This blog will soon be discontinued as there is now a Discussion Forum on the new LDP website.

There are currently draft policies on Tibet and Defence available for comment. Other subjects will be added in due course.

The following draft policy has been approved for comment by members and supporters.

བོད་

POLICY ON TIBET

Tibet has struggled to remain independent of China for centuries.

Tibetans claim the Manchu (or Qing) Empire first became Tibet’s overlord in 1720 when it installed the Seventh Dalai Lama, but this relationship was not well defined and the Manchu made no effort to absorb Tibet as a province.

Tibetans paid no taxes to the Manchu unlike Mongolia, which is independent today. Tibet also maintained its legal and administrative systems with its own officials, while Chinese and Manchu authorities directly ruled Mongolia.

In the 19th century the power of the Manchu government declined. The Dalai Lama returned to Tibet from India in July 1912 and expelled the Chinese officials and troops.

In 1913, the Dalai Lama issued a proclamation stating that the relationship between the Chinese emperor and Tibet “had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other.” “We are a small, religious, and independent nation,” it said.

For the next thirty-six years, Tibet enjoyed de facto independence.

Following the victory of Mao Tse Tung’s communists, China reasserted control over Tibet. In October 1950 the People’s Liberation Army invaded the Tibetan area of Chamdo. Some parts of Tibet were incorporated into provinces of China.

Full-scale resistance spread throughout Tibet, resulting in 1959 in the Dalai Lama fleeing. China began to collectivise the land and execute landlords.

In 1965 the area that had been under the control of the Dalai Lama’s government from the 1910s to 1959 (Ü-Tsang and western Kham) was renamed the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR. Autonomy provided that the head of government would be an ethnic Tibetan; however, de facto power is held by the general secretary of the Communist Party who has always been a Han Chinese from outside of Tibet.

During the 1960s the monastic estates were broken up and secular education introduced. During the Cultural Revolution, Red Guards inflicted a campaign of organized vandalism against cultural sites in the entire PRC, including Tibet’s Buddhist heritage. Thousands of monasteries in Tibet were destroyed and Buddhist monks and nuns killed, tortured or imprisoned.

Since 1979 there has been economic reform, but no political reform. Most religious freedoms have been officially restored provided the lamas do not challenge Chinese rule, renounce the Dalai Lama, and stay within dictated confines. The Chinese Government claims its rule over Tibet is a major improvement from the pre-1950 era of Tibetan feudalism. Others claim this has come at a very high cost.

In recent times, in an effort to incorporate Tibet into greater China, the Government has engaged in ethnic cleansing far exceeding anything that happened in the former Yugoslavia, persecuting and deporting native Tibetans while re-settling vast numbers of Han Chinese in an attempt to make Tibetans a minority in their own land.

Today in Tibet, according to Amnesty International, Buddhist monks and nuns are routinely beaten, tortured and killed by Chinese security forces to break the Tibetan peoples’ will to be free.

The Dalai Lama, leader of the Tibetan Government in Exile, continues to advocate non-violence and has repeatedly offered talks aimed at achieving peaceful co-existence. He has said he is willing to accept Tibet as part of China, but insists on Tibetan autonomy over its religious and cultural life. Other Tibetans demand complete independence.

As a party committed to freedom and dignity for all peoples, the LDP believes the Tibetan people have a right to self-determination, including full independence if they choose.

The National Executive has approved a draft policy on Taiwan. Members and supporters are invited to comment.

LDP POLICY ON REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN)

In 1911, inspired by Dr Sun Yat-sen’s vision of a China as a democratic, prosperous, modern nation-state, the feudal Manchu (Qing) Dynasty was overthrown. In the years that followed, Dr Sun and his Kuomintang movement were instrumental in unifying China into a single country, the Republic of China.

In 1949, following a long civil war in which the Soviet-backed Chinese Communist Party seized power, the government of the Republic of China was forced to retreat to the island of Taiwan while the Communists formed what they called the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland.

During the Cold War most Western countries continued to recognise the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the sole legitimate government of China. However, in the early 1970s following US President Richard Nixon’s overtures to the PRC aimed at splitting them away from the Soviet Union, this situation was overturned and with most countries changing to recognise the Communist government of the PRC instead.

Despite having being one of the founders of the United Nations and originally a permanent member of the Security Council, in 1971 the Republic of China (Taiwan) was displaced from both seats at the UN by the unelected Communist PRC.

Today, despite the fact that Taiwan has evolved to become a vibrant multi-party democratic state with a gross national product exceeding that of most European countries and a population greater than Australia’s, along with most countries in the world, Australia continues to accept Communist China’s fiction that Taiwan is not a country.

Since Gough Whitlam made it Australian Government policy, successive Liberal and Labor Governments have appeased Communist China and not only recognised the unelected Communist government of the PRC, but refused to re-establish formal diplomatic links with Taiwan despite maintaining them with some of the worst regimes in history.

Internationally, the absurd situation in which bankrupt and repressive dictatorships like North Korea and Zimbabwe are allowed representation at the UN, but this is denied to a prosperous and democratic state such as Taiwan, cannot be allowed to continue.

The LDP rejects the hypocrisy of the Liberal and Labor Parties and recognises the reality that Taiwan is a free, prosperous and independent country.

The LDP supports immediate re-establishment of full diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) and a seat for Taiwan at the UN and in other world organisations.

The LDP supports eventual reunification of the Two Chinas, if the peoples on both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree on such a course and when mainland China once again embraces the democratic vision of the founder of the Chinese Republic.

The LDP National Executive has approved for public comment a draft policy on defence. It is intended to provide Australia with robust defence within the context of an emphasis on liberty and limited expenditure.  We think it’s pretty good but perhaps can still be improved. With that in mind, members and supporters are invited to offer comment.

LDP Defence Policy

National defence is a legitimate role of the Commonwealth government. However, unnecessary expenditure on defence contributes to excessive taxation.

History also shows that standing armies can be a threat to liberty. This is the reason for the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Third Amendment to the US Constitution. Freedom is best served by limiting the size of the permanent military while being able to quickly expand it if required.

In addition, imposing limits on the ability of the government to engage in war can reduce the risk of military conflict for political benefit.

The security of Australia and its citizens is heavily dependent on goodwill with other countries. This can be promoted by active engagement, particularly through trade. Indeed, the prosperity and mutual interdependence that occurs through free trade is a key contributor to peace.

Australia can never be entirely self-reliant in defence terms, lacking the technological resources, manpower and financial capacity to protect itself against attack by a major power. However, it can deter aggression through mutual defence alliances with countries that share its values, and by maintaining the ability to offer significant resistance and strike back.

The LDP recognises four types of threats to national security around which its national defence policy is based:

1. Regional small-scale conflicts or failed states that pose a moderate threat to Australia or its allies or have major humanitarian consequences;
2. Aggression by a medium or major power seeking to coerce the Australian government into modifying its policy on a specific issue – disputes over oil or fishing rights are possible examples;
3. Invasion by a major power seeking to secure a permanent foothold in Australia; and
4. Currently most significant, international terrorism by non-government forces.

LDP Policy

Use of The Military

1.  The LDP does not believe Australia should involve itself militarily in another country unless authorised by the government of that country or by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.

2.  The LDP recognises that international terrorist movements may have to be fought internationally, but believes the ADF should not be involved in the suppression of terrorist actions in other countries unless such actions are a direct threat to the security of Australia. Such involvement should be subject to authorization by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.

3.  Australia may commit the ADF to UN operations including peacekeeping, subject to authorisation by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.

4.  In rare cases Australia may commit the ADF to the relief of oppression, subject to authorisation by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.

5.  Domestically the LDP does not consider the enforcement of immigration laws or fishing zones, or intervention in aboriginal townships in the Northern Territory, to be appropriate tasks for the ADF except coincidentally to its principal activities.

6.  Terrorist acts should be classified as crimes and, when occurring on Australian territory, would not involve the ADF unless they involve foreign state sponsorship or the magnitude of the threat exceeds the capability of civil security forces. Such involvement shall be authorised by cabinet and confirmed by a parliamentary resolution at the first available opportunity.

7.  The LDP accepts that the ADF should be available to help to supply emergency aid in the event of natural or man-made disasters, within Australia or overseas, if required. However, authorisation should be by cabinet confirmed by a parliamentary resolution at the first available opportunity.

8.  The recent trend to use military forces as security aids to civil authorities (now the primary role envisioned for the Army Reserve) is a dangerous trend evoking the spectre of authoritarianism and is opposed by the LDP.

9.  The LDP opposes any use of the ADF in domestic political disputes including industrial action.

Promoting Peace

10.   The LDP would seek to lessen the risk of conflict by promoting free trade (including unilateral removal of trade barriers) and diplomatic engagement. The LDP supports professional diplomatic engagement together with trade representation (funded on a user-pays basis) to foster bilateral trade.

11.  The LDP supports the current alliance with the United States and recognises that it is integral to deterring major power aggression. However, it also recognises that the US has alliances with many countries and its assistance in the event of conflict cannot always be assured.

Military Service

12.  The LDP is unequivocally opposed to compulsory military service including programs that prevent volunteers leaving the services when their term of enlistment has expired. The LDP believes that if the citizens of a state choose not to volunteer to defend it, the state does not deserve to be defended.

13.   The LDP supports the establishment of military cadet units and similar arrangements in schools as a means of stimulating and normalising interest in voluntary military service, as long as no school is permitted to make such service either directly or indirectly compulsory.

Military Capability

14.  The LDP believes Australia can achieve a far greater degree of defence preparedness than at present, at a significantly reduced cost to taxpayers.

15.   The LDP supports a military based on a core of full-time professionals complemented by an extensive voluntary reserve, with men and women viewing part time military service as beneficial to both themselves and the country.

16.  Consistent with similar provisions of the 2009 White Paper, the LDP would concentrate resources into key areas in support of a maritime defence strategy.

17.   The LDP believes the focus of our full-time military should be on the three strategic capabilities able to achieve long distance force projection. These comprise a strategic bomber capability, an effective submarine fleet, and a rapid reaction, air-mobile expeditionary force including Special Forces.

18.  Concurrently, the LDP believes that primary responsibility for the defence of Australia’s landmass should be transferred to a part-time force.

19.  To achieve this the LDP supports proceeding with the F35 fighter purchase but would also replace the F-111 fleet with a squadron of B-1B strategic bombers, paid for in part by a reduction in our order of F-35s.

20.  The LDP would also replace the current six boat Collins Class submarine fleet with a greater number of new submarines. Preferably this would be twelve small nuclear submarines (similar to the French Rubis design), but if these are not procurable or affordable then eighteen submarines with air independent conventional propulsion equipped with land attack cruise missiles.

This would be paid for in part by selling off most of the surface fleet (which, without a carrier, would be sunk at the beginning of any major war anyway) and retaining only a coastguard, including current Armidale Class patrol boats and three of the ANZAC Class frigates.

21.  The LDP would move away from reliance on a professional standing army towards a reserve that cycles in and out of active service. Most of the full-time Army would be disbanded, retaining only Special Forces (SASR, 1 CDO, 2 CDO), Intelligence units, a reduced Training Command and essential staff needed for the part-time forces.

22.  The part-time Citizens Military Force would be re-created as the principal pillar of our national land defence organization, based on the core of the current Active Army Reserve.
Service in the CMF would be promoted with major incentives including generous tax credits for days served and for employers who allow CMF members to take time off to train.

23.  Service in the CMF would involve short periods of full time training rather than weekend involvement, with most units sufficiently well organised and trained to require only limited preparation for active service.

24.  The CMF would be organized around communities with the aim of making voluntary CMF service to defend your local area a natural part of everyday community life. In this respect the Swiss model is very relevant.

26.  A combined-arms, air deployable Australian International Brigade of mainly foreign volunteers with Australian Officers along the lines of the French Foreign Legion would be created for use as an expeditionary army against international conventional and asymmetric military threats. (Proposed to comprise of three mechanized infantry battalions, one armoured regiment, one self-propelled artillery regiment and one aviation regiment of attack helicopters, tactical ground attack aircraft and transport helicopters, all with the latest equipment and fully air transportable with its own fleet of C-17 Globemaster transports and C-130s).

27.  This Australian International Brigade would be fully self-funded by hiring its services to friendly countries and the UN for military duties in accord with Australian foreign policy.

28.  The LDP does not support the necessity of a government supported domestic defence industry. Defence procurement should be based on buying the items best suited to the defence tasks required, from the most competitive suppliers in Australia or overseas. However the LDP does recognise the need for strategic stockpiling of war materiel to insure against hostilities disrupting foreign supplies.

29.  The LDP supports the maintenance of a nuclear reactor, nuclear expertise and other capabilities needed to enable the development of an independent nuclear weapons capability within an appropriate time frame if warranted by regional security developments.

Discussion

Recent years have seen the role for the ADF envisioned by successive Liberal and Labor governments drastically change. As the surrogate conflicts of the Cold War and the threat of major conventional and nuclear conflict has receded, the void has been filled by an exponential increase in military operations other than conventional war (MOOCW Ops).

As a result, both at home and abroad, the traditional role of the ADF to prepare to fight the armies of hostile states has given way to preparing primarily for a paramilitary transnational policing role.

The LDP is concerned at the effects of this shift in the use of the ADF, which at best raises the prospect of endless increases in defence costs requiring higher and higher taxes and at worst raises the spectre of a police state.

The LDP’s Defence Policy has been framed in response to these concerns, and seeks to balance the need for a capable ADF with limited military expenditure by re-focussing our defence priorities back to military concerns and by re-aligning our defence assets towards achieving significant strategic capabilities.

In this way, alone amongst other Australian political parties, the LDP’s Defence Policy is a plan to allow the ADF to punch well above its weight at a significantly lower cost to the taxpayer.

A light hearted look at the route to cap and tax measures that should be taken. From Carbon Sense.

The LDP does not have a policy on global warming and it would be rather silly to adopt one given that it is still being argued in the scientific community and both sides seem polarised to the degree where any sort of consensus is unlikely. Whenever the issue is raised on Thoughts on Freedom or elsewhere we seem to have the same protagonists making the same arguments, thus it is reasonable to assume that neither side will budge unless there is a massive cooling or warming in the near future in which one side will argue that they were right all along, and the other will argue that it is a short term trend and they were right all along.

It is necessary however to have policies on the likely imposition of punitive measures for carbon emissions.

John Humphreys has made a case for a revenue neutral carbon tax: that is a tax based on carbon emissions but mitigated by equal reductions in other taxes. If measures are forced on the Australian people this would be my preferred option, although I seriously question whether we should be in any way advocating another tax, especially one which I tend to see as social engineering.

The current international fetish among governments is a cap and trade system, which is at best, not really thought all the way through. The Waxman-Markey carbon-cap bill, which narrowly made it through the US Congress, had 300 pages of amendments, which were at the time not even integrated into the bill; i.e. the bill they voted on was not complete.

A number of references have been made lately as to the mitigating effect of “Green Jobs,” which are supposed to be the cure all for the deleterious effects, massive social and economic disruption caused by such a policy. The government here without going into any real details has echoed this. The recent questioning by Barnaby Joyce of Meghan Quinn, Manager, Climate Change Modeling Division, Department of the Treasury, has highlighted the paucity of understanding on this issue even among senior advisors.

Green jobs are being likened to Fredrick Bastiats ‘broken window’ analogy, where a vandal breaks a window and it is seen as a positive factor for the economy given the work provided in replacing it. Bastiat made the point that the negatives are unseen in this, being the work that would have been provided to others by the window owner in pursuing his own desires had he not had the cost of repairing the damage to his property.

John Humphries posted on TOF a reference to the situation in Spain where a study by a leading economist has concluded that each green job created there has in fact cost 2.2 jobs elsewhere.

The Carbon Sense chart seems to be the way to go.

Following is a draft policy on gambling, published for comment by members and supporters. Although it has been approved as a draft, it is subject to change prior to finalisation.

LDP Gambling Policy

The LDP believes gambling is like any other form of entertainment – a matter of choice for responsible adults. Just as we may turn off the television or refuse to enter a cinema, we may also leave a casino or decline to bet on a horse race.

The LDP therefore rejects the nanny-state belief that the potential hazards of excessive gambling justify government control of the gambling industry.

The LDP also believes the current approach of State governments to gambling control is completely inefficient and delivers sub-optimal outcomes to Australian gamblers and the economy.

Policy

The LDP has not developed a specific plan of institutional change. However, it commits to the following broad principles:

1. The LDP will not ban or make further restrictions on any individual’s gambling unless they lack the capacity to make a rational decision whether to participate.
2. The LDP will remove monopoly privileges over all aspects of the gambling industry, allowing competition between providers to lower house margins, commissions and other prices for gambling entertainment.
3. The LDP will not favour or disadvantage any particular form of gambling over any others. The LDP will also not adopt discriminatory policies or taxes to favour a particular venue or enterprise.
4. Problem gambling, which affects a small number of individuals, should not be the basis for gambling policy. The LDP will protect the right of individuals to access information about dealing with problem gambling (i.e. about Gambler’s Anonymous meetings etc).
5. The LDP favours a reduction in gambling taxes as with all taxes. It also supports the internalising of any external costs that are clearly imposed by the gambling industry. However, the LDP will not support the use of gambling as a social scapegoat, a political football to be attacked in order to generate votes, or an issue to be managed on the basis of personal moral beliefs.

Discussion

Australian State and Territory governments control gambling through privatized or semi-privatized corporations. These corporations resemble private enterprises but in reality rely upon monopoly privileges.

In Victoria, NSW and Queensland, betting on a horse race from anywhere outside the racecourse requires a transaction through Tabcorp (or a company in a joint venture with Tabcorp). Thus Tabcorp is essentially a monopoly sanctioned by the state, with no fully independent competitor permitted.

Casino gambling is no different. The only legal casinos in Queensland (Jupiters, Treasury and Jupiters Townsville) and New South Wales (Star City) are either owned by Tabcorp or have a local monopoly (eg Cairns). The only legal casino in Victoria (Crown Casino) is run by Crown Limited.

As any economist can confirm, monopolies result in inferior products being sold at higher prices. This is certainly true for the Australian gambling market, as shown by the casino game of Blackjack, the most popular casino card game in the world today.

For any specific set of Blackjack rules it is possible to calculate the “house margin” i.e. the statistical expected loss for every bet the player makes. The house margin is essentially the ‘price’ for the entertainment that comes from playing the game.

Australia has very high house margins relative to other parts of the world. Gaming mathematician and consultant Michael Shackleford has calculated that the house margin in a standard game of Blackjack at Star City in Sydney is 0.58% (footnote 1). The standard rules at Crown Casino in Melbourne have a house margin of 0.527% (footnote 2). The standard rules at Jupiters on the Gold Coast have a house margin of 0.55% (footnote 3).

Compare this to Las Vegas where players can easily play games (for reasonable minimum bets) in which the house margin is 0.26% to 0.48% (footnote 4) or Macau, which has even lower house margins (down to 0.02% at one specific casino) (footnote 5).

In both Las Vegas and Macau, competition between casinos is intense and casinos frequently advertise their superior rules on billboards outside their establishments.

Obviously, competition can improve the chances of many Australian gamblers. So why does the current monopolistic situation persist?

First, some members of the community have significant ethical hostility towards gambling and believe fewer gambling facilities are better than more. Additionally, some people believe that gambling establishments promote gambling addiction and that in order to protect people from the perils of excess gambling, a lower number of gambling opportunities is inherently preferable to a larger number.

The second reason is that Tabcorp and Crown both benefit significantly from their monopoly privileges. They are able to maintain high house edges or commissions on bets because the vast majority of Australian gamblers cannot go to another casino in another state or a racecourse in another country.

Not only do the corporate powers-that-be like the current institutional arrangements, the State powers-that-be do as well. High taxes on gambling profits further increase the disincentive to offer bets at reasonable prices, because no State government wants to lose revenue.

The cruellest irony is that it is the ordinary occasional gambler, the person allegedly being ‘protected’ by the current policy, who suffers the most. Most Australian gamblers are not high rollers; they cannot afford interstate or international flights to a casino owned by someone else, nor can they place bets on the Dubai International through a non-Tabcorp (or partially-Tabcorp-owned) intermediary. They have no option, if they choose to gamble, but to play the games or place bets with a monopoly provider.

In the case of casino gambling, this has led to predictable results: Crown Casino in Melbourne has progressively increased house edges, including the introduction of a blackjack game (called “Sports Blackjack”) with a house margin of more than 2% and double-zero roulette wheels (which have house margins of more than 5%) on the main gaming floor. Naturally, these rule-changes do not apply to the high-rollers area, as high-rollers can easily take their custom elsewhere. (Footnote 6)

Removing the monopoly privileges of current providers (de-monopolizing the gambling industry) will allow competition between providers to flourish, improving punter’s odds, creating more jobs for Australians and increasing income from gambling tourists. Additionally, taxes from gambling can provide a significant boost to government revenue (potentially allowing the lowering of other taxes), while the government will no longer be beholden to any single provider of gambling taxation revenue (and hence remove the temptation to give gambling monopolists special privileges).

Although they are more accessible, poker machines are simply another form of gambling and should not be treated any differently. The LDP believes internet gambling should be treated the same way. Indeed, internet gambling can be much fairer to gamblers than casino gambling; for example the online casino “Betfair” offers a suite of games with a house margin of 0.00% (Footnote 7). The low cost of running online casinos (relative to land-based casinos) means that games can offer improved conditions for consumers of gambling entertainment.

The LDP acknowledges the problems of gambling addiction. Being hooked on gambling can be extraordinarily devastating for the addict as well as the addict’s family. The LDP therefore supports making sources of assistance (ie Gamblers Anonymous and similar organizations) available at a casino’s public information terminal.

Additionally, the LDP will continue to encourage providers of gambling entertainment to refuse service to patrons that are gambling addicts. One possible way of doing this is to develop a set of national “responsible gambling” guidelines and provide financial incentives (such as lower taxes on gambling profits) to those establishments that accept and abide by the guidelines.

Footnotes

1. Based on calculations done by gaming mathematician Michael Shackleford. Calculation originally is done for an 8-deck game but Star City frequently uses 6 decks. Source: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/australian.html

2. Calculation done using Mr Shackleford’s House Edge Calculator, as well as a copy of Crown’s current ruleset (based on the default rules). House edge calculator can be found here, http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html   Crown Blackjack Rules found here, http://www.crowncasino.com.au/assets/contentFiles/378/BlackjackRulesVersion11.0.pdf

3. Calculation done using Mr Shackleford’s House Edge Calculator as well as a copy of the Treasury Casino’s Blackjack Rules (rules are identical accross all Queensland Tabcorp properties), http://www.conradtreasury.com.au/d/Casino/How_to_Play/WY2J0VXFW1SQO3Q3FU3HF13MLVTVY9/XLMAJ62KVNRRO8S.pdf/CTG17124_Blackjack_GG.pdf?

4. Calculation done using the aforementioned House Edge Calculator as well as Mr. Shackleford’s blackjack survey of Las Vegas rules, game used as example is 6-deck double-after-split resplit-aces resplit-to-four-hands late-surrender Blackjack, with the only rule variation being whether or not the dealer hits or stands on Soft 17 (a common rule variation on the Las Vegas Strip). The blackjack survey can be found here: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/vegas.html

The calculation discrepancy between the policy statement and Mr. Shackleford’s research is a result of the fact that continuous shuffling machines lower the house edge by 0.02% compared to a shoe game (most Vegas games are shoe games, but some are continuously reshuffled). Shackleford confirms this effect of continuous shuffling machines here: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix10.html

5. Mr Shackleford’s Macau gaming website, http://wizardofmacau.com/games/blackjack.html

6. For details on “Sports Blackjack” refer to the Crown Blackjack rules document and its specific section on “Sports Blackjack.” Shackleford’s House Edge Calculator was used to derive the house edge of Sports Blackjack. Media coverage of Crown’s rule changes, including the introduction of many Blackjack games (apart from Sports Blackjack, such as “Crown Blackjack” which is apparently becoming the only available game at low-roller tables apart from “Sports Blackjack”) wherein which the casino hits on Soft 17, can be found here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/crown-deals-punters-a-cruel-hand/2007/05/05/1177788471413.html as well as here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/crown-deals-one-from-bottom-of-the-deck-for-mug-punters/2007/05/05/1177788465699.html

7. see http://betting.betfair.com/casino/casino-games/zero-lounge/

The press release I mentioned over at “Thoughts on Freedom,” which was published in AFR’s “rear window” page, regrettably was spoiled somewhat by someone in that organization deciding to have a slap at Lisa Milat. They have been contacted by Peter Whelan and now know of our displeasure regarding their action. The press contains a number of good serious reporters; unfortunately I have met more intelligent hill-billys than some of the rest of them. Lisa’s candidacy brought out the worst in some of them.

 I sometimes wonder if, when some of them go back and look at the stuff that they have done in the past, they shake their heads and ask; “Did I really write that crap.” On the other hand, I doubt that those who write it have the intelligence to see anything wrong with it. The executive will not tolerate further smears on Lisa, we will not ignore them, and we will fight back. Lisa is a responsible and respectable member of the community and does not deserve this.

 While checking back on the controversy on the coverage of this I came across the post, “A Current Affair v Lisa Milat,” and looking through the comments it seems that we tend to get too tied down on minor details of fringe issues, to the point where we never seem to get the big picture across. At least half of the 124 comments seemed to be on the gay issue. Basically as long as they have equal protection under the law, and there is no state discrimination against them, gays are a non-issue.

 Essentially there are two separate groupings in our political lives. The first is the ALS, with its blog, “Thoughts on Freedom,” which is the grouping for discussion of philosophy, and all the airy-fairy stuff, which is a vital part of what we stand for: the idealistic side of us, if you will. This is where we do our talking on “Libertarian with a capital L, gold standards, and all that other stuff that the public at large doesn’t understand, and cares even less about. This is not the LDP.

 The biggest mistake that the LP in America makes, and the reason why it will always be a fringe group is that they have never separated the philosophy from the politics. While they continue to be a party containing groups within it who throw hissy-fits about candidates not complying with the standards of the “Libertarian Purity Test,” and hold their breaths until they go blue in the face about it in full public view, they will go nowhere. A political party needs to present an image of electability, while remaining sufficiently true to the basic philosophy to retain the support of most of this group.

 The LDP is a political party, and our blog should be hard core politics, not libertarian pie in the sky. We are here to get people who support our values into a position to do something about it, by being elected. Some of you may have noticed we refer to the party’s core principles of small government, low taxes, personal freedom and responsibility,” not libertarianism. I see us as a classical liberal party, supporting all of those things and feel that is not in any way inconsistent with the ALS.

 This should not in any way be interpreted as a rejection of the ALS by us they are an important factor. The point has been made in discussion on this subject: -

 “One of the frustrations I find in getting people to sign up to join the LDP and commit to helping is that all the “airy-fairy’ talk about libertarianism is  meaningless to most people. The potential members and voters need to know how we are going to fix their particular problem. That’s where the “small government, low taxes, individual freedom” comes in.

 We need the ALS libertarians to discuss principles and philosophy, but then it needs to be re-worked into  “LDP Policy on ….”  as a saleable/bankable proposition. Even if not a fully endorsed Policy, it can still be presented as a “current position statement”, which may also encourage some input from the pragmatists.”

 It is my contention that ALS members are welcome in the LDP if their beliefs are consistent with the politics of the LDP. If they are not able to lighten up sufficiently to join us, they are better off to stay on the sidelines at the ALS, giving advice while we do the heavy lifting involved in taking over this country and moving it in the direction of true freedom for the first time.

This is a draft policy on motorcycles, posted for comment by members and supporters. It is subject to change in response to feedback here and elsewhere.

Draft Policy

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) believes those who choose to use motorcycles and scooters should not be discouraged by government policies.

The use of motorcycles and scooters is a matter of individual choice. So long as nobody else is likely to be involuntarily harmed by that choice, it is not appropriate for the government to interfere in it.

Motorcycles and scooters represent an economical, convenient and environmentally favourable means of transport that also places fewer demands on roads and other infrastructure.

The LDP will implement the following measures:

1. Ensure that specific facilities for motorcycles and scooters are included in public parking.

2. Reduce taxes, tolls and other charges on motorcycles and scooters to no greater than a quarter that of cars.

3. Allow motorcycles and scooters to use public transport corridors such as bus lanes.

4. Permit motorcycles and scooters to filter between lanes of slow moving traffic.

5. Create refuge areas for motorcycles and scooters in front of cars waiting at intersections, as found in some Asian countries, to facilitate faster traffic flow.

6. Ensure motorcycle and scooter safety is given the same priority as car safety in road design and construction.

7. Encourage voluntary adoption of European CE standards of safety clothing for motorcyclists, accompanied by accurate labelling.

8. Remove obstacles to the establishment of readily accessible rider training courses at moderate cost.

9. Remove any requirement for front number plates.

10. Novice riders will be permitted to travel up to the posted speed limit, to reduce any obstruction they create and to reduce potential for intimidation and danger to themselves.

These measures are additional to the LDP’s policy on traffic laws, which includes:

11. Set speed limits at, or slightly above, the 85^th percentile. This would result in an increase of 10-30 km/h in the limit on roads where drivers felt it was safe to travel at such speeds, while perhaps leading to reductions on less safe roads.

12. Give low priority to enforcement of any traffic laws intended to protect road users from themselves while having no impact on innocent victims.

Australian Motorcycle Council

http://www.amc.asn.au/

Motorcycle Council of NSW

http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/

Australian Transport Council

http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/

National Road Safety Action Plan

http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/nrss_actionplan_0708.pdf

Australian Government

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/

National Transport Commission

www.ntc.gov.au

National Marine Safety Committee

www.nmsc.gov.au

Austroads

www.austroads.com.au

New South Wales

New South Wales Department of Transport

www.transport.nsw.gov.au

New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority

www.rta.nsw.gov.au

Victoria

Victorian Department of Infrastructure

www.doi.vic.gov.au

VicRoads

www.vicroads.vic.gov.au

Queensland

Queensland Transport

www.transport.qld.gov.au

Queensland Department of Main Roads

www.mainroads.qld.gov.au

South Australia

Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure

www.dtei.sa.gov.au

Western Australia

The Department for Planning and Infrastructure

www.dpi.wa.gov.au

Western Australian Department of Main Roads

www.mrwa.wa.gov.au

Tasmania

Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources

www.dier.tas.gov.au

Northern Territory

Department of Planning and Infrastructure

www.nt.gov.au

Australian Capital Territory

Australian Capital Territory Department of Urban Services

www.urbanservices.act.gov.au

The LDP achieved 4.6% of the primary vote in the Gippsland by-election at the close of counting on 28 June. The final figure will vary a little as postal and absentee votes come in. Results can be monitored here.

That vote propels the LDP from “micro” to “minor” status on the Australian political landscape. The difference is significant, as the preferences of minor parties determine election outcomes.

National President of the LDP, Peter Whelan, in Gippsland working on the “Give Buckley a Chance” campaign,  is confident that the right foundation has been laid for the LDP membership drive in Victoria.

“This is a really great result” Whelan said, “and I would like to thank the people of Gippsland who put their faith in the LDP and Ben. I would also like to thank all our supporters who helped at one quarter of the polling stations across the electorate.”

Ben Buckley worked tirelessly from the start of this long campaign, addressing community forums from Yarrum, through Sale and Heyfield, to Omeo, as well as numerous TV, radio and press interviews.

The LDP’s low cost TV campaign on free-to-air and YouTube.com was well received as it did not engage in fear politics or denigrate the other candidates. It focused on low taxes and less government interference.

The party’s next priorities are to achieve state registration in Victoria and NSW, plus the ACT Legislative Assembly election later in the year. Details on the ACT campaign are here.

The Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) will be contesting the June 28th Gippsland by-election. The LDP’s candidate is well known Gippsland identity, Ben Buckley.

Describing how the LDP will appeal to Gippsland voters, Ben said, “The LDP stands for low taxes, small government and individual freedom. That’s also what I believe in, and I think a lot of Gippsland people do too.”

“Australians pay far too much tax and both Coalition and Labor governments try to bribe us with our own money. On average people are paying 30% more tax than 10 years ago, even after adjusting for inflation. Neither the Liberals, Nationals nor Labor have any real commitment to restructure our taxation system to correct this. With all the money being generated from GST, company tax, petrol tax, traffic fines etc, we could be paying zero personal tax,” Ben explained.

The LDP has a well-developed policy to reduce taxes that involves a tax-free threshold of $30,000 and a flat 30% tax rate above this. It is also committed to reducing or removing other taxes such as land taxes and Council rates, to significantly decrease the tax burden on all Australians.”

“Governments are also far too authoritarian and intrusive. None of the major parties has any commitment to individual choice and responsibility. While the proper role of government is to protect our lives, freedom and property, our governments are transforming Australia into a place where every aspect of life is controlled.

“The LDP stands for reduced government intrusion in the lives of ordinary people. That includes things like voluntary voting, assisted suicide and removing the petty rules and penalties that torment businesses. It would restore to property owners the right to permit smoking on their property and to cut down their own trees. Even when the choices that individuals make are unwise and could harm them, so long as nobody else is forced to suffer harm, ‘It’s your choice, not the government’s’”, Mr. Buckley said.

The LDP is unlike most small political parties because it is not focused on a narrow range of issues and does not reflect the views of a dominant individual. It is also not pursuing a left or right wing political agenda. It is a genuinely broad-based party, defining itself as anti-left, anti-right and pro-liberty.  Parties with a similar approach include ACT in New Zealand and the Libertarian Party in the USA.