics) and more broadly by the libertarian movement in America. In Australia, libertarian ideas are promoted by the Centre for Independent Studies (www.cis.org.au) and the Institute for Public Affairs (www.ipa.org.au).
At the centre of libertarian thought is the idea that each individual owns themselves and that the only legitimate way to deal with each other is peaceful and voluntary exchange. Consequently, libertarians promote free-market capitalism – low tax, privatization, deregulation and free trade.
This is often misunderstood as saying that society doesn’t exist or that we want to turn everything in life into an economic transaction. Kevin Rudd recently made this mistake in his attack on Hayek. This is wrong. Libertarians do not argue against society. We argue for a voluntary society and against a coerced, government managed society. Indeed, history suggests that a voluntary society generally have a strong civil society with more community groups and more money donated to charity. Large government corrodes civil society.
Another complaint thrown at libertarianism is that freedom might be a nice idea, but it doesn’t work. Once again, history shows the opposite. The Fraser Institute in Canada puts together an annual assessment of world economies, measured by how free they are (www.freetheworld.com). According to their 2007 report, the most free countries have an average GDP (measured in purchasing power parity) of US$26,013. The second freest countries have an average GDP of US$10,773 and the least free countries have an average GDP of US$3,305.
Hong Kong has the freest economy in the world and went from an empty undeveloped island to one of the richest places on earth in less than 100 years. England and America pursued mostly libertarian policies during the 19th century and became the strongest, freest, wealthiest countries on earth. The Baltic States of northern Europe have been pursuing economic liberalization since the fall of the Soviet Union and they are experiencing high levels of growth. The good news about the libertarian philosophy is that it is not only more moral… but it works.
The LDP is the only libertarian party in Australia. While there are a few libertarian leaning politicians in parliament (Malcolm Turnbull for the Liberals, Craig Emerson for Labor), both major parties are committed to big government. Under Howard, tax per person (adjusted for inflation) has increased by 34% and during this election campaign both parties have already promised to spend another $30 billion on middle-class welfare. Irrespective of which major party is better for Australia, we desperately need a voice for small government and free markets.
The debate about Work Choices shows the problem with political debate in Australia. The LDP is totally committed to removing all labour market regulation, including the minimum wage. The minimum wage creates unemployment and is perhaps the most anti-poor piece of legislation in Australia. Only 10% of people on the minimum wage come from the poorest 10% in Australia. If we removed the minimum wage and replaced it with a low-income subsidy we could effectively end unemployment and significantly boost the Australian economy – with benefits to all Australians.
But instead both major parties are debating over the subtleties of their heavy regulation and real reform isn’t even on the table. Labor wants to remove AWAs. But the introduction of the “fairness test” means that Work Choices achieves very little anyway. As free-market economist Mark Wooden recently wrote: “The differences on workplace relations seems a lot less than either party is prepared to admit.”
The LDP wants to bring the free-market alternative to the debate. We support education vouchers for schools. We support significant tax cuts, with a flat tax and a high tax free threshold. We support immediately unilateral free trade. We support the privatization of the ABC and Australia Post and other government businesses. We want to see a new round of regulation review, that lead to the deregulation of the taxi industry, more relaxed liquor licensing laws and fewer regulations on running a business. We support small business… but unlike every other political party we also support big business. We believe in competitive federalism and in abolishing unnecessary federal departments.
If you believe in free-market capitalism and small government, then I ask you to consider supporting the LDP. This is particularly important in the NSW Senate race, where our candidate (Terje Petersen) is receiving enough preferences so that he would get elected on as little as 0.3% of the vote. That could potentially give a libertarian the balance of power in this country.
Unfortunately, the Liberal NSW Senate preferences go to the Christian Democrats before the LDP, so if you are going to vote for the Liberals, then please vote below the line and preference the LDP. Or if you really want to help… vote for the LDP and preference the Liberals.
November 14, 2007 at 8:07 pm |
Following the sending of the above letter some ALSFers have complained that the LDP isn’t consistently preferencing the Liberals. Our preference allocation was explained here
This is my full response to the ALSFers:
==========================
Dear ALSFers,
It seems that some of you are unhappy about the LDPs preferences.
First, it’s worth noting that the Liberals aren’t preferencing to the LDP. In various States, they are preferencing to the Christian Democrats, Family First, the Democrats, Climate Change Coalition, Carers Alliance, Conservatives for Climate, Fishing Party, Shooters Party, Democratic Labor Party, Nick Xenophon before the LDP.
Yes, it’s true that we haven’t consistently preferenced the Liberals. In seven Senate races we have preferenced the Liberals ahead of Labor three times and Labor ahead four times. The reason is simple — neither major party is clearly better from a classical liberal perspective.
I know many of you are Liberals and you believe in libertarian ideas. I like the ALSF. But you’re not running the party. After 11.5 years in power it is fair to judge the Liberal party on their record. Based on this record, there is no reason for the LDP to prefer either major party.
As I explained in my article with the CIS Policy magazine (”Taking classical liberalism to the people”), this is the highest taxing government in Australia’s history. Taxes have increase $2000 per person, adjusted for inflation. That is more than Keating and Hawke combined. I find it difficult to support that situation.
Two days ago, Howard made spending promises equal to $4 million per second… and he spoke for 2400 seconds. That’s not right.
I’m not saying Labor will be better. Both parties are addicted to big government. The LDP has taken the position not to give all our support to any party. We are the only party preferencing Gary Humphries (Lib) in his close battle for the ACT Senate. We are working with Turnbull’s team to help the Liberals win Wentworth (NSW). We are looking for volunteers to hand out how-to-vote cards in Makin (SA) and send our preferences to Bob Day to help a good libertarian Liberal get elected. But in some places we are preferencing the other way.
If Malcolm Turnbull & Bob Day were running the party it would be different.
Anyway — if you don’t like our preferences, feel free to vote below the line. I certainly will be. I imagine most of you were going to vote below the line anyway.
November 14, 2007 at 9:01 pm |
John;
On the ALSF list a lot of anger seems to be focused on a particular decision to preference David Feeney (ALP) ahead of Scott Ryan (Lib) in Victoria.
Specifically, the students are saying that Scott is a small-government type and Feeney is an ALP hack. My reply so far is that we don’t really have access to the depth of hack knowledge the majors do. Did the exec know about the backgrounds of Scott and David before preferencing, or did it simply go down party lines?
November 14, 2007 at 10:01 pm |
Jacques — we didn’t know the personalities involved in Victoria.
I note that the ALP will probably pick up 3 quotas in their own right and their remainder will be distributed. The real battle is between the 3rd Lib (Scott) and the Green (Di Natale). The important issue is the order we preference those two, and we preferenced to the Liberal. If Scott doesn’t win in Victoria, it won’t be because of us.
Perhaps some of these complaining hacks should learn how preferences work before they start complaining.
November 14, 2007 at 10:10 pm |
Try a Google search for “scott ryan” or “scott ryan liberal”. The first tells you about an actor, and the second tells you what forums Scott Ryan attended, but gives no indication what his ideals or policies are.
Helen Kroger, the second Victorian candidate, is probably much better known, but there’s not that much about her either.
The official Liberal Party web site doesn’t even give a short bio on either!
How is anyone supposed to find this stuff out?
November 14, 2007 at 10:15 pm |
Here’s a tip Mikel:
When you are conducting preference negotiations with them, as all parties do, how about asking their personal beliefs?
I’m astounded that anyone would conduct preference negotiations without actually knowing the candidates you are effectively supporting.
November 14, 2007 at 10:19 pm |
I wasn’t involved in the negotiations, and I’m not sure how it worked. I would imagine it was done on a party-by-party basis, rather than a candidate-by-candidate basis. In any case, I’m not sure what effect a third senate candidate would have if he’s not in cabinet. Surely he’ll just have to tow the Howard line if he’s elected?
And if you’re talking about beliefs, check out the Liberal Party’s beliefs, and tell me if that’s what you’re really getting.
http://liberal.org.au/about/ourbeliefs.php
November 14, 2007 at 10:27 pm |
And could somebody please assure me that the LDP didn’t rely on Google to decide its preferences?
BTW there are bio’s of Scott and Helen on the Victorian Liberal Party website – just click on their names:
http://www.vic.liberal.org.au/default.cfm?action=people&type=6&candidate=1
November 14, 2007 at 10:36 pm |
The bio’s should be on the national site, which is where most people will be looking, but you’re right, obviously you would do more investigation than just the web.
November 14, 2007 at 10:59 pm |
Hi John,
I’m confused on a number of your points.
How is the LDP a “moderate libertarian” party? Where is the moderation in the party’s policies? Given that the LDP is not aiming to form government, doesn’t that give the LDP freedom to formulate a rigorous libertarian agenda? How are these statements “moderate”? – “The LDP is totally committed to removing all labour market regulation, including the minimum wage.”…. “We support immediately unilateral free trade. We support the privatization of the ABC and Australia Post and other government businesses.”
You claim that “Hong Kong has the freest economy in the world…” This statement can hardly be correct given the degree of control Beijing exercises upon the Hong Kong legislature. Prior to this, Hong Kong was a mercantile city ruled from Westminster in London. On both counts, Hong Kong is hardly an elysian field for libertarians!
Furthermore you claim that “The Baltic States of northern Europe have been pursuing economic liberalization since the fall of the Soviet Union and they are experiencing high levels of growth. The good news about the libertarian philosophy is that it is not only more moral… but it works.” You omit to mention however that in many cases these slavic nations have had flat taxes imposed upon them by highly authoritarian governments with illiberal policies and dubious commitments to democracy. Again, I’m a bit clueless as to how this shows that “libertarianism works”. If anything it shows that authoritarian governments are needed to enforce libertarian economic policies within an authoritarian governing framework. I hardly think that this is a model for either libertarians or Australia more broadly!
In your personal response to the ALSF you write:
“But in some places we are preferencing the other way (ie. to the ALP).”
Why is this? Have the LDP exercised a consistent preferencing policy and preferenced candidates from the most liberal down to the least liberal? I would contend that they haven’t and their actual preference allocation in the senate – particularly in Queensland belies this! If the LDP aren’t pursuing a ideological approach to preferencing then aren’t the LDP just as morally bankrupt as all the other parties which they purport to oppose? How can you attack the Liberal party for preferencing Fred Nile when YOU YOURSELF are preferencing the racist Pauline Hanson above the Coalition senate team!
Then you say:
“Anyway — if you don’t like our preferences, feel free to vote below the line. I certainly will be. I imagine most of you were going to vote below the line anyway.”
If this is the case then are you admitting on your own blog that you do not support the senate negotiations that your own party did on your behalf for the Queensland senate race? John, that would be an astonishing admission and show an appaling lack of trust in the members of your own party which you purport to represent!
Finally, you state:
“I note that the ALP will probably pick up 3 quotas in their own right and their remainder will be distributed. The real battle is between the 3rd Lib (Scott) and the Green (Di Natale). The important issue is the order we preference those two, and we preferenced to the Liberal. If Scott doesn’t win in Victoria, it won’t be because of us.”
How could you ever know this?! You can’t weasle word your way out of admitting that your party which YOU founded and which you are running as a lead senate candidate for have made the CALCULATED political decision to preference the ALP 3rd socialist candidate over the LIBERAL 3rd libertarian candidate knowing FULL well that this decision MAY result in the loss of a libertarian senator. We know in Victoria that the Liberals and the ALP will win 2 senate seats each. Everything is entirely up for grabs. Appealing to some form of meta-psephological master plan as a justification for your preferencing policy in Victoria is total balone.
What an appaling disgrace.
November 14, 2007 at 11:27 pm |
Antonio — calm down. We are moderate because we are not advocating a radical libertarian agenda. A radical libertarian agenda would involve no government except a defence force, police and courts. That’s not the LDP. We’re advocating education vouchers, a negative income tax, a flat tax, continued minimum standards in some areas, continued government spending on health etc. We are advocating a Milton Friedman agenda, not a David Friedman agenda.
Being moderate libertarian doesn’t mean being mainstream. Obviously, we’re not mainstream. The government currently controls about 40% of the economy. A radical libertarian would want to get that down to about 2%. We are aiming for about 20%. That still involves controversial policies such as removing the minimum wage and privaitising the ABC.
Your complaints about Hong Kong & the Baltic States are irrelevant (and I note that the Baltic states aren’t slavic). Of course no place is perfect. The point was that freer economies are richer economies, and that point holds.
As I already explained, we have preferenced different parties in different places to show that we don’t support any one party. Some of our preferences were done as part of a deal. All parties do this, and there is nothing sinister or weird about doing deals. Especially when we disagree with all of the parties. There is nothing morally good or bad about [our] preferences (as long as we keep to our word) so your rant about moral superiority is irrelevant.
You are being very dishonest when you say that we attack the Liberals for your preferences. I don’t mind who the Liberals preference. It was you that complained that we didn’t preference the Libs, so I just pointed out that the Libs also didn’t preference us. Be consistent. Either stop complaining about our preferences or start apologising for yours.
I always vote below the line. And I did the Qld preferences. It’s not a conspiracy. Calm down. Your fake moral outrage is cute, but I’m worried you’ll pop a vein.
I didn’t appeal to any master plan to justify our Victorian preferences. I simply pointed out that the most likely outcome is that our vote will end up with the Liberal anyway. We make no apology for preferencing the ALP half the time… because there is no substantive point of difference between the major parties.
November 15, 2007 at 12:23 am |
Hi John,
Unlike you, I am not a member of a political party. I have not been a member of the Liberal party in over 3 years. I let my membership lapse because I did not support the ideological and organisational direction of the Queensland party at the time. I am however a life member of the UQ Liberal Club and broadly consider myself to be liberal.
Obviously moderation is in the eye of the beholder, however I would contend that mainstream Australians would not recognise your party’s policies as “moderate”. They may be moderate comparated to other so-called libertarian philosophies, however in the context of an Australian election, they are very much on the extreme end of the spectrum.
I think that your argument for justifying your vision of libertarianism based on comparison with Slavic nations and Hong Kong is poor. It sounds rather akin to a radical marxist arguing that while not perfect, Cuba and Venezuela are still a pretty successful socialist nations worthy of support. The fact remains that the Hong Kong economy and government more broadly is overseen by Donald Tsang and communist party supporters appointed (not elected) by Beijing. This should be condemned by the LDP, not held up as a positive example. Equally, the authoritarian governments of former soviet nations who have implemented a flat tax are highly illiberal. Further, to argue that the economies of countries with a flat tax are richer on average than those without is a statement of dubious factual basis. Claim that these nations with a flat tax (Russia, Ukraine etc) are “richer” than those without such as the Scandinavian bloc, Japan, United Kingdom etc is clearly false. Personally I support a flattening of the income tax scales. I don’t think that the case for flattened income tax is usefully advanced by your hyperbole. It ismore accurate to state that countries have adopted the flat tax with the hope of getting richer and controlling tax evasion. Many of these countries with a flat tax are coming off a very low economic base indeed! [Btw, fwiw, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are indeed baltic nations, however all the others - (Russia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Macedonia, Albania and arguably Romania) are slavic nations.]
This statement of yours is bizarre:
“There is nothing morally good or bad about preferences (as long as we keep to our word) so your rant about moral superiority is irrelevant.”
Surely it is morally bad to preference racists, holocaust deniers and radical marxists before social democrats, conservatives and liberals?! There are clear cases where the LDP has done this. The very word “preference” indicates a more favourable of one party or individual over another. To claim as you seem to do that preferences are merely a means to an end and not a reflection of ideological favourability is very cynical and does nothing to engender trust in the democratic system. It also shows a lack of integrity among the LDP leadership by demonstrating that IN PRACTICE the LDP don’t care who are elected from their preferences. Do you really support this position? Are you really saying that as the lead candidate for the Queensland senate that you do not ideologically support the final preference order for above-the-line LDP voters in Queensland? If so, this would represent a remarkably cynical admission about the entire LDP above the line preferencing process.
I personally do not support the Liberal party’s official list of preferences and why should I? I am not a member of the Liberal party. I am not the lead senate candidate for the Liberal party. I did not conduct any preference negotiations of behalf of the Liberal party. Furthermore, as a liberal, I cannot support an official position of preferring the CDP to LDP. Why can’t you right here on your blog make the same admission? Why can’t you publicly state on your blog that you do not prefer the anti-semitic CEC, the racist Pauline Hanson, racist One-Nation, bigotted Christian parties and radical marxist parties to the Liberal party DESPITE what you personally negotiated on behalf of the LDP?
Finally, in the Victorian context do you really believe that there is no substantive point of difference between a left-wing trade-unionist and a free-market liberal? Surely, you owe your supporters an explanation on at least this point?!
November 15, 2007 at 1:02 am |
Antonio — please keep your comments shorter. I didn’t say we were moderates. I said we were moderate libertarian. This is fairly easy to understand.
I mentioned the Baltic nations. These are not Slavic nations and they are all democratic. Your random rant about slavic nations is entirely irrelevant. Anyway, you are confusing democracy with liberalism. While both are good things, they are not the same things. I was making the simple case that more liberal economies have better outcomes. I cited the evidence of the Fraser Institute. If you disagree with the Fraser Institute, take it up with them.
You are right that I prefer the Liberals to the CEC, One Nation, Pauline, CDP & Marxists. However, it is quite normal for micro-parties to preference each other before the majors and it is perfectly legitimate to spread our preferencing around to show we don’t really like any groups. The rationale behind preferencing Pauline was (1) to diversify our preferencing to show we didn’t support any one group; and (2) I already knew she couldn’t get elected, so she was a safe place to “park” our preferences to stop them being further allocated. None of these things impact on the morality of our policies or our integrity as people.
In Victoria, we made a decision about the party, not the person.
I’m glad to hear you disagree with the Liberal preferences. I guess that means you also had a self-righteous rant against their preferences and called them an “appaling disgrace” too? You certainly seemed to forgot this important caveat when you ranted against the LDP preferences.
November 15, 2007 at 1:51 am |
Where did I claim that countries with a flat tax are richer than countries without? Your arguing tactics seem to be quite dishonest.
November 15, 2007 at 7:05 am |
So the most relevant period is 1841 to 1997, before Chinese control.
November 15, 2007 at 12:11 pm |
Also, Albania – not a slavic nation, unless you have some ethnic cleansing plans you haven’t mentioned.
I was involved with ALSF (or at least the UNSW Liberal Club) back in the early 90s. It’s where I got my first exposure to the theory behind libertarianism. So it’s good to hear that the federation is still going strong and still has it’s libertarian bent. Hopefully more ALSFers will come across with time, because there isn’t much place in the Liberal party for a clasical liberal these days.
And I just wanted to add that just maybe the Liberal party should be telling us who their more libertarian candidates are if they want preferences? I don’t think it is our obligation to chase them to gift our preferences. Something for a party hack somewhere to make a note of next time.
November 15, 2007 at 12:21 pm |
Good point, Tim. I never knew the LDP would be required to collate a list of Liberal Party members in order of “most liberal” to “least liberal” for the purposes of providing preferences despite receiving nothing in return in most cases. What a preposterous idea.
November 15, 2007 at 12:23 pm |
Bleh
According to the ‘liberal’ Antonio unilateral free trade, modest tax cuts and labour market deregulation are ‘radical’ policies. Mind you this is the same Antonio who I recall believes in anti-vilification laws for both race and religion. He can call himself what he want but it doesn’t change fundamental reality. The fact that people like Antonio used to be Liberals goes a long part towards explaining rhe Liberals’ malaise.
November 15, 2007 at 12:55 pm |
Blind Freddy could tell you that any stock-standard Liberal Senator would be better for the cause of small government than a former union official.
November 15, 2007 at 1:00 pm |
I think that’s an excellent letter.
Succinctly spells out the party’s philosophy. And makes good sense.
November 15, 2007 at 1:08 pm |
Thanks Tim.
JamesP — blind freedy could see that the Liberals have run the biggest taxing government in our history and don’t deserve the unqualified support of libertarians. Hawke was more libertarian than Howard.
November 15, 2007 at 1:15 pm |
John – is Kevin Rudd going to be more libertarian than a re-elected Howard/Costello government?
November 15, 2007 at 1:20 pm |
I don’t know. I think they are probably about the same… except that Howard is more despeate and therefore more willing to throw money into stupid projects.
But more to the point, do you honestly think that the Liberals will ever take libertarian concerns seriously if we give our support to the Liberals no matter what they do?
The alliance of convenience between conservatives and liberals made sense 100 years ago when we were conserving small government. But now we are conservting high taxes and over-regulation. If liberals don’t get an independent voice from the conservatives then we will never be heard.
November 15, 2007 at 1:31 pm |
Kim Carr is going to be Industry Minister.
Julia Gillard is going to be IR minister.
The ALP have announced 67 new government departments or agencies.
(Eg. ‘Office of Children and Young People’, ‘Higher Education Quality Agency ‘, ‘A Petrol Commissioner ‘ and a ‘Wood and Paper Innovation Council ‘)
You guys have gone off the reservation if you really think Rudd won’t be worse than Howard.
November 15, 2007 at 1:35 pm |
“any stock standard Liberal Senator would be better for the cause of small government than a former union official”
You mean like Bob Hawke?
November 15, 2007 at 1:36 pm |
With respect, neither David Feeney and Doug Cameron – who both receive preferences ahead of vulnerable Liberals – are Bob Hawke’s.
And would you really want Bob Hawke running the country today? He’s not exactly a fan of your IR policies, referring to the HR Nicholls society (who advocate a similar position) as:
“political troglodytes and economic lunatics”
November 15, 2007 at 1:39 pm |
I’m not sure John, the reason why I’m never heard is because I go to ACT branch meetings and am one of 2 voices (ALSF does represent a welcome refuge for me). However it isn’t like we are 2 in a sea of thousands and it wouldn’t take too many dedicated classical liberals/libertarians to stand with me before we could make a difference.
I hope the LDP do well I really do, but sometimes I see close votes, I experience things and it makes me think ‘jeez if only John was by my side’. At the end of the day it is up to the LDP to prove us wrong. Be professional, change the paradigm of Australian politics, get elected, get libertarianism out there, and I will say ‘hell yeah’.
But until that is the case, until the LDP doesn’t look like its running for the sake of it like all the other nowhere parties I can’t help but think that being in the LDP would be ‘wasting my time’.
Give me a few more years to get nice and jaded and I’ll probably retract everything I said.
November 15, 2007 at 1:53 pm |
Doug Cameron is going to win with or without our help. We could have preferenced him first (even before ourselves) and it would make no difference to the actual outcome.
November 15, 2007 at 1:58 pm |
Pimpula — it is a good thing to have good libertarians working in a number of areas. The Liberals certainly have some good people, and especially the ALSF. As does Labor. I have some libertarian friends who do or did work for the Labor party.
And some good libertarians prefer not to get involved in politics and instead work through academia (Alex Robson, Sinclair Davidson) or think-tanks (Greg Lindsay, Peter Saunders).
I think adding a libertarian minor party would be a welcome addition and is worth fighting for. But (to steal your modesty) give me a few years to get jaded and maybe I’ll retract everything I’ve said.
November 15, 2007 at 2:27 pm |
[...] post: does liberalism work? The recent open letter to the ALSF has sparked some debate between Liberal supporters and the LDP. One element that was disputed was [...]