United Nations Calls for a 20% Soft Drinks & Juice Tax

The United Nations Health Agency has recently called on all countries to implement of “at least 20%” on sugar sweetened beverages to curb the epidemic of global obesity. This is a sensible suggestion at first glance, but this exact tax has been tried in many countries and has had no or minimal effect on obesity. This is a public policy suggestion based in intentions and not actual results, leading to many unintended consequences.

The tax is meant to increase the price of sugar sweetened beverages which leads to a decrease in consumption and improved health outcomes of people. But this tax has led to a minimal reduction in energy consumption with the Rural Health Minister, Fiona Nash calling this tax “a lazy solution to a complex problem.”

Firstly, the tax gets partly absorbed by the business’ and partly by the consumer. Secondly, consumers instead of reducing energy consumption, have moved to inferior goods which are more affordable, along with substituting energy in other areas like food. People are inelastic with their energy consumption which means it’s hard to tax people into health, without causing many other problems. This was exemplified with the Danish fat tax which saw 90% of people not change their dietary habits. And also New Zealand where sugar consumption decreased 11% for males while obesity soared 63%.

This tax has the potential of threatening many sugar industry jobs and incur huge economic costs for minor health benefits. For every $1 of health savings from the sugar tax in the UK, taxpayers’ pay about $65. The indirect health outcomes are minuscule compared to the tax paid.

This tax, like any other consumption tax, is regressive, and affects the poorest people the most. This is especially bad since the poorest people are the least elastic group with their food consumption.

This is an irresponsible band aid solution from the UN which will cause more harm than good.

Cody Findlay is an intern at The Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance

Why are lawyers so expensive?

Vladimir Vinokurov is a solicitor and a deputy Victorian State director of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance. The views expressed here are his own.

Vladimir Vinokurov is a solicitor and a deputy Victorian State director of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance. The views expressed here are his own.

Everyone complains about the cost of lawyers, but few look at the cause: occupational licensing laws. Occupational licensing requires anyone who intends to become lawyer to comply with a range of requirements to practice law. These including studying a law degree that is too long, formally applying for “admission” into the profession in an unnecessary ceremony, as well as meeting cumbersome training and supervision requirements that are sometimes unnecessary. These requirements cost law students years of time and tens of thousands of dollars to comply with. The more expensive it is to become a lawyer, the fewer lawyers there will be and the more they can charge. There can be no doubt that this partly explains why lawyers are expensive.

The sheer expense of hiring a lawyer undermines the individual right to obtain legal representation. It means that hiring a competent, effective lawyer can be unaffordable for poorer members of the public. Even wealthier people may find their resources drained by legal fees. The expense of becoming a lawyer also undermines the right to pursue a career of one’s choice, especially poorer students who lack the financial support to study full-time for years and comply with red tape. Lastly, these laws reduce the quality of legal services. The fact that competent would-be lawyers are being excluded from the profession means that existing lawyers have less incentive to operate competently because they have less competition.

The problem starts with the law degree, which must include 11 “core compulsory subjects” but takes three years of full-time study to complete as a result. The degree costs about $10,000 per annum with government subsidies and more without them. Many solicitors may never encounter some of those subjects in practice. Few lawyers practice in constitutional or administrative law. Some solicitors exclusively practice in criminal law or commercial law. Only some do both. It is simply not necessary to study them all in order to practice law. Students should have the choice of studying criminal law and procedure, commercial law subjects or both. Splitting up the degree will reduce costs and create new pathways to legal practice.

But the red tape doesn’t stop there. Graduates must undertake “practical legal training” before they can practice law. They must pay several thousands of dollars to learn what they otherwise should be learning as junior lawyers. If they are not, they can take the course. The problem is that everyone is forced to take it whether or not they have learnt the basics of legal practice. Even experienced overseas barristers have been forced to undertake this training. Forcing this requirement on everyone is unnecessary and wasteful.

Formal admission ceremonies further increase costs. As of 2015, Victorian admission ceremonies alone cost $926. This is a substantial hit to the savings of many graduates. The ceremonies take place monthly, but applicants must apply months in advance to become admitted—further delaying their careers. In the meantime they are simply expected to make ends in meet.

The restrictions pile on after admission. As of 2011, would-be barristers must pass a bar exam and undertake a 2 month readers course, costing thousands of dollars in total, to practice. The exam is unnecessary: barristers typically spend hours to prepare for specific cases, and thinking up answers on the spot will not get you far in the courtroom. Moreover, the exam covers material that graduates may have just covered at university. It’s no wonder practising barristers, even junior barristers, weren’t required to sit the exam: it has nothing to do with upholding standards.

Similarly, solicitors are required to practice for two years under the supervision of another lawyer before they can do so independently—unless they are overseas, or happened to open a practice before that rule was imposed. The inconsistencies in these requirements expose both their arbitrariness and their actual purpose: keeping people out of the profession.

Running a law firm is also unnecessarily cumbersome. By law, all practitioners must obtain “practising certificates” and insurance coverage from a single government-appointed insurer. A competitive insurance field would reduce costs. On top of that, barristers must buy robes and wigs. Costumes can cost thousands. Renting chambers (if practitioners choose to do so) and paying for practising certificates and insurance every year, taken together, costs thousands more.

While there is a great deal of concern about the supposed oversupply of law graduates, the simple fact of the matter is that they are legally forbidden from working without complying with these requirements. The expense of doing so means they cannot compete with established practitioners, which brings prices up.

It is also hard to argue that these regulations protect the public, given that so many current practitioners were exempt from them when they entered into the profession.

By contrast, deregulation will help society at large—especially the poor. Legal fees are just one factor at the margin that can lead to financial insecurity. Reducing costs will help those who are financially at risk.

Nor are regulations the only way to protect the public. Lawyers’ societies could still accept, reject or expel members on the basis of reputation, skill, honesty or competence just as the regulators do now. Ratings systems and online review websites  can also serve an important role in keeping the profession honest. These measures are informative and cost effective. Lastly, in serious cases incompetent lawyers can still be sued by clients for breach of contract, just as they are today.

Those concerned about upholding the standards of the profession forget that some legal work is already competently performed by non-lawyers with knowledge of the law. Tax agents and accountants, police prosecutors, patent attorneys, and industrial advocates all provide legal representation in their chosen fields right now. Indeed there are prosperous, stable nations with reliable justice systems like Sweden and Finland in which anyone can practise law without a licence. There is no reason why Australia cannot adopt a similar system for lawyers or other trades and professions, for that matter.

The case for deregulation is clear: it empowers the poor, the public as a whole and law students. Occupational licensing laws must be repealed. The law must recognise that for many lawyers, the years of study and tens of thousands of dollars spent obtaining a licence to practice is unnecessary.

Legal Waivers for Take Home Food: Over Regulation has gone too far

Ross K-1Ross Katsambanis takes on the nanny state after receiving a waiver to take home food:

On the 27th of December 2014 my family and I descended upon Hellenic Republic in Brunswick to celebrate my grandparents’ 50th wedding anniversary. Given the season, plenty of food had been consumed by everyone in the last couple of days, so plenty of meat from the banquet was leftover.

I politely asked the waitress if I could have some of the meat and dips packaged up to take home, her response shocked me. The young lady stated that I could do so, however I had to sign a waiver declaring that I accept all responsibility if I suffer any illness from the food I asked to be packaged. When I quizzed the young lady on why I had to sign this document she indicated that it was because of City of Moreland regulation. I nearly choked on my succulent slow cooked lamb as I heard this information.

This is yet another case of the nanny state and continuous over regulation from government and regulatory bodies. It is in fact mind-boggling at times how these laws are passed through. I couldn’t even take some lamb home and reheat without signing a ludicrous waiver. A friend ate recently at the Kew equivalent of Hellenic Republic, governed locally by the City of Boroondara, where no such waivers had to be signed for ‘doggy-bags’. Ironically, this person did not bring upon himself food poisoning.

nanny (1)

Continue reading

The day the Premier resigned

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell has been found to have received a $3,000 bottle of 1959 Penfolds Grange as a gift, which he failed to declare, and failed to admit to ICAC, conveniently suffering from memory failure, and has accordingly resigned this morning.

Before all thoughts move to who will move on up into the top spot, our anti-lockout friends at I’m Not The Problem Barry – No Lockouts NSW have been taking advantage of this scintillating story to have a bit of a laugh. The full gallery is here, but some of my favourites are below!

alcoholrelatedcorruption

iguessivehadmylastcabernetmeeting

whinesforlockoutslockedoutbywine

chrisnewman

 

 

 

The Freedom to be Wrong

Recently the Attorney-General, George Brandis’ amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act have come under fire by the political elite, claiming they are in support of bigotry. In fact these laws simply take human rights out of the hands of the government and allow the free-exchange of ideas without external interference. Few people on either side of parliament are bigoted or want to make it easier for serious verbal damage to be done to our ethnic communities but the fact is that it is very difficult to legally define what constitutes ‘offensive.’

The 1995 amendments section 18 to The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by the Keating government made it illegal to ‘offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate’ others based on their race or ethnicity. At first glance these provisions may seem reasonable after all, for example, their is no doubt as to the humiliation that survivors of the holocaust must feel when extreme-right fringe-dwellers undermine their experiences by denying the atrocity ever happened. However it is by being able to withstand critique that the truth is all the more relevant. As John Stuart Mill said ‘If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.’ To have strength in our convictions we must be exposed to all contrary viewpoints. You cannot simply oppose something while being forbidden to know precisely what it is that you oppose.

Furthermore, with pre-existing statutory conditions on defamation and vilification there is adequate scope for the rights of individuals to be protected without imposing rigorous sanctions on the freedom of speech.

But this isn’t enough for ethnic advocates  with Jewish community leader Jeremy Jones fearing that the new legislation could open the door for holocaust deniers. Left-wing intellectuals argue that freedom of expression must be counter-balanced with the freedom to be free from verbal persecution.

I argue however, how can freedom of speech remain uncompromised if it is to be qualified by the  subjective standards of the government?

To bind free expression to the caveat of whether it conforms to the standards of the government of the day is to nullify it completely. If you believe in freedom of speech you believe in it on a sunny and a wet day, and uphold that no matter whether the speaker is Andrew Bolt or Sarah Hanson-Young, in the eyes of the law, their opinions are no more or less legitimate.

There are many that say that society is not comprised of an even playing field and that individuals like Cory Bernardi and Alan Jones are given a disproportionate  voice compared to the minorities they denounce  and that the government is required to step in as an independent arbiter. These people should be reminded that the government is in itself a class compromised of the upper echelons of society from the top-tier, sandstone universities and beset with a born to rule mentality fixated from birth. To have them as the qualifier of what is in good taste is to place severe boundaries on culture and expression.

Moreover, is there any practical outcomes to be achieved by the prohibition of free speech? History shows that when you try to put a cap on the bottle, the cap bursts off. With almost every government intervention there is a reasonable backlash which quite often strengthens the cause of the suppressed individuals. The fact remains that people aren’t cured from being a racist by governmental legislation, the process is cultural and starts from the bottom up.

To combat racism and bigotry the onus is on individuals, families, schools, work-places and media outlets to inform the people that that is not okay conduct. The suggestion that we need a centralised body to do so shows a fundamental distrust for humanity arguing that teachers, family members and colleagues are incapable of taking the initiative themselves to combat discrimination. The attitude that only government can save us from ourselves ultimately plays into the hands of the policy-making elites in allowing them to dictate the terms in which we interact and, in doing so, depriving us of our individual responsibility.

Edited by Matt Russell

MONKEY LAW

Supreme-court

EXCLUSIVE:

by William Puisne

England soccer manager, Roy Hodgson, had a PC poison dart shot at him for telling this joke;

After using only monkeys in space capsules, NASA decided to send a man into space with a monkey.
Following launch, the intercom crackled, “Monkey, fire the retros.”
A little later, “Monkey, check the solid fuel supply.”
Later still, “Monkey, check the life support systems.”
The astronaut is annoyed and testily radios NASA, “When do I get something to do?”
NASA replied, “Feed the monkey in half an hour.”

Raceophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, lesbophobic, fatophobic, transgenderophobic, youthophobic??
Come off the grass.

Nevertheless, a complaint was made. The remark was capable of offence. And he had to apologise – to the universe at large – saying he hadn’t intended any hurt.

Just one more success for the PC brigade.

Prosecuting people in the news in these mushrooming hurt feelings courts is great fun.

It wasn’t so bad when they blethered about being offended and there was no law about it. No court. No penalty. Just the ABC and Fairfax. But things are different now.

Al Gore, upped the ante recently when he said that anyone holding a view different to his on Climate Change was a racist. This meant that if one of Australia’s Offended Feelings Tribunals held that such a view was, in fact, “racist” then penalties would follow for disagreeing with Tim Flannery or Christine Milne.

Gore’s outburst is not unique.

In May just gone, the French Assembly legislated the word “race” and the word “racist” out of all French laws – to combat racism !! Blind Freddy predicted in his weekly address to the Futurologists Society that the French will later pass a bill outlawing the word “poverty” and everybody will then be rich. Same thing with “disease”.

Now, any remark or phrase does not have to be objectively offensive. It does not have to be offensive by any known standard. It only has to be offensive to someone who claims he/she was offended.

In Victoria, there is the case of Tess Corbett. Tess Corbett was Bob Katter’s candidate for Wannon. She runs a kindergarten and told a local reporter, “I don’t want gays, lesbians or paedophiles working in my kindergarten”.

When asked if she considered homosexuals to be in the same category as paedophiles, Ms Corbett replied “Yes”. “Paedophiles will be next in line to be recognised in the same way as gays and lesbians and get rights.”

Objectively, the additional remark was capable of being interpreted as a prediction that paedophiles will eventually be recognised by the law and society as homosexuals have been. And she doesn’t want any of them to work in her kindergarten.

But the fact that it can easily mean that was not enough for homosexual activist Gary Burns who took her to the institutions that deal with this sort of thing.

In 2009, the same Burns took action against Jeff Kennett, for making comments in 2008 which, like Corbett’s remarks, appeared to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. A conciliation hearing was held in NSW, with Kennett listening to Burns’ demand that he apologise publicly to the gay community and donate a sum of money to a homosexual organisation. Kennet told him to rack off and Burns dropped the charges.
He was luckier this time. His target was not the resourceful Jeff Kennett.

The decision of the Tribunal on Corbett was, “[A]ny pronouncement that ‘brackets’ . . . homosexual people with paedophiles is capable of . . . urging [people] to treat homosexuals as deserving to be hated or to be regarded with serious contempt.”

So it isn’t what she said, it isn’t what she intended, it is what her expression was capable of.

On that same principle, if one walks down a street with a gun in his pocket, he is capable of bank robbery. If he has a long bladed knife at home, he is capable of murder. If he is a man he is capable of rape. A citizen, simply because he has a tongue, is capable of saying that the tribunal’s deputy president Michael Chesterton has announced a decision that is as mad as a two bob watch, and that Gary Burns action in prosecuting Tess Corbett is that of a publicity seeker.

In short, it doesn’t matter in the end what one says, it is what the Thought Police and the Naughty Thoughts Court says words are capable of meaning, even if taken out of context.

There is a NSW Supreme Court Appeal Court decision involving a man in just such a position. He was tagged with a shottie and a balaclava in his car. Must have been intending to stick someone up… or something… said the police.

“Come off the grass,” said the Court.

Is this why all these ridiculous “Tribunals” exist? To avoid having to prove guilty intent?
And substitute some kind of Monkey Law?

Really Not Part Of The Plan

EXCLUSIVE:

Sustainable Development?

by Allan Essery. Part 2

Resulting from an enormous volume of evidence gathered by a small army of those suspicious of the intent of the Club of Rome and the United Nations it becomes very clear that there was and currently is a plan to undertake the greatest act of socialist treason ever visited upon mankind.

AGW hysteria was created as means of the UN achieving its intended goal and it was said, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.''  They went on to say, ''It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or one invented for the purpose.”


In introducing the latest buzz word ''Future Earth'' the UN and its agencies have a global plan to:

• Research and develop methods to control food, water, energy.  

• Utilise technology, sciences and economics fraudulently to create an illusion.

Pressure governments and law makers to support their efforts.

• Manifest agendas with academics and corporations  to appropriate  funds and control production.

Control under-developed nations by forcing ''sustainable'' technologies.

The success or failure of UN intentions to impose upon mankind total control of every aspect of human life is reliant upon the specific so-called ''sustainability'' orientated education of children from very young ages and the reeducation of adults – the dumbing down of mankind.  In this endeavour the UN Agenda 21, and Common Core, exponents are prepared to use all methods available to them to get their message over and bring about the early education of children and the reprogramming of mankind.

One father in the US was alarmed to learn what his 5 year old daughter was being taught by her public school.  ''Daddy . . ., today we learned that driving cars is making the ice caps to melt and all the polar bears die.'

It is worth noting that our former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is taking up a post with a US group-think institute to work on methods of  ''Global Education''.  There should be concern that people like Gillard are prepared to move Australia in the direction of ''one-size-fits-all'' approach to child education.

That madness extends far beyond the classrooms of your local school and even politicians, especially those of the socialist persuasion, are willingly jumping on the UN Agenda 21 band wagon, but they are not telling you.

The UN programme says, ''Countries and the United Nations system should promote a cooperative relationship with the media, popular theatre groups, and entertainment and advertising industries by initiating discussions to mobilize their experience in shaping public behaviour and consumption patterns . . .''

In the US a congresswoman, Barbara Lee, and friends are pushing a resolution that calls on Congress to, '' . . . recognize that climate change will hurt the plight of women more than men; driving women into “transactional sex” for survival — among other horrible fates.''  

It won't take long for Emily's List and such feminist groups to pick up on this foolishness and it is alarming to think that should you debunk climate change, Agenda 21 or Common Core you stand a good chance of being accused of being part of a movement that forces women into prostitution!

Throughout the past 21 years the various governments Federal and State have failed to be up front with the Australian people.  Agenda 21 has purposely not been mentioned and the Australian people certainly have not had a chance to learn of its full intentions nor have they had a chance to vote for or against.

On the other hand gullible politicians have been bewitched by the promises of globalisation.  Alexander Downer once tried to send the Australian people on a guilt trip by suggesting that politics is no longer about left and right but about globalisation (World Government).  He inferred that if you are an opponent of globalisation then you're a globaphobe and hate your country. ''The triumph of globaphobia would be a death note for Australia.'' Downer claimed.

Globaphobia means that Australia and its people come first, but according to Downer and those that think like him, Australia and Australians should come last and the globe first.  It appears that Downer and like minds believe that there is no longer any place for democracy and we should all become drones of the United Nation's ''World Government'' and its agents.  I believe that is bordering on treason.

Sustainable development not part of their plan

EXCLUSIVE:

by Allan Essery

Part 1 – Agenda 21 again

Awareness of the environment and concern for its delicate balance are indeed sensible endeavours. Concern, however, arose during a 1992 United Nation's conference to discuss future environmentally friendly development. From that conference an action agenda was revealed for an innocuously sounding aim of ''Sustainable Development''. That agenda was known as Agenda 21 and not as innocuous as it sounded.

Agenda 21 was promoted as a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan, and so the lie began. It was also called the brainchild of a group of powerful elitists known as the Club of Rome. Their aim was world domination brought about using the United Nations and its agencies to create a World Government together with a World Bank and a Security Force to ensure implementation of its aims.

Far from being a non-binding and voluntary action plan the following was the reality for those that signed on, ''This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the collective vision of "sustainable development." They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainability": Environment, Economy and Equity’’, referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulation, economic control, and redistribution of wealth.

Sold to the world’s nations as a plan for creating sustainable societies 176 governments around the world, including Australia, saw it as a means of social justice and a healthy planet. Initially, few if any were awake to their lies and doomsday scenarios, the pseudo-science and the unimaginable costs that came with this elaborate and fraudulent con.

Had any of the worlds leaders caught up in the lie bothered to undertake just a little research, or even given it some considered thought, they would have realised as did others that, Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental "scientists" who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful "information" will lead to economic and social disaster.''

Back in1992 when Agenda 21 was born there was not yet the hysterical knee-jerk reactions of the alarmist's ''carbon pollution'' and ''man-made climate change'' and so these lies were cleverly created by the UN and its agencies to justify their ''sustainable development'' agenda. 

The UN very effectively, but falsely, enhanced the illusion when the Secretary General of their Earth division said, ''Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middleclass – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.''

In line with this propaganda, new buzzwords came into being. Words such as sustainable development, environmentally sustainable, future earth, smart growth, and biodiversity.  Phenomena such as climate change were promoted as man-made disasters while naturally occurring climate change was conveniently ignored.

To achieve the aims of Agenda 21 it would be necessary to undertake the mammoth task of reprogramming the human race. Human rights as we know them would have to be removed for the good of the collective.

The UN plans to rid the world of poverty as a means of controlling the world's population; but how are they going to achieve that?  Well, they have already surreptitiously commenced a redistribution of wealth from affluent nations to the poorer nations. Think about Carbon Tax and where all the proceeds go. Think about the transfer of manufacturing from affluent manufacturing nations to poorer nations. Think about where Australia's manufacturing and farming assets have gone. Think about the lowering of trade barriers and tariffs to bring that about. And, think about the redistribution of the population of poorer countries to the more affluent nations.

To achieve its intended agenda the UN will attempt to coerce the world's governments into surrendering the sovereignty of their nations. They hope to achieve a quiet transition through which our individual freedoms would be stripped away. Your children would become the sole property of the ''State'' and you would have no say in their upbringing, their education, or their future.  You would not be allowed to own any property and nor would you be allowed to choose where you live.

The United Nations is fearful that more and more of the world's population will realise what is happening and fight against it. They would be ecstatic that some would be sucked into their deception and support Agenda 21 by labelling those against the agenda as ''Conspiracy Alarmists'' and the UN will seek to discredit them and any elected official who undertakes to work against them.

The Thing About Kevin & The Shitsville Express

The last few months have been a hellish roller coaster ride, writes Assistant Managing Editor Timothy W. Humphries

Funnily enough, I remember during the 1980s a particularly colourful roller coaster ride at Dreamworld. Its gone now. However It used to slide in and out of view as our family barreled down the Pacific Highway to visit relatives on the Gold Coast.

I would argue we have entered a Dreamworld type era of twists and turns in Australian politics. Both sides of politics are setting themselves up as the answer in a political climate best described as 'disillusioned'. 

While I cannot vote Labor, I struggle to find justification to vote Liberal. Even against my own loyalty and trust, Tony Abbott agrees with Climate Alarmism and wants a direct action plan that will plunder the taxpayer "a bit less" then the other mob. This "a bit less then the other mob" paradigm has dominated every policy response.

Meanwhile Kevin Rudd in his newly incarnated form wants to punch forward with a dubious NBN, Health Reforms and a band-aid Asylum Seeker policy that doesn't account for long term requirements.  

In a politically unstable environment, there is no clarion call to achievable freedom and small government. It remains incredible to me that a man derided and replaced by a marxist radical can be reinstalled and yet still find favour with the Australian electorate.

If the narrative is correct and Kevin Rudd's leaking against Julia Gillard is the primary reason for his return to the leadership, there is something seriously wrong with how political narrative is communicated in this country.

The obsession seems to extend to the occasional nattering of the media class about whether or not Malcolm Turnbull would be an appropriate replacement for the Leader of the Opposition, in the obvious unfortunate circumstance that he loses the next election.This media dynamic is crazy!

Malcolm Turnbull, if the media's dreams are realised essentially sits in the same position that Kevin Rudd sits regarding climate change and many other issues. The sort of differentiation that is equal to naught.

One only has to mention the words "market mechanism" and somehow sliding from a disagreeable Carbon Tax to a disagreeable Emissions Trading Scam Scheme is bipartisan.

So here we are again. Lurching from one perceptual crisis to another, all the while assaulted by the visage of litugical charlatanism.

In such a parlous state the mind wanders to the future and who might be around the corner on Australia's political landscape.  

Whilst there are a mixture of views on Joe Hilderbrand and his brand of "journalism", his recent ABC program the "Shitsville Express" is a remarkably informative take on the supposed leaders of tommorow.

I do have allot of respect for what Mr Hilderbrand is trying to achieve with this program. Clearly the premise points to the future of the country through Gen Y and Millenial eyes. I liked this element.

However what our "future leaders" fail to realise is the nuance and guile required to achieve real reform. The sort of March of the Patriots reform that has been lacking in the polity since the end of the Hawke-Keating, Howard-Costello era. 

We have entered a Dreamworld scenario, where revolving door leadership and zany 24 hour news cycle explosions have replaced the considered creation and management of political narrative, that is comprehensible to those of us outside the beltway.

I remember being asked to jump on the old Dreamworld roller coaster by someone who had pumped themselves up on hot dogs, lemonade and fairy floss. After successfully declining, I watched their demeanour change after the ride ended.

Unfortunately Australian Politics and the Shitsville Express appear to be mirroring each other in that they reflect a process whereby politics itself is turning into a metaphorical disembarkation and search for a brown paper bag.

Timothy W Humphries is Assistant Managing Editor of Menzies House