Liberty in Britain and Australia – a reply to John Galt

On Monday regular commenter John Galt left a comment on the female bishops post after I’d replied to someone else saying that despite everything I still feel that overall Australia is a marginally less illiberal country than the UK. Not in all respects to be sure, and I’m not denying that Australia is a slightly worse place to live than the UK if you are, say, an overweight smoker who likes a beer while getting a suntan. And I emphasise that I think it’s only slightly worse. But more than once I’ve expressed the thought that if I were to grade all aspects of life in both countries from a libertarian perspective and come up with an overall score then Australia would come out a bit ahead. When I first said this I also said that I thought Australia was probably only five years behind the UK, but I’ve been for longer than that now and it still doesn’t feel quite as under the government’s heel as the UK did when I left it.

But in a short comment reply there wasn’t room for that kind of detail so all I said was that for all that Australia can be pretty illiberal I maintain that in a broad sense the UK is worse, though like most of the nominally free world both nations have got noticeably less free in recent years. To which John Galt said:

Obviously you’ve not bought any cigarettes in Australia recently.

Not to pour scorn, I expect the same bollocks in UK by 2015.

True, I haven’t bought cigs lately, though both my regular readers (hi, Mum) will know that I have watched and blogged on the topic over time. For example, this time last year I blogged on how the smoke ban has led to notices outside doorways claiming to extend the property rights of building owners ten metres out into the street. At least that’s how far away from their doors they say smoking is banned, and of course that includes part of the road and any private car that are on it too. I’m pretty sure I’ve also mentioned that the tobacco display bans contained an exemption for tobacconists in most places, but not in the ACT where they are mad and insisted that even shops that sell little else but tobacco hide the products behind cupboard doors even though you have to open a door on the street to get in there in the first place. I have not mentioned that just a week or so ago I saw what I assume is an infringement of the tobacco display ban in an outlet somewhere in Victoria – I’m not saying where – and nobody seeming to give much of a shit about the smokes being >sharp intake of breath< visible to anyone who happened to look over the counter.

But yes, of course I realise that anti-smoke nannyism is rife here and exceeds that of the UK, and as I touched on at the top other forms of nannyism such as alcohol, drugs, healthy eating, tanning beds and so on are as bad or worse than in Britain. I've come to believe that lobbyists and politicians here are actually addicted to telling other people off about their assumed addictions.*

But there are a few other points to consider here, which taken together are why I say that overall the UK is less free. Firstly, some of the disposal of individual liberty has been done by Australia to keep up with other nations doing the same thing, and some has been done first for the sake of not wanting other countries, including Britain, to be the first to do it. In the case of plain cigarette packs this has been stated openly at least once. I think it was then Health Minister and current AG Nicola Roxon and it was words to the effect of "If we don't act now and bring in plain pack legislation there is a real danger that the UK will beat us to it." I really should have that in the bookmarks because it shows it to be less about health and more about political vanity (and possibly some lingering pain over losing the Ashes).

Yes, doing something to be first to do something is a moronic reason to have a policy, but with so much of western politics revolving around vainglorious dickheads talking about how under their leadership their country is leading the world it's neither a surprise nor unique to Australia. Britain is leading the world with CCTV monitoring of its citizens, the US is leading the world with making flying anywhere less fun than being waterboarded between episodes of The X Factor, Australia are leading the world with nonsense about plain tobacco packaging, and so on. I never claimed that Australia's government is leading the world in minding its own fucking business, just that I think its current obsessions are less intrusive and illiberal than those of its UK counterpart.

The second thing I want to point out is that Australia has no relationship with an external body along the lines of the UK's relationship with the European Union etc. The relationship of the states to Canberra may be a bit similar but Canberra is still in Australia and Australians vote for the federal government there. A convicted criminal such as Haigh can appeal his case as far as the High Court of Australia and no further because there is no equivalent of the ECHR to which Australia has given the power to overturn domestic laws and legal decisions. There are still lingering ties with the UK that are kind of similar but seem mostly to revolve around Mrs Windsor being queen of both countries.

I suppose it could be argued that UK law would therefore take precedence over Australian law if, say, a change from male primogeniture to unisex primogeniture was desired by one country and not the other. "Sorry, colonial types, but you've agreed to have our Sovereign as your head of state too, and if we say boys take precedence and you don't like it or vice versa then you have to put up with it." But despite the current news of buns in ovens (I was determined not to say any more on that than I've said already) that's all theoretical at this point. If Kate does have twins and if there's one of each flavour the future head of state could be decided by the handful of people in the room at the time and whether they agree to tell a porky about who emerged first – all aboard the tinfoil hat express but remember I have first dibs on this particular conspiracy theory.

In any case it's not in the same league as having daily influence over domestic law. Britain does not, for instance, tell Australia whether its supermarkets can sell produce in grams or ounces or how long the employees of those supermarkets may work each week. Such things are decided in Australia, end of. The head of state stuff can also be done away with as soon as enough Australians want it binned and some Oz only arrangement made instead. I'm still hoping for Her Royal Australian Highness Queen Kylie the First, because why the fuck not.

Then there's the issue of economic liberty. Like the governments of all nominally free countries both the Australian and UK governments do not allow any but a handful of their citizens the freedom to keep all the products of their labour. In Australia this is currently anyone who earns less than $18,000 or so, which I'mtv sure isn't very many people but I'm equally sure is probably a hell of a lot more than the number who earn under £8,105 in the UK. Beyond those thresholds both governments feel that they and not the individual who earns it have an increasing right to the product of labour. Further, a comparison of Tax Freedom Days shows that British residents work for the state for 150 days a year while Australians only work 112 days before earning for themselves. I’m pretty sure this is before considering that all governments also agree that states have the right to run up massive debts and unfunded liabilities on behalf of their citizens, and the relevance to a discussion of liberty in the UK versus liberty in Australia is that British governments have lately been considerably more profligate than even the most spendthrift Australian ones. In other words 150 days and 112 days of working for the respective states are probably both underestimates, but when considering the size of Britain’s debt, unfunded liabilities and continued deficit the former is probably a larger underestimate than the latter.

Then there are those laws I mentioned. If he felt like it David Cameron could suspend almost any UK law, up to and including habeas thanks to Blair-era legislation that neither Cameron nor anyone else in politics seems remotely interested in repealing. Despite my low opinion of politicians I think that most or all of the ones in Westminster now can be trusted not to abuse this power, but since the future is always unknown I maintain that this is a power that no government should ever have. Other powers the government granted itself and its successors in the Blair days have already been extended beyond their initial intended remit and, predictably enough, abused to the detriment of individual liberty in the UK. I’m not aware of similar ‘mini-Enabling Acts’ (h/t to the sadly closed Devil’s Kitchen blog for that term) in Australia – yet.  I’m no lawyer so for all I know there could be something, but if so I’ve not heard of it. And I’d have expected Australian libertarians who know far more about Aussie law than I could ever hope to learn to have made enough noise that I would have heard about it if habeas corpus could be suspended by ministerial fiat here the way it can be in the UK.

And while we’re on the topic of illiberal laws in Australia, and coming somewhat tangentially full circle back to anti-smoking laws and similar nanny state legislation, there’s the point that I’ve made once or twice before that no matter how under Nanny’s thumb people who live in Australia’s cities might be this becomes increasingly theoretical as you get into more rural parts of Australia. I’m not saying that everything is different there but as a practical matter enforcement becomes harder in the more remote parts of the interior. When the nearest cop, local government officer concerned with tobacco legislation, or just baccyphobic busybody might be hundreds of miles away what the law says people may do and what they actually agree between themselves might be different things. It’s not unlike the old traditional ‘lock in’ that went on in many British pubs who were prepared to quietly ignore the then law that said no drinking after 11pm, except that I expect local law enforcement often knew about the lock ins and turned a blind eye provided nothing too blatant went on. Is there scope for for those who’d cock a snook at an unnecessarily intrusive and illiberal law to an even greater degree in those parts of Australia where hardly anybody lives?

Let me me put it like this. Back in 1993 something strange happened in Western Australia about 350km north of Kalgoorlie. Just after 11pm on 28th May there was a large ‘seismic disturbance’, and the handful of truckies and gold prospectors in the area at the time reported seeing what was described variously as a flash or a fireball and hearing a distant explosion or a low frequency rumble. It was found to be way too large for a mining explosion (which wouldn’t take place at night anyway) but it was consistent with seismic activity in region, though of course that wouldn’t explain the flash. A meteor would but there was no sign of a crater so flashes notwithstanding it was put down to an earthquake. And for a while nobody thought further of it until a few years later when someone investigating the Aum Shinrikyo nutters who’d attacked the Tokyo metro with sarin gas noticed that the cult owned Banjawarn Station, a sheep station of half a billion hectares about 350km north of Kalgoorlie. And which sat on a uranium deposit. Suddenly people looked at the mysterious seismic event with flash and explosiony sounding rumble again, and there was serious speculation that Aum Shinrikyo had actually tested a small nuke of a couple of kilotons or so in Western Australia. Right under everyone’s noses, only not really right under everyone’s noses because the only noses anywhere near were those of Aum Shinrikyo.

Now it has to be said that they probably didn’t. I can’t find anywhere that’s positively identified exactly what the event was but the AFP investigated Aum Shinrikyo and the bottom line is that there’s no evidence that they tested a nuke there. All the same, something bloody big happened and almost nobody noticed. As Bill Bryson wrote about it much later:

This is a country […] so vast and empty that a band of amateur enthusiasts could conceivably set off the world’s first non-governmental atomic bomb on its mainland and almost four years would pass before anyone noticed.

So if an event on a similar scale to a 2 kiloton explosion can go almost unnoticed for two years and its cause not completely settled to this day, I reckon you could say hang what the law says and hold a gay wedding indoors with the entire party smoking cigarettes from Marlboro branded packets with no health warnings.

And Canberra might never know.

* This is based on what appears to be the neo-prohibitionists’ definition of addiction, which is any activity, pastime or habit that gives some people any kind of pleasure or enjoyment. And since so many neo-prohibitionists have such a massive hard on for telling everyone else to stop doing things they like doing I can only assume at this point that the nannies themselves are, ipso facto, addicted to nannying.**

** I concede that more research is probably needed into this apparent addiction, and if the federal government would like to give me a multi-million dollar annual budget I’ll be all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake.

Posted on December 5, 2012, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. In fairness to the other readers of your blog (Hi Exile’s mum), I think that is a fair and reasonable answer to my off-the-cuff remark.

    *looks down embarrassed and grinds his foot in the Malaysia dirt*

    In answer to your views on unisex primogeniture “but remember I have first dibs on this particular conspiracy theory”, the idea isn’t new and its happen in fiction (The Man in the Iron Mask) and probably fact that when twins were born one of them was hidden away or given a “Spartan exit”* to avoid future problems of disputed kingship.

    Your track record on attacking the bansturbators in all forms (tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, etc.) is considered, balanced and factual. Certainly no criticism of your own position was intended.

    I left the UK in 2009, independently and of choice because I couldn’t put up with tax theft and nannying any more without preparing the Molotov’s.


  2. This doesn’t seem like a very liberal proposal:

    If that were to pass, Australia would have virtually removed all rights to voice political opinions. Something that here in the UK is not (yet) on the cards.

    • Firstly it’s a draft and ‘if’ it passes is very much the operative word. Secondly it sounds rather like the section of the UK Communications Act that’s already law there and has been used to criminalise certain Twitterers (not for expressing political opinions so far, but we are talking about a country that takes away foster children on the grounds of belonging to the wrong party). Thirdly that may conflict with state laws such as the Victorian Charter of Rights & responsibilities, though I’d need to read the appropriate sections to be sure. Going from memory such things are protected in Victoria except for the usual limitations of stuff that’s actually defamatory or is a real significant public order issue. Could lead to a long legal barney between state and Commonwealth, and if it’s over

      Lastly I’m not sure it doesn’t cancel itself out anyway. The proposed law puts political opinion is on a list of ‘protected attributes’ along with things like race, disabilities, breastfeeding, sexuality and so on. Since it’s highly unlikely the ALP would bring in a law that allows discrimination against ethnicity, disability and so on doesn’t that mean it’s actually giving minority political opinion the same protection as being in any other minority group? So to use the IPA’s example, a shopkeeper that puts up a poster for political party A may be discriminating against his employees if they support party B, but the same law would have to protect the shopkeeper from the discrimination of B supporters wanting to prevent him putting up the poster. Yes, it’s a mess that should never have been written and would be best filed in the nearest shredder, which might be what a court would do to it if it ever went that far. But I’m not sure it would remove the right to voice political opinions such as confer the rather retarded right of two people with opposing political views to have a bigger than necessary dummy spit about it.

      That’s guessing on my part, of course – would need to pick the brains of my tame lawyer and I won’t see him now until the new year. Of course, if the practical implications are really more work for lawyers then he might say it’s a terrific idea.

  3. With regard to the Aum Shinrikyo cult detonating an atom bomb in Australia Clive Collins of the AGSO suggests not

    “The event was analysed by the Incorporated Research Institute for Seismology (IRIS). They concluded that it was consistent with the impact of an iron meteorite with a radius of between 0.5 and 1.6 m. However, a search by light plane shortly after the event failed to locate any impact crater, which could be expected to be 90 m or more in diameter. They also concluded the seismogram which was recorded was inconsistent with a mine explosion, but were inconclusive as to whether it was a local earthquake.

    As no impact crater has been found it is most likely that the event recorded by the seismic network was a small magnitude 3.6 earthquake, which is not unusual in this region and consistent with the seismograms. Since 1993, two earthquakes occurred in an area of 50 km around the epicentre of the 28 May 1993 event. The seismic records of these earthquakes were compared with the seismic records of the 1993 event, and showed similar characteristics consistent with typical seismic activity for Western Australia. The observation of a meteor is also not unusual in this region because of the clear skies and flat topography, but we are unaware if there was an unusually large number in the 1990s”

    • Late reply (apologies): as I said in the post, AM probably didn’t do anything of the kind. Even without the other reasons to doubt it there’s the very practical point that they bought the station only a few weeks before the event and it just doesn’t seem like there’d have been enough time to organise things with a pre-made device, and making one from scratch on the property is completely unrealistic. Whether you favour quake or meteor I guess depends on the weight given to the reports of a flash or fireball and the fact that even large features can be overlooked in remote, sparsely populated areas. I sit firmly on the fence. But while the story of a nuke isn’t plausible the story that there was serious speculation, as in worthy of investigation to be sure it wasn’t true, that someone tested a small nuke without anyone realising does illustrate how large and empty the place is, and more importantly from the POV of individual liberty, how free of officialdom large areas of it remain even now.

  4. You know that earthquakes and atomic weapons (even at low yields) have different seismic signatures?

    There are seismographs all over the world hooked up to monitor breaches of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. A Aum Shinrikyo device could have been detonated without anyone local realizing it was a nuclear device, but the boys in white coats are monitoring as they are listening for Iranian and North Korean detonations.

    • I was aware of the monitoring and while I didn’t know that there was a different signature I’d kind of assumed that there must be something distinctive so as to avoid false alarms from the numerous small quakes that occur daily. Doesn’t change the essential point of my mentioning the story: that it was investigated thoroughly by the Federal Police shows that the possibility was taken sufficiently seriously as to require ruling out, and I think that demonstrates that remote inland Australia is a place where you can probably do a lot of things that Canberra insists that you should not be able to do at all.

  5. What about the e-TAG surveillance? I realise we are followed day and night with CCTV but surely e-TAG is a step further?

    • Not really. First you don’t need an eTag to use the toll roads as you can have an account tied to number plates instead or just buy a day pass as and when you want to use it.

      Secondly the toll roads aren’t that extensive: Citylink between the Westgate freeway and the bottom of the Tullamarine freeway, the two tunnels under the Yarra and a bit of the Monash freeway the other side, Batman Av and a stretch of joining the Monash, and the new Eastlink. The Westgate Bridge used to be tolled but the tolls stopped once the construction costs were paid off and it’s now freeway. I’d guess the tollways run to less than 100km, possibly quite a lot less. While it’s reciprocal with the tag system in NSW so cars from each state can use the other’s tollways it’s a long way from being Melbourne wide, let alone statewide or nationwide. Possibly QLD as well though I’m not sure. I’m pretty sure that West Oz, SA, Tas and the NT do not have toll roads at all.

      Finally, and following from that, there are plenty of untolled alternatives for all those who don’t want to use the tolled roads at all. Not always great alternatives to be sure – they want people using the toll roads after all – but there’s no reason you absolutely have to travel on them if you don’t want to.

      So as a surveillance system that’s not much cop. A fraction of a percentage of the roads of 2-3 states covered isn’t a lot of good for a surveillance system. I guess they can get data on how often you go to Highpoint shopping centre or something by identifying your entry and exit depending on which gantries the tag passes under, but if you were concerned about that you’d just go a different way. It’s really more like an Oyster card for cars, and same way that despite privacy concerns about Oyster it can’t track a user with an Oyster card in, say, Nottingham the eTag might as well not be there if you’re using freeways and other untolled roads.

%d bloggers like this: