The Liberal Party of Australia at the Crossroads
[Liberal Party website] ‘We Believe’ Synopsis:
‘In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise; and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you.’
The Liberal Party is a centre-right party, which, since its 1944 founding, has held government for over 60% of that period; however, following its May 3, 2025 election defeat (its worst ever), many of its most prominent voices are urging a root-and-branch re-evaluation.
Definitions [Oxford Dictionary]
Liberal:
- willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.
- relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Conservative:
- (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
Observations: Past
Robert Menzies (Liberal Party founder & Australia’s longest serving Prime Minister), 1942:
- The individual is the “prime motive force for building a better world”
- Capitalism is “an extraordinary success” engendering “enormous developments in the recognition of human rights, in living standards, in material comfort, in public health”. But it’s … also the system under which “we have had slums, unemployment, poverty, war”. [Thus] “the most stringent obligations” must be imposed on it “to discharge its social and industrial duty”.
John Howard (former Liberal Party leader & Australia’s second-longest serving Prime Minister) 2005: “The Liberal Party is a broad church … the custodian of the classical liberal tradition [and also] the conservative tradition.”
Heather Henderson (daughter of Sir Robert and Dame Pattie Menzies): “I get very tetchy when people refer to it as the conservative party, because that is one thing that he said it was not. He wanted to create a party that was liberal and forward-looking.”
The Loughnane-Hume official Liberal Party review on its 2022 defeat: “The Coalition [Liberal & National Parties] had lost control of its brand, with the parties and their leaders being defined in the public’s mind by our opponents.”
Observations: Present
Raison D’être
Tony Abbott (former Liberal Prime Minister & CDO-Confidant): ‘the Liberals’ recent defeat rivals the rout of the old United Australia Party in 1943 that led to its demise and to the Liberals’ formation. It must mean a serious analysis of what has gone wrong … and what should change … [We need] an in-depth analysis of our national malaise and a policy response capable of turning it around … perhaps a “contract with Australia”’.
Simon Birmingham (former Liberal Finance Minister & CDO-Confidant): “It must start with the raison d’être. Why do we have a Liberal Party and how is it relevant in 2025 and beyond? The broad church model … that successfully melds liberal and conservative thinking is clearly broken.”
Dan Tehan (Liberal MP, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & CDO-Confidant): we must look “deeply into the heart of the party itself.”
Dave Sharma (Liberal Senator & CDO-Confidant): we need to “look, almost, at first principles at what we stand for and how do we translate those into a message and a set of policies for Australia.”
A Damaged Brand
David Hughes (Executive Director, The Menzies Research Centre & CDO-Confidant): ‘The election result is a sobering reflection of a party that has lost much of its authenticity.
Chris Uhlmann (journalist): [paraphrased] While the economy and national security used to be Liberal Party strengths, over COVID they “basically trashed” their economic management credentials and over successive governing terms they’ve lost credibility on defence.
Simon Benson (journalist & CDO-Confidant): ‘What and who does the party now represent? And what solutions can it offer … for the expectations and demands of a changed and changing Australia? … How does it reconstruct an aspirational agenda within the constraints of a damaged budget position that has made the basic features of such an agenda almost impossible to deliver?
Troy Bramston (journalist & CDO-Confidant): ‘The party lacks an animating and unifying brand and mission to rally behind, and is often defined by what it is against rather than what it is for. …. Many of the lost voters would have identified as Menzies’ “forgotten people”, “Howard battlers” or Morrison’s “quiet Australians”’.
Linda Reynolds (former Liberal Senator/Minister & CDO-Confidant): ‘Australian voters have been repeatedly telling the party that it is rapidly becoming electorally irrelevant – a message the party remains stubbornly resistant to hear and refuses to act upon.’
Lost Touch
Michelle Grattan (journalist & CDO-Confidant): ‘The party has become an identity vacuum. … at present looking almost impossible – is how the Liberals manage to appeal to two vital constituencies, women and younger voters. … as things stand, [it] appears incapable of “meeting the people where they are.”’
Paul Kelly (journalist & CDO-Confidant): ‘The Liberal Party suffers from cultural denigration now entrenched across much of the nation’s educated, artistic, professional and media ranks … [which] testify to a deeper problem: a toxic view of the Liberal brand that seems to transcend whatever it does. … There is a psychological reluctance in the community about the Liberals. It will require a big effort to resurrect the party’s values. But will the Liberals even agree on those values?’
Troy Bramston: ‘The Liberal Party no longer represents mainstream values. There can be no other interpretation given the scale of the rejection from women, students, families, migrants, professionals and public servants … Voters want public services that provide security and opportunity.’
Kos Samaras (Redbridge Strategy Director & CDO-Confidant): “Unless [the Liberal Party] redefines who it is, who it speaks for, and what kind of Australia it wants to shape, it will remain locked out of the suburbs, cities and communities where the country’s future is being written.”
Nick Cater (Menzies Research Centre former Executive Director, journalist & CDO-Confidant): ‘The bottom line is that Robert Menzies’s party has lost touch with the concerns of aspirational, middle-class voters.
Chanum Torres (Federal Vice President, Young Liberals): ‘Young Australians are insecure because owning a home and having a stake in the future feels unattainable. … There is a feeling of disempowerment and unmet aspiration. … Young people will not seek to conserve a system that is not working for them. … This is an opportunity to live up to Menzies’ vision of a party that empowers individuals to build, prosper, choose and freely pursue their goals.’
Observations: The Way Forward
“We have to have a Liberal Party that respects modern Australia, that reflects modern Australia, and represents modern Australia. And we have to meet the people where they are.”
Sussan Ley (Liberal Party leader & CDO-Confidant)
Aspiration
John Howard: “Aspiration is fundamental to the Liberal Party’s values, it is fundamental to its beliefs. It is a natural extension, it is a natural product of our belief in a society where individuals can achieve what they want in life.”
Tony Abbott: “The Liberal Party has always been the party of aspiration: the party that wants to help and encourage those eager to get ahead and make the most of themselves”.
Henry Ergas (journalist & CDO-Confidant): The Liberal Party needs to build on its ‘emphasis on freedom and aspiration’ and ‘fiscal prudence and moderate taxation’ … ‘re-articulating them in line with contemporary realities’
Specific Values
Sussan Ley: “Our policies are up for review. Our values are not.”
Ted O’Brien (Deputy Liberal Leader & CDO-Confidant): “The Liberal Party believes in freedom, in equality, in a fair go. We believe with rights come commensurate responsibilities, with effort comes reward. We believe in the individual. The family, community, enterprise and entrepreneurship.”
Angus Taylor (Liberal MP & former Shadow Treasurer): “We must restore the party around the values that make us strong: sound economic management and personal responsibility; national security; aspiration and reward for effort; and a vibrant private sector that creates jobs and opportunity.”
Scott Morrison (former Liberal Prime Minister & CDO-Confidant): the party must represent “those who don’t expect the government to run their lives, and do take responsibility and accountability for their own lives, and do feel a sense of responsibility to those around them”.
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (Liberal Senator & CDO-Confidant): “I want to bring back our core values of liberty, individual freedom and responsibility, the rule of law, free market and economic prosperity, minimal government intervention, a fair go and most of all, love for our nation, Australia.”
Tony Abbott: [The Liberal Party is] ‘simultaneously liberal, conservative and patriotic: the freedom party, the tradition party and, above all, the patriotic party. As liberals, we supported smaller government, lower taxes and greater freedom; as conservatives, we supported the family, small business and institutions that had stood the test of time; and as patriots, we believed that Australia was the best country in the world to live and were determined to keep it that way.’
Winning Again
“Australia expects a change in direction and a fresh approach from the Liberal Party…. We need to understand [Australian’s] aspirations. We need to build a new economic narrative. We need new policy offerings that show Australians we can help them and their families get ahead. … Many Australians, including women and younger Australians, feel neglected by the Liberal Party.” Sussan Ley
Paul Kelly: ‘The party failed to act after the devastating 2022 campaign review …. and there are real fears the Liberals will fall short again… they should begin with a clean slate – everything must be on the table. … The Liberal Party needs an imaginative reconception. … The party faces a crisis of identity, organisation, philosophy and policy. … This doesn’t mean Howard revisited; it means reinterpreting the “broad church” for the 2020s. … Integral to this task is repairing their ties to four pivotal centres of Australian life – the managerial and professional class, women, younger voters under 40 and ethnic communities.’
David Hughes: ‘Authenticity is scarce in politics today, and indeed in broader society. Yet authenticity is precisely what Australians seek and deserve from their leaders … from economic and tax reform to industrial relations and education reform [that] champions the values of individual dignity, enterprise, aspiration and freedom.’
Tim Wilson (Liberal Party MP): “We need to be bolder and far more courageous … to sell an alternative vision for this country.”
Arthur Sinodinos (former Liberal Senator): ‘Liberals preserve the best of the past while adapting to the future.’
David Hughes: Successful Liberal leaders such as John Howard understood the necessity of reinterpreting Menzies’ principles for their times. Howard did not merely invoke Menzies; he renewed and adapted his vision in response to changing social, economic, and cultural landscapes. The sometimes ‘forgotten’, sometimes ‘quiet’, now ‘misunderstood’ Australians … want to be left free to flourish — not trapped in dependency, nor punished for success. They want a government that creates opportunity, not one that controls every outcome.’
Sussan Ley: ‘We will always support families, not just with payments, but with policies that respect their choices – in childcare, housing, education, and retirement.’
Stephanie Coombes (journalist): ‘If the Liberal Party wants to win [under 45’s] back it needs to address [housing insecurity and wage stagnation] and offer some hope. Some novel ideas. A bloody way forward. Or at the very least, it should learn to read the room.’
Virginia Tapscott (journalist & CDO-Confidant): ‘I don’t want more childcare – I don’t want to see my kids any less than I do. … the push to get more kids into a broken childcare system is sickening. … it’s about “giving kids the best starts in life”. … New party line suggestion – “supporting parents to support their kids”. Giving women true choice. Supporting the carers who are the backbone of our economy. … ‘childcare is not delivering women genuine choice. … we need policies built on this sentiment.’’
Claire Lehmann (journalist & CDO-Confidant): ‘Currently, the progressive left has a near-monopoly on women’s issues, framing them through a lens of group identity and systemic oppression. A classical liberal perspective on women’s issues – one that emphasises individual agency, choice and equal opportunity – is largely absent from the political landscape.’
Gemma Tognini (journalist & CDO-Confidant): ‘The Liberal Party makes much of its broad-church view on life, and that would be fine if it reflected the current truth. … We want to know how you’re going to cut spending, reduce taxes, stimulate productivity and basically remove the government from areas of our day-to-day lives in which it has no business intruding.’
Garth Hamilton (Liberal MP & CDO-Confidant): “I didn’t enter politics to carry the crosses of previous iterations of the Liberal Party but rather to apply its values to the problems of today.”
Nick Fabbri (journalist): ‘Australians value effective, well-run public services. The party should be pro-good government, not anti-government.’
Zachary Gorman (Robert Menzies Institute Historian & CDO-Confidant): ‘The case for smaller government and individual freedom needs to be made wholistically and philosophically. When Liberals allow themselves to be cornered into arguing on an issue-by-issue basis, they lose, and they often compromise their principles in the process.’
…
‘If the dream alone is simply to govern, to hold power, it is a bankrupt dream indeed. And if a people perish for a lack of vision, the same can be said of governments, of political movements, a hundred times over.’
Gemma Tognini
August 1, 2025
Hello
The specific policies detailed here are:
- Freest – i.e. they maximise ‘societally-contributive self-actualisation’ (including via inspiring aspiration & empowering choice)
- Broadest – i.e. universal/non-targeted
- Minimalist – i.e. maximally-efficient.
Hence, they potentially appeal to all citizens from the homeless to billionaires such that they transcend the Left/Right/Centre (LRC) paradigm – i.e. they’re potentially bipartisan.
However, while a suboptimal system is our main problem, there’s also a human problem – i.e. a leadership problem.
That is, we have 3 types of leaders who protect and prop-up our current suboptimal system – i.e.:
- The naïve (especially the wilfully so who are uninterested in learning much) particularly about economics
- ‘Rent-seekers’ – i.e. those who perceive an opportunity to gain personal benefit (wealth/status) from our current freedom-sapping, targeted and inefficient system then act in bad-faith
- The timid who waste the policy-impacting-space they occupy.
Unfortunately, the naïve, ‘rent-seekers’ and timid are particularly well-represented in the social-services not-for-profit ‘industry’, which is diabolical since they’re supposed to be ‘Champions for the Disempowered’. Have you ever heard a social-services executive suggest a holistic solution – i.e. don’t their ‘solutions’ invariably involve more government-funding?
Returning to this letter’s freest, broadest and minimalist policies, due to their transcendence of the LRC-paradigm, they may be framed in support of every political party and politician’s priorities (assuming they’re of good-faith) – for instance, they further compassion, equality, sovereignty, civility, integrity and the natural-environment.
So, why is this letter specifically a pitch to The Liberal Party of Australia?
Currently, in Australia, Liberal Party representatives and statespeople, uniquely, are calling for: ‘an in-depth analysis’ and ‘serious reflection’ to look “deeply into the heart of the party” “at first principles” and to reevaluate the party’s “raison d’être” – i.e. some of them are saying they want to re-invent the Party provided it keeps with their values and can be electorally successful such as to ‘meet the people where they are’.
In this endeavour, one theoretical positive for The Liberal Party is its ideological commitment to free-speech – i.e. this should favour creating a next-level version of itself assuming a critical mass of Liberals boldly use both it and ‘the battle of ideas’ to drill to the source of their malaise.
However, this potential positive is balanced with contradictions, which must be faced before renewal can begin.
Liberal Party Contradictions
First, part of the Liberal folklore is the invoking of Menzies’ “forgotten people”, “the Howard battlers” and Morrison’s “quiet Australians”; however, such categories are effectively ‘identity groups’ and the Liberals are against ‘identity politics’.
The solution is universalism – i.e. minimalist all-citizen systems or, ‘optimal social-infrastructure’.
Second, Liberals have a number of negative ‘mantras’ of which chief is the ‘something for nothing’ narrative; yet, all inheritance is ‘something for nothing’ – i.e. putting it another way, ‘something for nothing’ is predominantly a pejorative for inheritance.
Thus, with Liberals typically inheritance-enthusiasts, the phrase ‘Liberals believe citizens shouldn’t get something for nothing’ is an oxymoron – i.e. what they really want is efficiency.
Also, humility is appropriate because ‘no person is an island’ nor ‘self-made’ and, on the contrary, we all inherit almost everything – i.e. both our:
1. Genetics (including our life, IQ, core talents and most of our personality)
Filipino joke: ‘Where are you from?’
‘My mother and my father.’
2. Environment (including nature’s bounty, our upbringing and our societal history, culture, science, technology, institutions and other systems).
If we hadn’t inherited a post-Industrial Revolution society then most of us (including the ‘self-made’) would be either hunters & gatherers or subsistence-farmers. [For example, Elon Musk would have a spear or a spade rather than a chainsaw.]
Thus, the person who thinks they’re entirely self-made is, not only oblivious to their privilege, but also divisive – i.e. snobbery is a generic term for everything from racism to sexism to ageism to …
And, isn’t being a ‘privileged snob’ the sort of complaint often directed at Liberals – i.e. isn’t it part of what Paul Kelly calls the ‘toxic view of the Liberal brand that seems to transcend whatever it does’?
To Liberals: if you can eradicate snobbery from your Party’s culture, you will likely have success because it’s a prerequisite ‘to meet the people where they are”.
Another popular Liberal superiority mantra is, ‘you’ve got to have a go to get a go’.
‘Getting a go’ should be a national inheritance (without judgement, condition or impediment). Besides, some of those saying this have inherited millions/billions and/or the in-kind-equivalent such that they’ve never had to have a go.
Moreover, some Disempowered can’t have much of a go – i.e. some have been born with a low IQ, traumatised in their ‘homes’, bred to believe they have no self-worth, forced into ‘escapism’ to cope and prevented from entering the ‘labour-market’ because, in the market, their labour isn’t worth the Universal Minimum Hourly Wage (UMHoW) (currently $24.95 per hour) etc.
[To the nation’s top 2 ‘Champions for the Disempowered’ – Sally McManus Secretary Australian Council of Trade Unions & ‘her EA’ Cassandra Goldie CEO Australian Council of Social Service – UMHoW is diabolical because it’s a choice of system that is unemployment’s creator. Yet, UMHoW is your preferred system, which means every unemployed person is your legacy. So, as 2 of the most powerful bosses in the nation, you’re wilfully crippling the lives of hundreds-of-thousands of Australians yet, somehow, enjoying a most glorious free-ride, which means, not only ought you be ashamed, so should we all. If you think that’s harsh/erroneous, we welcome hearing your point of view.]
To Liberals: empowering aspiration is tremendous and pointing-out citizen-responsibilities is also fine; however, it shouldn’t overreach into anti-freedom threats, let alone survival-impacting-punishment, because that’s authoritarian (and uncivilised).
This leads to the ‘be a lifter not a leaner’ mantra.
Given we have exponentiating societal problems – i.e. from the socio- to the econo- to our sovereignty to our natural-environment to our government-budget – the problem is system-related so blaming Disempowered individuals is, in addition to being divisive, a distraction. Moreover, it’s those who think they’re lifters who are most propping-up our current suboptimal system, which means most self-designated ‘lifters’ are, on the contrary, detractors.
Third, regarding the Coalition-structure – i.e. having one political-party for the city and one for the bush – if Liberal Party policies were freest, broadest and minimalist, would it be necessary?
That a coalition ‘appears’ to be needed, implies an error at your core, which is good because, if the policy mix that makes a coalition superfluous is found, it will likely be your way forward.
An alternative means of finding the way forward is ask the question:
‘What is both Australia’s & The Liberal Party’s greatest problem?’
Answer: income-Welfare (including the income-Welfare culture).
Income-Welfare: Australia’s Greatest Problem
‘Income-Welfare is freedom-sapping, targeted and/or inefficient (often, all 3).’
At best, income-Welfare is Band-Aiding – i.e. it’s not social-infrastructure like Universal Education, which, despite the outlay, adds to our prosperity because, via catalysing ‘societally-contributive self-actualisation’, it’s an investment with a positive rate-of-return.
Income-Welfare is Australia’s greatest problem because, not freest, broadest nor efficient, it’s:
- Anti-freedom – i.e.:
- Jump through these hoops or else you and your family will be homeless & starving
- It doesn’t eradicate income-Disempowerment as, for a start, we have a ‘Cost of Living Crisis’
- Targeting makes it both gap-ridden & divisive – for example, it creates ‘the dole-bludger’ narrative
- Inefficient – i.e. it’s why we have high tax-regimes yet still government-budget-deficits.
Income-Welfare includes, not just income-‘benefits’ for the unemployed, the disabled, students, pensioners and some others, but also subsidies for:
- Superannuation (in 2022-23, it cost $54.56 billion in foregone tax revenue)
- Childcare (despite a child-mental-illness epidemic, this often railroads parents into disproportionately prioritising paid-work over raising their infants/toddlers)
- Housing/Shelters
- Charities (food & shelter)
- Electricity
- Disasters such as flood, drought & fire (though, inevitably, payments are delayed)
- Etc.
[Regarding childcare, in the economics’ sphere, there’s some talk of ‘vouchers’ (Paul Kelly recently discussed it) yet ‘the ultimate voucher is money’ – i.e. one way of defining money is as ‘the ultimate voucher’.]
All 3 levels of government – federal, state & councils – ‘contribute’ to income-‘benefits’.
Thus, the headline cost is in the hundreds of billions – i.e. 10%+ of GDP.
Yet, even this is eclipsed by income-Welfare’s distortional cost, which squanders our potential-productivity – i.e. while our potential-productivity is doubling every 5 to 10 years (including, since 2023, via AI’s emergence), our actual-productivity is stagnant.
So, 265 years since the c. 1760 potential-subsistence-transcending event known as The Industrial Revolution (when, en masse, subsistence-farmers became machinists), our potential-productivity has increased at least 10,000-fold – i.e. if it’s only doubling every 20 years (i.e. 213.25) that’s roughly 10,000 – yet, ‘the pie’ is so shrunken, we have a ‘Cost-of-Living Crisis’, which, notwithstanding higher base standards, may be termed a ‘Cost-of-Subsisting Crisis’?
How intriguing – i.e. in 2025, in a ‘First World’ country, its citizens can barely afford to subsist?
Yes, the rich are hoovering-up some of it but, as mentioned, our productivity is stagnant.
[To our celebrity economists: you took decades to point out that GDP growth doesn’t mean much if population is increasing and what matters is GDP per capita (i.e. per person), to further improve on your productivity, you should mention the exponentiating productivity differential between the potential and the actual.]
The wealth/income we are squandering is multiples of our current prosperity and is why some call our economy a ‘Squandonomy’.
Yet, all this still doesn’t capture income-Welfare’s most insidious aspect – i.e. the evolved income-Welfare culture.
Australia’s Income-Welfare Culture: The Liberal Party’s Greatest Problem
Income-Welfare/income-Band-Aiding has become self-perpetuating – i.e. the more we have, the more we want because its targeting (plus its inhibiting and inefficiency) nurtures jealousy.
That is, sensing there’s no hope of getting the best for Australia, it devolves to: I’m getting that benefit and that benefit; however, Joe and Mary are getting that benefit, that benefit plus that benefit so that’s not fair, which means I need another benefit or 2.
Accordingly, rather than the attitude, ‘It’s good we have an efficient empowering transparent system, which means I and all other citizens can enjoy and contribute to all its opportunities’, thought (and behaviour) is near-monopolised by a cynical anti-social ‘what can I get?’
This spills over into (i.e. pollutes) our ‘news’, which, consequently, is often about grievance.
Thus, with increasing income-Welfare, as well as astronomical/increasing wastage, there’s also increasing anti-freedom, dis-aspiration, Disempowerment, jealousy & social-decay.
Accordingly, with dissatisfaction and frustration ubiquitous, the “forgotten people” are no longer an ‘identity group’ but the ‘broadest church’ of citizens.
Hopefully, this analysis explains why income-Welfare is Australia’s greatest problem; however, why is it the Liberal Party’s greatest problem – i.e. why isn’t it the same level of problem for Labor, the Greens, the Teals etc.?
The income-Welfare culture is the Liberal Party’s greatest problem because when it does it – such as Howard’s middle-class family-payments and the Covid era pinnacle of Jobkeeper, HomeBuilder etc. – it’s behaving inauthentically as its prioritised values are tied-up in freedom, aspiration and efficient government.
Consequently, as Chris Uhlmann pointed out, The Liberal Party has “basically trashed” its brand.
Yet, for both Australia & The Liberal Party, it’s retrievable – i.e. transcend income-Welfare’s Band-Aiding.
The Universal Subsistence Income (USI): Income-Welfare’s Band-Aiding Transcender
‘Because we’re no longer subsistence-farmers, one way or another, every citizen must receive a subsistence-income and The USI is the freest, universalist & most efficient method.’
To transcend income-Welfare’s targeting, the optimal solution – i.e. non-distortionary with a maximised rate-of-return – is to transfer a subsistence-income to all citizens who are in-country and non-incarcerated.
That is, rather than targeting, universalise it into a social-infrastructure (like Universal Education) – i.e. create ‘The Universal Subsistence Income’ (USI) – and simultaneously eradicate:
- All income-Welfare
- All income-Welfare’s offspring particularly ‘The Kiwi Curse’.
[‘The Kiwi Curse’ is Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) – i.e. in 1894, New Zealand became the first ‘laboratory’ to conjure unemployment-creating-UMHoW from which, escaping, it became a pandemic.]
In sum, this policy may be termed, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.
[Anecdote: The author, while chatting to a long-serving Liberal federal parliamentarian regarding The USI, which is pitched just above ‘the dole’, was informed, “But Paul, no one can live on that amount.” The parliamentarian, though not a snob is, nevertheless, privileged and out of touch to the extent of being clueless as to how much dole-recipients receive.]
Regarding The USI, just as total GDP matters less than GDP per capita, the headline amount is misleading for 2 reasons:
- Citizen-taxpayers, while financing The USI-transfer out of one pocket, receive The USI via another pocket such that the net-flow is less than the current income-Welfare-flow
- What matters is, ‘The GDP-to-USI Ratio’.
Due to our Squandonomy’s inefficiency, ‘The GDP-to-USI Ratio’ is currently only 5 (i.e. the economy is around $2.5 trillion and The USI would be about $500 billion); however, clearing the decks of income-Welfare and UMHoW will increase the Ratio to around 50 – i.e. efficiency generates ‘something for nothing’ or, the legendary (economists claim “it’s impossible because someone has to pay for it”), ‘free lunch’.
That is, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ leads to citizen-taxpayers, not only receiving The USI, but also paying far less proportional-tax.
Paul, are you saying: paying everyone is cheaper than paying only some?
Yes – except, it’s better even than that – i.e. just as Universal Education generates wealth, which makes us more prosperous, so does The USI.
And, implementing that truth will make citizens ‘freest’ because ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ eradicates poverty, unemployment, employee-exploitation, Subsistence Income Servitude (SIS), most tax and a lot of superfluous regulation.
Also, the Federal Government’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has stated they can test it [ref: ‘Coopetysm Party 6.2’] provided a federal parliamentarian asks them to do so.
[On July 9, 2 parliamentarians – the Liberal’s top-of-ticket Victorian Senator (& CDO-Confidant) the Hon. Sarah Henderson & Labor’s Hon. Richard Marles MP for Corio, Deputy Prime Minister & Minister for Defence – were sent personal requests, ‘Would it be possible to have an appointment to discuss this [i.e. CP 6.2]?’ On July 23, notification was received from the Senator’s office declining. (Is The Liberal Party really committed to new ideas & renewal, let alone ‘meet the people where they are’ or is it just pretence – i.e. say grand things so as to project the impression then continue as usual?) We are yet to hear from the MP/Deputy PM.]
Given this modelling would be a global first that adds to the collective information and ‘the battle of ideas’ perhaps another Liberal can ask the PBO? Or, is there a reason Liberal parliamentarians shouldn’t ask? In general, do we deserve to solve our societal-problems (and have a better life for ourselves and our descendants) if none of our representatives will even ask the PBO a relevant question and also, perhaps, the rest of us aren’t inclined to insist?
Regarding social-infrastructure precedents, there are already 3 relating to:
- The Rule of Law
- Education
- Healthcare – i.e. Medicare.
All of them (if optimised) are freest, broadest and most-efficient such that they transcend the Left/Right/Centre (LRC) paradigm, which is why they’re bipartisan.
And – with The USI added – these 4 social-infrastructures represent ‘The End of History’, ‘Optimised Western Model’ and ‘Maximised Universal Liberal Democracy’.
[Currently, we only have a quasi-Universal-Liberal-Democracy – i.e. ‘Maximised Universal Liberal Democracy’ requires eradicating Subsistence Income Servitude (SIS), which, not coincidentally, is the last bona fide bastion of Left/Right division.]
Accordingly, The Liberal Party of Australia, in contrast to dying from inauthenticity and irrelevance, can earn the forever kudos of becoming the world’s, ‘Maximised Universal Liberal Democracy Party’ or is this type of thinking too big?
Furthermore, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ has several unique offerings for The Liberal Party.
Liberal Party ‘USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ Authenticity Benefits
Liberals usually prioritise less tax, balanced government budgets, greater productivity, more private & less public economic activity, higher defence spending, toughness on crime and labour-market deregulation.
In one fell swoop, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ goes beyond our zeitgeist’s imagination, which is a reason it hasn’t yet been done, to either directly or indirectly achieve all of them.
For example, with the Squandonomy all but eradicated, the defence budget can be, say, quadrupled, yet still both:
- Tax-rates decrease
- Government-budgets be perpetually in balance.
Simon Benson asked, ‘How does [The Liberal Party] reconstruct an aspirational agenda within the constraints of a damaged budget position that has made the basic features of such an agenda almost impossible to deliver?’ – Simon, with respect, it’s achievable via ‘The Reform’.
Regarding ‘tough on crime’, this is changed to ‘smart on crime’ because most crime dries-up – i.e. universal empowerment (via eradicating poverty, unemployment and Subsistence Income Servitude (SIS)) all but eradicates crime because it means all can self-actualise in societally-contributive ways.
[Note: unemployment is doubly obliterated because:
- Due to UMHoW-eradication, wages can vary such that labour-supply always equals labour-demand
- The USI can sustain self-employment as an individual establishes a small-business.]
Accordingly, almost all premeditated and most spontaneous crime evaporates. Even domestic violence will indirectly be addressed via both pressure-reduction and opportunity-ubiquity.
This is also a pre-emptive alternative to more mental-health-professionals. [The Productivity Commission said, mental illness & suicide, in 2019, ‘on a conservative basis, is costing Australia about $200-220 billion per year’.]
Regarding the natural-environment, which is a perennial problem for The Liberal Party (and a major reason for The Teals success in their former heartland), without mentioning ‘Climate Change’ or ‘Net Zero’, via creating an efficient economy (currently, at least 90% waste) and maximising freedom (including to contribute to assisting the natural-environment), The Party will become the gold-standard – i.e. without trying, you will outgreen The Greens (unless they also adopt ‘The Reform’).
Lastly, to The Liberal Party’s Holy Grail (and greatest fumble) – i.e. labour-market deregulation.
The Overlooked Connection: Labour-Market Deregulation, Income-Welfare Rectification, Tax Reform & Efficient Government
Regarding labour-market deregulation, income-Welfare rectification, tax reform & efficient government, from John Hewson’s (former Liberal leader & CDO-Confidant) 1993 ‘Fightback’ to Howard’s 2005 ‘Work Choices’ to ‘giving-up’, as Liberals well-know, they have failed – i.e. they’ve failed to earn the permission of the Australian electorate.
The failure has been so spectacular that even past Labor (Hawke/Keating) Industrial Relations reforms have been (and continue to be) unravelled, which indicates the systems, at the time they were imposed, weren’t sufficiently contextualised – i.e. they were intrinsically unstable, which meant they weren’t/aren’t durable and don’t possess broad-based support.
Yet, in principle, all 4 factors:
- Labour-market deregulation
- Income-Welfare eradication
- Maximised tax reform
- Optimally efficient government
add to a nation’s ‘sustainable-stability-prosperity’.
So, what’s missing – i.e. given the 4-pronged revolution makes us all (except, perhaps, rent-seekers) better-off, why are voters rejecting the Liberal Party’s overtures?
The reason is, fear of ‘employee-exploitation’.
The potential for ‘employee-exploitation’ is ‘the spanner in the works’, which justifiably explains the dearth of support for labour-market deregulation.
Yet, The Liberal Party has been oblivious to the need of addressing ‘employee-exploitation’ even though it’s also a requirement for maximising citizen choice, freedom and aspiration.
So, how can the Party earn permission for its reforms – i.e. how can it eradicate the potential for ‘employee-exploitation’?
Answer: implement ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ because that eradicates both freedom-sapping Subsistence Income Servitude (SIS) & unemployment and, therefore, also eradicates ‘employee-exploitation’.
From an ex-factory-machinist, labour-market deregulation within the confines of civil law is good provided ‘employee-exploitation’ cannot fester. [It’s one unfortunate thing if an employer and an employee both make a one-off mistake – for example, “Johhny, the lightbulb has blown so can you please get on that (rickety) ladder and change it and Johnny agrees thinking ‘she’ll be right’ – it’s another thing if the employee is trapped in a perpetually dangerous workplace because both:
- Without a job, they (and their family) don’t have a Subsistence-Income
- Due to unemployment, they can’t readily get alternative paid-work.]
The key to achieving labour-market deregulation without employee-exploitation (so the battle never has to be re-fought) is maximise ‘freedom of association’ – i.e. eradicate SIS (as is already the case for those citizens with $800,000 per adult in net-wealth) & unemployment so if one doesn’t want to work for a particular employer, they have that choice.
To Liberals, this is consistent with the most aspirational society with the freest of citizens.
In Summary
Income-Welfare is both Australia’s & The Liberal Party’s greatest problem as it detracts from everything from citizens’ interrelationships to the economy to the government-budget.
The solution is to transcend income-Welfare via ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.
‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ can be justified as an Industrial Revolution inheritance; however, justification isn’t necessary because it’s an investment with a manifoldly positive rate-of-return – i.e. it makes us more prosperous, which means it’s the smart option.
Moreover, super-consistent with Liberal values, it’s also the freest, broadest, minimalist and most aspiration-catalysing option, which means it will regain for Liberals their authenticity.
Furthermore, via transcending income-Welfare, the Left/Right/Centre-paradigm is also transcended, which suggests the potential for an electoral landslide – i.e. adopt ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ by, say, the end of this year and, at the next Federal Election, you can expect to win government.
In the Liberal tradition, this conserves what’s good and working well and solves what isn’t.
Lastly, regarding Menzies’ view of the individual as the “prime motive force for building a better world” and Capitalism as “an extraordinary success” engendering “enormous developments in the recognition of human rights, in living standards, in material comfort, in public health” but also the system under which “we have had slums, unemployment, poverty, war”, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ optimally unleashes the individual via freeing citizens from Subsistence Income Servitude (SIS) and other Authoritarian measures including both unemployment-creating UMHoW & employee-exploitation.
For further information, please see our updated website and/or contact us – enquiries will be treated in confidence.
Thank you.
Best regards
Paul Ross
Founder & CEO
The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)