Minority Report Becomes Reality: Pre-Crime Screening


 

Straight out of Minority Report a new Homeland Security program would subject Americans to pre-crime interrogations and physiological scans to detect people who are intending to commit a terrorist act at sports stadiums, shopping centres, airports and other public places has moved closer to being implemented after the FAST program passed its first round of testing at an undisclosed location in northeast US.

The system uses a computer program that studies physiological indicators of a person, such as heart rate and the steadiness of a person’s gaze, and then uses the data to make a judgment on whether that individual has “malintent”.

Minority Report – coming to an airport or sporting stadium near you.


 

Andy Semple

Speak without fear and question with boldness.

Leave it at 0.05

Joel Silver A successful motion at the Victorian Liberal Party's 152nd State Council, which I put on behalf of the Young Liberals, commended the Baillieu Government for resisting calls to lower the blood alcohol limit from 0.05 to 0.02. I began by discussing the quintessential Australian corner pub, whose prevalence throughout this nation, in commercial and built-up areas, in the city and the country, and in richer and poorer suburbs alike, reflects our unity when it comes to a social drink.

That 0.02 would have such a fundamental impact on the Australian way of life, and on our social liberties, while doing little to enhance road safety, is of great concern. Nor do we believe any Government should pass a law whose target would be mum-and-dad drivers. Indeed, it would be irresponsible to implement such a policy before more pressing road reforms, such as an annual servicing requirement.

Alcohol is social, not a social evil. A lower limit would carry with it a presumption that dangerous driving results from dinner wines and cocktails, unfairly presuming that road users are naturally irresponsible. Consider a hypothetical husband and wife from Glen Waverley, out to a hypothetical dinner in South Yarra for their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. The husband BYOs a bottle of Sauvignon Blanc, and they each polish off a glass for every three courses. A half hour passes between that last glass and the car starting, and 5 minutes before they get waved over on Alexandra Avenue. Hubby probably overdid it, but is under the legal limit at 0.042. The question we need to ask, in this and similar scenarios, is: should he be? Does the smallest amount of alcohol make him a road risk?

For those whose lives have been torn apart by drink driving, and who will take the pain of that moment to their graves, it is a supreme insult to suggest that their loss resulted from a social drink. The most horrific of drink driving offences are perpetrated not by mum and dad drivers, who are not, for want of a better phrase, drunks, for whom it takes more than a Carlton Draught. A drunk becomes a drunk out of irresponsible and excessive drinking. This is unlikely to be spontaneous; the person generally intends on getting "wasted" or "smashed" in advance. The blood alcohol limit stops those people getting on the road, and punishes them if they are juvenile enough to do so. It also represents the level at which a person's senses are deemed to become unsafely affected by alcohol.

Only a special kind of drunk becomes a drink driver. Such people will break the law regardless of the particular limit; it is naïve to suggest otherwise. Irresponsibility knows no bounds, nor is alcohol its only cause; many manage to drive far in excess of the speed limit without a drop of alcohol. Put simply, an alcoholic willing to drink-drive today would not think differently tommorow if we lowered that limit.

So what would 0.02 achieve? More drivers will get processed after breath testing (ie. more will need to step out for blood testing on a booze bus), resulting in a vast number of mum and dad drivers being penalised for drinking a glass of wine. That "new paradigm" will require a mass diversion of police resources, from areas such as patrols and on-call officers, to keep the system afloat. The number of road fatalities, however, will be unaffected; their cause is irresponsibility, not social drinking.

Joel Silver holds a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Melbourne. He is President of the Caulfield Young Liberals and member of the Victorian Young Liberal executive. This article draws on his speech to the Liberal Party State Council in Melbourne on May 29.

Global Warming Totalitarians

35840_1418677801091_1657045874_983245_5101914_n

A brilliant speech from The Hon. Dr. Peter Phelps MLC discussing the great global warming swindle:

I comment in this place on the latest adventures in the great global warming swindle that is gripping our nation and most of the formerly civilised world.

I will assume that most people know that I am an historian by trade and I come from a time when, at universities, the humanities displayed a healthy scepticism for the self-assured absolutism of the sciences. However, nowadays it seems that the sciences have been corrupted by enough government money and political correctness to have them operating in parallel with their socialist brothers in the humanities.

Government money is given to agitate for specific ends. Why are we surprised when the ocean acidification project suddenly finds that—guess what?—oceans are acidifying.

But we should not be so surprised that the contemporary science debate has become so debased. At the heart of many scientists—but not all scientists—lies the heart of a totalitarian planner.

One can see them now, beavering away, alone, unknown, in their laboratories. And now, through the great global warming swindle they can influence policy, they can set agendas, they can reach into everyone's lives; they can, like Lenin, proclaim "what must be done". While the humanities had a sort of warm-hearted, muddle-headed leftism, the sciences carry with them no such feeling for humanity.

And it is not a new phenomenon. We should not forget that some of the strongest supporters of totalitarian regimes in the last century have been scientists and, in return, the State lavishes praise, money and respectability on them. One writer, speaking about the rise of Nazism, said this:

Possibly we have not yet given enough attention to one feature of the intellectual development in Germany during the last hundred years which is now in an almost identical form making its appearance in the English-speaking countries: the scientists' agitating for a "scientific" organization of society. The ideal of a society organized "through and through" from the top has in Germany been considerably furthered by the quite unique influence which her scientific and technological specialists were allowed to exercise on the formation of social and political opinions …

The influence of these scientist-politicians was of late years not often on the side of liberty: the "intolerance of reason" so frequently conspicuous in the scientific specialist, the impatience with the ways of the ordinary man so characteristic of the expert, and the contempt for anything which was not consciously organized by superior minds according to a scientific blueprint were phenomena familiar in German public life for generations …

Does that sound familiar—the impatience with the ways of the ordinary man, the intolerance of reason of the scientific specialist, the contempt for anything not organised by them? Look at the way that Professor Ian Plimer has been pilloried and blackguarded by the scientific community; look at the way he was supported when he rightly attacked claims of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat but how swiftly they turned when their agenda was not being met by him.

What was the net result of this?

The way in which, in the end, with few exceptions, scholars and scientists have put themselves readily at the service of the new rulers is one of the most depressing and shameful spectacles in the whole history of the rise of National Socialism. It is well known that particularly the scientists and engineers, who had so loudly claimed to be the leaders on the march to a new and better world, submitted more readily than almost any other class to the new tyranny.

Writing in 1927, Julien Benda wrote words that could just as well be used to describe today's anthropogenic global warming [AGW] spinmeisters. He speaks of the:

… superstition of science held to be competent in all domains, including that of morality; a superstition which, I repeat, is an acquisition of the nineteenth century. It remains to discover whether those who brandish this doctrine believe in it or whether they simply want to give the prestige of a scientific appearance to passions of their hearts, which they perfectly know are nothing but passions.

Indeed, how different are today's global warming urgers from those in pre-war Britain, who looked forward to a Britain that would be "centralised and totalitarian"?

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The present idolatry for pseudoscience, the claims of settled science and of a scientific consensus—these are the leper's bell announcing the approach of the would-be totalitarian.

The bell was not heeded in the 1930s. It should be heeded now.

Peter Phelps is the Government Whip in the New South Wales Legislative Council, and is a former long-term staffer in the Howard Government. He has a PhD in Australian History.  

Populism is not Leadership

Joshua-Bell Joshua Bell discusses the nature of leadership:

Leadership has become a buzzword; an objective to which many aspire, and a virtue without which human society would descend into chaos. Its intricacies continue to engage the pens of countless authors, and yet it is a quality which, when possessed, is instantly recognisable.

We live in an age where leadership has become a commodity, but where true leaders are rare. Each year, conferences lure hundreds, if not thousands, through their doors with the promise of revealing the art of leadership. Effective communication, confidence building and the art of engaging an audience with charisma; these take-away offerings are all for sale to the paying pundit, yet while certainly valuable assets in the arsenal of any successful leader, something is missing from the messages espoused by these conferences and bestsellers; something absolutely indispensable – a focus on character.

Remarkable leadership- the kind worth believing in and following- comes from strength of character, rather than the ability to make a memorable speech. Think of the celebrated leaders in history. They have one distinguishing feature in common: character and the integrity to be true to it. True, they were master orators and could capture the attention and imagination of their audience, but words, no matter how well communicated, will rapidly fade into oblivion if spoken by an empty vessel. Remarkable leaders can capture, and hold, the faith of their followers precisely because they offer a vision in which to believe, with the resolute character – and therefore credibility – to back it up.  

What, then, is character? According to the dictionary, character is ‘the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing’. Intuitively we know that a good character is comprised of noble qualities and virtues, such as courage, honour, integrity, compassion, and self-discipline.  Like everyone else, remarkable leaders do not always live in accordance with these virtues. However, there are two without which they simply cannot exist: conviction and the courage to stand by those convictions, come what may.

Without conviction, a leader is akin to a rudderless ship, travelling wherever the wind blows. Such vessels, and their passengers, are bound for disaster.  We have a word for this type of rudderless political leadership – populism. Populist politics is nothing more than the betrayal of principle for the sake of procuring votes. It is short-sighted and misguided. History demonstrates that leaders who act contrary to their convictions forgo all credibility, and are consequently not worth following.

Consider the former Prime Minster, Kevin Rudd. Having claimed that climate change is the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’ and having repeatedly stated that Australia must take action immediately, his dumping of the CPRS for political expediency cost him his credibility, and played a significant role in his demise.

On the other hand, Sir Winston Churchill was a remarkable leader precisely because he courageously stood by his convictions, no matter the cost. Early in his political career, he cut ties with his beloved Conservative Party because they were pursuing a Protectionist policy when he ardently believed in the Free Trade cause. During World War II, his conviction that Britain never surrender to a tyrant meant that he was able to inspire his countrymen to ward off the Nazi invasion.

The point is simple: true leadership is about making decisions based upon conviction and principle, and having the courage to stand by those convictions.  It is this type of leadership that will echo throughout the ages. 

Joshua Bell is studying Law and International Studies at the University of Adelaide.

The Perfect Storm

Cory Bernardi The sense of gloom among everyday Australians seems to be spreading. So too is the sense of disillusionment in their government. Optimism in the future is outweighed by pessimism about the direction in which the country is heading.

Among the younger families, particularly those weighed down by mortgages, there is a growing concern about how to keep paying the bills. As utility and food prices rise and are forecast to continue to do so, wages simply don't keep up with the cost of living.

There is upward pressure too on interest rates brought about by too much government-led stimulus spending, which compounds the financial woes of those that owe.

For those who overcommitted to big mortgages under the assumption that interest rates would remain low, negative equity has now become a real possibility. This is where more is owed on the home than it could be sold for. With house prices dropping in most markets this prospect is a daunting one for those suffering from mortgage stress.

Among the more mature demographic, those with spare money are saving. Some recent research indicates that our net saving rate has moved from a negative position to a positive ten per cent. This is an extraordinary turnaround and helps to explain the parlous state of our domestic retail industry.

The slowdown in retail sales limits employment growth and strangles the lifeblood of our economy – small business.

Of course there are exceptions. One insolvency practitioner told me recently that business is booming. However I hardly think an insolvency-led recovery is on the cards.

That said, the principle behind how insolvency practices operate is one that all governments need to heed. Sometimes good businesses, just like good economies, get into trouble. Most often this is through debt and unforeseen circumstances. During these times it can seem impossible for the operators to get out of their financial malaise whilst complying with the law.

This is where the insolvency practitioner comes to the fore. They can take control of the business and manage the debt position to help ensure its continued operation. Yes, other firms are sometimes left out of pocket (more often than not the biggest creditor is the tax office) but such are the risks of commercial enterprise. In effect, the insolvency practitioner dishes out some tough medicine to help ensure that jobs are maintained and the best result can be achieved.

There are some exceptions to the scenario above, but the principle is sound.

National economies also sometimes find themselves subject to excesses. Once again, this is mostly due to over borrowing by individuals or through a lack of planning for the future.

Busts follow every boom just as a boom will eventually follow a previous bust. It is due entirely to human nature and the fear and greed that dominates the investment rationale of most of us.

However, unlike the insolvency practitioners, most governments don’t like people to wear the pain of their own decisions. So they seek to smooth the business cycle through fiscal policy decisions. This probably has as much to do with the electoral cycle as anything else!

Regrettably, the decisions of government that seek to postpone the day of reckoning will inevitably make the problem much bigger and more dangerous. This is the risk that now confronts us all.

Those who have lived through recessions and consolidations recognise that they are the price we pay for working excesses through the system. Where governments seek to delay such cyclical actions by incurring huge levels of debt and through irresponsible spending, it ensures that the inevitable is only going to be worse than before.

Outside of the mining economy, Australia now faces the perfect economic storm. We have falling asset prices, high levels of government debt, flagging consumer confidence, a strengthening dollar, growing inflation and rising interest rates.

These problems can be traced back to the last three years of poor government stewardship and without any reasonable prospect of changing the crew in the near term, it looks like our economy is going to get worse before it gets better.

Senator Cory Bernardi is the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition and a Senator for South Australia. This article is courtesy of his personal blog which can be found at http://www.corybernardi.com.

Hockey for Liberal Leadership

Rose Torossian Rose Torossian discusses why it’s time for a leadership change.

Today, 30 May 2011, in an article by Phillip Coorey “Stop sniping, Hockey warns, as Coalition faces poll hit” words of wisdom were echoed profoundly by a man who is destined to become Australia’s Prime Minister: Joe Hockey. The only question that is left to be asked is “when?”

Hockey recognises the need for real leadership and he does so by being humble. A characteristic which has not been seen since John Howard left politics. Hockey said in the article:

“[ I ] Would say to people they should put their ambitions for the nation ahead of their own ambitions. This is not about individuals; it is about giving Australia real leadership.”

These words were music to my ears and I am certain to the ears of many Australians. For those of us (especially some politicians who are ignorant and/or arrogant) to put a nations ambition before their own is quite unheard of and utterly, it would seem, ridiculous in the arena of politics.

However, simply put to the reader, it isn’t ridiculous to Joe Hockey as he has, time and time again, always put the nations’ needs/ambitions before his own but now is the time for him to step up for the sake of the Australian people.

I think I speak for all Australians (not heavily involved in politics but concerned about their everyday living and welfare) when I say it is time for Tony Abbott to go and for Malcolm Turnbull to retire from politics or put his political leadership ambitions aside because we’re never going to have him or want him as our Prime Minister.

I cannot, for the life of me, endure one more moment of a very tired and boring Tony Abbott whose last breath has obviously left his political body. As for Malcolm Turnbull, his returned too soon. In fact, he should have never returned at all.

What it comes down to is this: Joe Hockey it’s time for a leadership change.

Rose Torossian is a freelance writer and a member of the NSW Liberal Party. She ran as the Federal Candidate for Fowler during the 2007 Federal election. She also has a Bachelor of Media degree and a Master of Arts in International Communication. She lives by the following quote: “Life isn’t meant to be easy, my child; but take courage – it can be delightful.”

Exposed: Say Yes Carbon Tax TV ad with Cate Blanchett


 

Special thanks to Wakeup2theLies for the link. If you like, you can follow them on twitter @wakeup2thelies

UPDATE

Further to the great Battersea carbon controversy, we now encounter terrible denialism:

Australian Conservation Foundation climate and clean energy campaigner Phil Freeman last night denied the Battersea Power Station image was used, insisting it was a “representation of a power station taken from a stock image”.

Really? You be the judge.

Battersea station

and we have an actor standing in front of…you guessed it – Battersea Power Station

Idiot infront

Andy Semple

Speak without fear and Question with Boldness

Marching Out Of Step with The Rest Of the World

Andys RantOur nation wants to act on climate change – but some worry it won't be good for us if we get out in front of the world. They don't have to worry, because the world is moving too.” – Julia Gillard

Wrong, PM. You’re dead wrong.

Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

Those pledges expire at the end of next year. European countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.

But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.

They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world's No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

At last Thursday's G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed the USA would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol.

The UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9. Lucky those attending can find 101 Things to do in Durban for under R101.00 (under $15.00) as the agenda at the upcoming UN gabfest will be rather pointless if the US, Russia, Japan and Canada aren’t going to sign up to Kyoto 2.0

If 500 people were marching in step, Julia Gillard would be the one person marching out of step.

Her Carbon Dioxide Tax is utter futile as global CO2 emissions won’t fall (they actually keep rising) but she’ll sure make life a lot tougher for Australian families and business.

But then again, if her ultimate plan is to fundamentally transform the economy to a socialist nirvana then this Tax is the precursor to that transformation.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” – Winston Churchill

The Gillard Government will penalise companies for simply operating and producing, her Carbon Dioxide Tax will reduce manufacturing output (Pro: fewer emissions, Con: Fewer Jobs), and that in turn will reduce Australia’s GDP (Pro: lower carbon output, Con: a lower standard of living).

Great solution, Ms Gillard. You should really rename your stupid Carbon Tax as the AMSPT or the Australian Mutual Suicide Pact Tax because that’s exactly what will happen to our economy.

Finally, those suckers putting their name to the Say Yes Australia campaign are complicit in harming Australia’s competitive advantage and for advocating lower standards of living for millions of fellow Australians. Shame on them.

Call an Election, Ms. Gillard, then we can all have our say.

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

Andy Semple is Stockbroker, novelist and general antagonist. He is the Assistant Managing Editor here at Menzies House and his personal motto is "Speak without Fear. Question with Boldness."

Gov. Gary Johnson on Hannity Show

via www.youtube.com

MH readers would be aware that I'm quite strongly of the belief that in an ideal world Governor Johnson would be the best 2012 Republican Presidential candidate. As he's still relatively unknown, however, if you are interested in learning more about him, and the challenges he faces, here's an interview with him on the Hannity show. As you would expect, Hannity is not particularly favourable towards Gov. Johnson, so it's a robust interview, and I think a rather good representation of both the positive and negatives of his candidature.

TVA

The virtues of public funds propping up political parties

Keith

The virtues of public funds propping up political parties

 

Keith Topolski discusses why the funding of political parties by the taxpayer is not only immoral, but dangerous for democracy.

To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury.

Although that quote is not my own, I would certainly sign up to claim ownership, because it goes to the very heart of one of the big issues in Canadian and Australian politics today.

With the recent triumph of freedom in Canada, or to put it another way, the Conservative Harper Government finally securing a majority in its' own right, it can come good on one of its core election promises-to abandon the public subsidy of political parties.

It is always ironic that the left, which so often seeks to deride parties of the right that can fundraise amongst its own supporters, demands that the general public subsidise their right to stand at elections.

The left, in this case the New Communists, also known as the New Democratic Party, sees the abolition of public subsidy as an effort by Stephen Harper to shore up his own party's position. Also on the left, the Canadian Liberals, now reduced to an adorable rump of 31 of 308 MPs in the Canadian Commons, claims this is an effort to destroy the Liberal Party in Canada.

Yeah, like Michael Ignatieff didn't already do that. Duuh!

What the real fear of the NDP and the Canadian Liberals is, is the truth of Harper Conservatism may finally be seen by the Canadian public.

First cab off the rank for the Harper majority is to abandon the rather shambolic gun registry.

Now, in Australia we have gun control because there aren't enough guns to justify mass gun ownership. In Canada and the US, however, guns are part of their history, particularly in the west.

The only people in Canada who have supported the gun registry reside in urbanised Ontario and Quebec, which should be instructive, given that Quebec sees the notion of 'Canada' itself as offensive, while Ontario way too closely resembles the uninspiring canvas that is Canberra.

You may now be asking, what does this have to do with funding of political parties? Well, it all comes back to the question of the people and the elites.

The elites wanted the gun registry, and they got it. Why? Because the elites in Canada gravitated towards the NDP and the Libs, and with the sheer genius of Kim Campbell sending the old Reform and PC parties to the wall, and possibly becoming part of the wall that they hit so hard, nobody knew there could be another way.

Same with government as a whole. Until the formation of a majority in the Commons, nobody really knew what life would be like under a Harper Government. Every budget passed by the Harper Government, since elected to minority status in 2006, has been fudged, fiddled and trimmed at the edges by the Liberals and, more recently, the NDP.

Henceforth, the recent deficits delivered by the 'Harper Government' are more accurately Liberal and NDP deficits.

Canada finally now has the opportunity to see a true Conservative Government in full flight. So, what is the new Harper Government offering?

Well, they are offering the abolition of the gun registry. Big winner in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia……. well, basically anywhere other than Quebec and Southern Ontario.

They are offering a democratised Senate. Strange as it may seem, Pierre Trudeau, until recently, was still in charge of the Senate by virtue of his stacks holding onto their seats. Now the Tories have a majority, it's time for the people to choose their Senate.

Why would the left be scared of this? That's right, because when speaking about the left, they are firm believers in free speech, until you disagree with them. Once that happens, you become a dangerous threat to democracy.

Next on Harper's reform list is to raise the maximum annual contribution by an individual to a political party from $1,100 to $2,500. This again poses a threat to anti-business lefties, as who with money would want to fund a high taxing party that bends over whenever the unions tell them?

Harper also has in place a tough on crime omnibus bill ready to go, with about a dozen pieces of legislation ready to go through after it was blocked in the last Parliament by the lefty love-in.

These bills are all anathema to the left, but they are also something far more important.

These are bills which many young Canadians would never have seen before, having had to endure the Greek tragedy of the Mulroney-Campbell years which saw Conservatism reduced to two seats through Chretien's early years, and this coming off the back of the Trudeau travesty.

It is arguable that Canada, indeed, has never had a genuine Conservative Government. Small Government does not come as an easy philosophical thought to Canucks. Indeed, while the US still argues over Obamacare, Canada's medicare system makes even Australia's socialised scheme look like free market paradise.

While core Conservative issues like gay marriage and socialised medicine will not be tackled by Stephen Harper, other areas of Government responsibility, closer to the hearts of the Midwest voters will be front and centre of Harper's agenda.

And if Harper's agenda is shown to younger Canadians to be what they want, where will this leave the NDP, the Liberals and, as an aside, Bloc Quebecois? (I mention the Bloc even though they have four seats only).

It's clear that this will leave Canada's political left with a crisis of faith and conscience, which we are seeing in Australian Labor.

What to do? Do they modernise their ideas to an electorate which now embraces Conservatism and TRUE Liberalism in all its might? Or do they try and ride it out, by proclaiming that Canada's flirtation is merely just a teenage-like infatuation, and that Canada will eventually come home?

It is clear that, for the NDP at least, they have no intention of modernising their ideas. The Liberals may well shift to the right, as they have a gravitas and history to protect.

But as long as the left seeks to continue on the left, they need to shut down the big advantage the Conservatives have now.

The advantage is not that big business wants to fund the Tories. That has never been the advantage of private political funding. The advantage comes from where the Obama campaign murdered John McCain in 2008.

Obama's network didn't win the financial fight because of big donors-the Republicans can more than hold their ground in that regard.

What got Obama across the line were the $10, $20, $40, $50, $100 donations from people just wanting to make a difference, or a contribution on their own. Before too long, Obama's small donations were the campaign's lifeblood. And this is where Harper can win too.

Major lobby groups may provide big blocks of funding for political parties to operate, but political campaigns are mainly funded through smaller donations, from both individuals and smaller companies.

If small business and individuals are happy with the Government, why would they fund the opposition?

Further, if people are angry with Government, why would they continue to donate to them when they want change?

This is what the left in Canada is scared of, and indeed the left in Australia is scared of too. Accountability.

Indeed, Stephen Harper is trying to make Government more accountable to the public through his reforms, because he is confident his policies are right.

Australia take note: With finance reform being considered by the Gillard Government, this merely provides loony leftie parties with the opportunity to pat themselves on the back, while they ignore the concerns of real people in the suburbs.

Only through the abolition of public subsidy for political parties, and lifting caps on donation limits, can Government be more responsive to the demands of the people.

After all, democracy and freedom is all about Government of the people, by the people, for the people, and if the people can't govern, then the people get ignored, and democracy goes to hell.

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal Executive and is studying Communications.