Queensland Supreme Court finds some Covid vaccine orders unlawful

They were the three words of the week, if not of the year: ‘vaccine’, ‘mandates’ and ‘unlawful’. That was the key takeout from the decision handed down this week by the Queensland Supreme Court in a case largely financed by mining gazillionaire and political agitator Clive Palmer. Specifically, the Covid-19 vaccine mandates, implemented in the form of directions given to Queensland police and ambulance service workers, were made unlawfully, the court has ruled, partly because they didn’t take into account those workers’ ‘human rights’.

The news, of course, is to be welcomed. It is the first crack in the dam wall and will hopefully be followed by significant class actions and further court cases. Ideally, one might hope that certain senior politicians, senior bureaucrats, doctors and corporate heads will wind up in prison for their collective roles in the grotesque Covid abuse of power, following a royal commission. However, there is the chance that the Queensland case will be overturned on appeal, as the powers-that-be attempt to reassert their censorship and crushing authoritarianism over what remains the most disgraceful period in our history.

Alone – and we really do mean alone – among the Australian mainstream media, indeed in many instances the world media, The Spectator Australia fought from the very beginning against the vaccine mandates, the lockdowns, the mask mandates, the school closures, the banning of perfectly good (and cheap) alternative treatments for Covid and the fraudulent claims being made about the safety of the mRNA ‘vaccines’. Dismissed as conspiracy theorists, extreme right-wingers, anti-vaxxers and a whole list of other pejoratives, this magazine and its astonishing collection of writers can hold their heads high – Rebecca Weisser, Ramesh Thakur, Julie Sladden, Kara Thomas, Alexandra Marshall, David Flint, David Adler, James Allan, Rocco Loiacono, Robert Clancy, Rowan Dean and many others. Of course, there were a miserable handful of writers, and readers, who were appalled by our Covid scepticism and took their writing skills or subscriptions to other media outlets more in tune with their views. They are not missed.

On 22 May 2021, as powerful voices and commentators within the Australian media frantically urged the government to introduce vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, we wrote on this page:

So we will be blunt on this particular occasion: if Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Health Minister Greg Hunt or any members of the federal or ‘national’ cabinets seek to impose a ‘vaccine passport’ that restricts the freedom of movement and liberties of Australians, they will potentially be guilty of human rights abuses and even crimes against humanity.

Any number of conventions and laws exist that make it a criminal offence for a government or its bureaucrats to coerce or make mandatory any form of medical treatment against the will of the individual. Such laws and conventions were brought in as a direct result of the atrocities of the second world war and the revolting medical experiments conducted by not only the Nazis but other totalitarian regimes against their own people.

Make no mistake; a ‘vaccine passport’ denying liberties and restricting the free movement of Australians within their own country will be the most sinister and disgraceful act by an Australian government against its own people in our history. This is for one simple reason: governments and bureaucracies have no right to enforce or to coerce an individual to take a medical treatment or drug against the individual’s better instincts or judgment.

In any free society, the government’s role is to persuade, not to coerce or to mandate.

It is a fine line between encouraging or incentivising vaccination and coercing it, but telling traumatised Australians that they can, for example, only visit their loved ones or carry on their normal business if they inject a certain drug is completely unacceptable and indeed reprehensible. Persuasion is all very well. Coercion and emotional or financial blackmail are not.

Then on 3 July 2021, we wrote:

It is on the coronavirus that an absence of any genuine political convictions on the part of the PM and his advisers is most apparent. Devoid of a bedrock of political philosophy to stand upon, the government makes it up as it goes along, reacting, presumably, to internal polling as much as to media hysteria. It is not a pretty sight.

Most depressing of all, as certain politicians urged people to report friends or neighbours who were flouting the rules, on 31 July 2021 we wrote:

Welcome to the new Australia of dobbers, scolds and snitches and the self-appointed virtuous.

Kudos to Queensland Judge Glenn Martin for having the courage and moral fortitude to put into law what was always self-evident to any self-respecting conservative. The vaccine mandates trashed every ethical, moral, medical and human rights principle in a free democracy.

To all those individuals, not only in Queensland but throughout Australia, who lost their careers, their dignity and even their families because they resisted the mandates, you are true heroes. Every Australian owes you a huge debt for your courage, and an apology for the medieval vilification so many suffered.

To the few brave politicians who dared to speak up against the madness, often at terrible personal or professional cost, we salute you. Craig Kelly, Alex Antic, George Christensen, Gerard Rennick, Malcolm Roberts, Pauline Hanson, Matt Canavan and others. Above all, we thank all our loyal readers who stayed the course.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/mandatory-vindication/

*********************************************

Why we need more CEOs to speak up for profits

Coles’ Leah Weckert issued an important reminder to corporate Australia: Profit is not a dirty word.

Weckert’s comments have come right at the tail end of a resilient earnings season, and the newish Coles boss has cut through with a reminder about the purpose of her business: To look after shareholders through delivering the sharpest value to her customers.

Supermarkets and Woolworths boss Brad Banducci in particular, have been in the firing line around profits they make.

The big two retailers have become an easy target for claims around price gouging and anti-competitive behaviour while Australia is in the midst of an inflation bubble.

This has now spiralled into a Greens-led Senate inquiry and a year-long Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Review into the supermarkets. These will be highly distracting for management and, like the previous ACCC review into supermarket pricing a decade ago, will probably amount to little.

Everyone else is jumping on board with the ACTU and Queensland’s Steven Miles demanding their own probe. The claims are easy to make and always missing from the barbs is what should be the right level of profit for a business to make. No one is willing to go there and nor should they.

Still the attack on profit from all sides of the political spectrum is a worrying trend. Businesses exist to make profit and reward shareholders. In doing so they invest money into the economy and create jobs. The trick is in the balancing act to make sure the pursuit of profit is sustainable over the long run and businesses keep one eye on their social licence to operate.

Banducci, who this month announced his retirement, has struggled to cut through with a simple message on this point and his trainwreck interview on ABC TV only fanned the flames.

Banducci is the architect of Woolies much-needed cultural transformation and this month conceded to The Australian he was the first to get upset with himself when he doesn’t represent his company accurately.

In the middle of the anger, Woolworths triggered some big non-cash writedowns of its business, tipping the retailer into a heavy bottom-line loss.

Commonwealth Bank boss Matt Comyn is the only other boss who is prepared to issue a spirited defence of profits. Comyn regularly points out his bottom-line returns go to millions of shareholders as well as generate the crucial capital so funds can be lent back out to grow the economy.

Weckert, promoted to the top job in May last year, delivered her numbers on Tuesday which included a 3.9 per cent dip in December half net profit to $594m. The numbers show Coles is selling more, with revenue up nearly 7 per cent, but costs are crimping profit margins. Where Weckert draws the line is criticism of the windfall dollars.

“Profits are an essential thing for any business,” Weckert says. “They enable us to continue to operate and for us that means we get to employ 120,000 people. We get to support thousands of suppliers. We pay a very large tax bill every year.”

Coles has more than 460,000 shareholders and many of these are retail investors – the so-called mums and dads. There are millions more who benefit indirectly from the dividends through their super funds.

The simple message Weckert will take to next month’s Senate inquiry that begins in Hobart is that Coles generates $2.60 for every $100 spent by customers.

This is “less than 3c on the dollar,” she says, and points to her profit margins now being stable for at least the past five years, including through an inflation spike. Nor is food inflation unique to Australia, she adds, It’s are often driven by a surge in input costs such as fertilisers or wheat. Indeed, many developed economies, particularly the UK and in Europe, have seen food prices rise at a faster pace.

Weckert says Australian supermarkets are facing more intense competition than ever as offshore giants Aldi, Costco and Amazon make big inroads. Wesfarmers’ Bunnings and Priceline, along with Chemist Warehouse, are making inroads into the non-food sector.

Meanwhile, supermarket customers are trading convenience over value and are using local specialists from butchers to bakers.

The numbers show Coles now has the momentum in the sales race against its rival, Woolies. It can be argued Woolies is more distracted than it has been in years with problems from New Zealand, Big W and its looming leadership transition.

Coles’ supermarkets sale jumped 4.9 per cent in the first eight weeks of the calendar year, while Woolworths delivered 1.5 per cent growth over the first seven weeks. This helped back a near 6 per cent jump in Coles’ shares.

Coles says it is getting on top of the jump in theft rates it experienced last year as it invests more in checkout technology.

This could make a big difference to its earnings line in coming halves as it continues to get theft rates down further.

Australia’s housing and building shortage is now becoming a force on the ASX, although it has taken global players to recognise the value.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/australias-housing-shortage-is-making-waves-offshore/news-story/f2b9b64d041671509d6072b887cf8cc2

************************************

Victorian blackout has lessons

When the lights went out last week for 500,000 Victorians, it wasn’t all bad. Most still had natural gas to turn to for cooking and some for hot water.

But gas connections to new homes are banned in Victoria from 2024. Clearly, the great fortune of being part of the Lucky Country, blessed with dual energy supplies, was too great a first-world burden for the socialist-left Allan state government to handle.

It means that for these new homes, the next time the lights go out, everything goes out.

However, Victoria’s diabolic blackout might be the best double-edged sword the state’s future could have ordered.

What happened last week may have been the first time many youngsters couldn’t charge their mobile phones, laptops, or other electronic gadgetry. Their lives and their lifelines also went flat.

Until then, they had been removed from reality. Until then, it was someone else’s problem…

Only now might they think about the importance of the essential service of electricity, and better still, the importance of cheap and reliable energy. One day they will have to pay the bills.

And so it is that there may be more power in a flat phone battery than we think.

Only now might the Net Zero zealots begin thinking about the real world, just as theirs shatters into texting and tweeting oblivion.

The blackouts, with the promise of more to come, might just be the real-life lesson in understanding the old saying that you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.

Schooled in Net Zero nonsense, the younger generations and their educators have largely applauded the direction of phasing out coal and pursuing a renewables nirvana.

With eyes wide shut, they believe they are saving the world one poppycock plan at a time. They have skipped school and rallied for the cause. They have spent school hours making placards and writing letters to Ministers. Some have voted for the cause and more will follow.

Little might they think that their increasingly battery-led lifestyle, pumped up by power, is not the life that their childhood counterparts in the Congo are living.

Little might they think of the trees being pulled down in order to put up wind farms, or the interruption to whale migration at sea. Little might they think about what a romantic sunset could look like in years to come with industrial love on the horizon.

Little might they think of the increasing plethora of coal-driven power, mining, and industrial operations elsewhere in the world, while Australia’s decision-makers pull the plug on ours.

They are in the dark more than they might want to realise.

For first-time power blackout sufferers, it won’t be the temporary death of their fridge or freezer worrying them. These days, most order-in a solution to their food problems or go to a local supermarket – backed up by diesel generators – to get a tub of ice cream on demand.

No, it is only the absence of mobile phones, iPads, and the like that might make the younger generations understand what nobody else is telling them: reliable energy is really important.

When they can recharge their phones – and their lives – they should google the following: nuclear energy, reliable energy, low-cost energy, and underground powerlines.

Then they should google future job prospects in Australia.

But it’s a bit hard to find the buttons in the dark.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/switching-on-reality

**************************************************

What Young Australians Should Know About the Green’s Housing Policy

How is it that the Greens are becoming the party of choice for anyone under 30, while also being the party most likely to destroy the future prospects of those under 30s?

Take housing for example.

The Greens yearn for the days when the state was the provider of miserable, cramped housing for Australians deemed too incompetent to organise their own.

This led to housing estates and stigma, and the “poor me” reminiscences of the current prime minister. No rational person would want to go back there.

When Liberal party founder Robert Menzies became prime minister in 1949 he began to sell off the Commonwealth’s public housing.

The states never went that far, but despite their rhetoric, zeal for public housing waned, and the rate of building new public housing went on a long trajectory towards zero.

Since then the market (private individuals and corporations seeing an opportunity to do a favour to someone else, and earn a living doing it) stepped in and developers provided almost all Australians with a place they could call home.

It turns out there are hardly any Australians so incompetent they can’t secure a place of their own either to rent or to own, and that just like every other service, individuals contracting freely with each other are better at arranging accommodation for themselves than the government is.

But this is not the world for the Greens with their retro-Marxist preferences and Che Guevara tees.

They want to boost the public sector rental market and marginalise the private ones, and have adopted a swag of policies to this end, including the abolition of negative gearing.

This is a serious problem for people who can’t afford to buy and who have to rent. Even with the Greens promise to build 50,000 rental homes a year, it would only represent 1.5 percent of the total rental market, which would be overwhelmingly still financed by private owners.

The Greens claim that negative gearing keeps homeowners out of the market, but this is wrong for a number of reasons.

Around a third of Australians rent. Some of these are permanent renters, but others are homeowners-in-waiting.

In either case, there should be no enmity between renters and owners. But policies that handicap investors who rent, also handicap people who will be first-home buyers because it limits their renting options while they save a deposit.

How Does It Work?

The principle of negative gearing is that if you are going to tax investment income, an investor must be able to deduct their expenses from their income.

If the investor owns a property in their own name, then that income includes what they earn from other sources, like their principal job.

Most plans to abolish negative gearing tacitly admit this. They may prevent investors from deducting expenses against their other income, but they still allow them to carry forward their losses until the property becomes cash flow positive.

This means that if the Greens were to abolish negative gearing, they don’t somehow save the whole of the deduction and bank it to government coffers. They save it, until they have to give it back in the future as deductions against future income.

In accounting jargon, the tax amounts to the interest value of the timing difference.

What they save is the interest they earn on the money that would have stayed with the taxpayer, if it had been allowed as a tax deduction.

This means the value to the government is much less than most of the models that are used to justify the policy, which magically assumes the government gets the benefit of the foregone deduction forever.

But it gets worse than that.

We are in a situation where we need drastically more properties than we have now, which means we need to encourage people to build more houses.

Negative gearing makes that possible.

How much longer would it take an investor to buy a property if they decided to wait until they had a deposit that would allow them to “positively” gear the property?

Positive gearing means that although you’ve borrowed, the property is returning enough income to give you a surplus.

When interest rates were around 2 percent, that probably wasn’t too much longer, but now they’re more like 6 percent. It’s quite a stretch.

So, by banning negative gearing it would mean that investors would be encouraged to take longer before they bought a house. This is the reverse of what you want when you have a housing shortage.

Everybody Benefits

The reason we gear most investments (and most investors and companies have some degree of gearing) is so we can do more with the same amount of capital, which is exactly what the country needs to do at the moment.

That’s a good thing for renters, who need more properties, and also for buyers, who also need more properties.

It’s also a good thing for the government. If investors can leverage their capital, there is more economic activity and the government gets to tax it.

There is GST on new buildings and on renovations, and there is payroll tax on building companies, and income tax from the companies and the tradies who do the work.

All models I have seen that favour abolishing negative gearing neglect this altogether.

And then there is the tax on borrowings. Again, most models advocating abolishing negative gearing don’t take into account the fact that the asset producing the income still produces the same income with gearing, it just splits it differently.

Without gearing it goes entirely to the owner, with gearing it goes to the owner and to the financier.

But both pay tax. The owner may pay less tax than if they owned the whole property, but the financier will pay an amount that is roughly similar to the difference.

Also, Homeowners Don’t Lose Out

The Greens’ myth is that negative gearing squeezes home buyers out of the market because it is a tax benefit that homeowners don’t get.

When you do the figures, it is actually homeowners who are tax-advantaged.

While investors pay capital gains tax, the homeowner doesn’t. When it comes to real estate investment it is actually capital gains that provide the majority of earnings, particularly when gearing is involved.

So, the homeowner is already ahead, but it doesn’t stop there.

Homeowners also receive a benefit in that they don’t pay any tax on the “rent” that accrues to them by owning the property.

This is an unfamiliar concept to most, but if you regard a homeowner as an investor who lives in their investment, then it makes sense to look at what rent it is they would pay to live there and see that as part of their investment return.

This is called “imputed rent” and some countries, like the Netherlands and Switzerland, tax this as income.

We don’t, and I’m happy about that, but it is another tax advantage that homeowners get over investors who do pay tax on the rent they receive.

All of which means that when it comes to a contest over who can afford to pay the most for a residence, it is the homeowner that comes with all the advantages.

The only advantage the investor generally has is that they normally already have assets they can use for a deposit, like the house they live in, and a first homeowner has to save for their deposit, but you can’t “fix” that disparity by abolishing negative gearing.

Another Green’s Party Idea That Is Not Feasible

The Greens also want to step beyond fiddling with the tax system to fiddling with the rental markets by imposing rent caps. We’ve been here before and they don’t work.
However, we don’t need to look at Australian history to see what a bad idea rent control is.

Argentina has just elected a classical liberal president Javier Milei, and he has abolished rental controls in the country.

Overnight rents dropped by 20 percent as the number of houses on the market doubled. When you fiddle with property rights, property owners make smart choices.

The Greens complain that 10 percent of Australia’s housing is vacant (a figure which is about what it should be, given holiday houses, temporary vacancies because of property sales or rental vacancies, or people away for work or otherwise absent on holidays).

That figure would be a lot higher under rent caps as owners make the rational decision that if they can’t make a living at the Greens “reasonable” rents, then they should hold the house off the market.

If our millennial Australians don’t wake up soon to the Greens’ destructive ignorance about housing, they will walk into their own nightmare if they vote Greens’ policies in.

Not just home ownership, but renting reasonable digs, will be outside their budgets.

In that case, they may even need public housing, and just like our prime minister, in the future, they’ll be able to regale their kids with stories of how tough it was growing up in a public housing estate

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/what-young-australians-should-know-about-the-greens-housing-policy-5591519

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************