Australia ignoring the solution to government-induced malaise

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Conscious of the imperative of self-preservation, European governments and the EU Commission itself have already taken baby steps to dilute and delay carbon emission-abating and economy-crushing agricultural and energy policies.. Not so in Australia

Studying last month’s Davos meeting of the world’s (largely self-appointed) elites, Walter Russell Mead sees an inflection point.

He says that when they listened to Argentinian President Milei promoting free market capitalism, the Davosies’ applause was more than polite clapping. There was a sense that all was not well in the supposed government-planned China, and a recognition that the more hands-on EU governmental approach has resulted in Europe slipping behind the US with its lighter government touch over the economy. This was coupled with a concern that the farmer revolts around Europe reflected a sudden rejection of trust in the establishment. Above all, Ukraine has made the Euro grandees ‘uncomfortably aware of how dependent the global system is on the leadership that only a prosperous and self-confident America can provide’.

Conscious of the imperative of self-preservation, European governments and the EU Commission itself have already taken baby steps to dilute and delay carbon emission-abating and economy-crushing agricultural and energy policies.

Not so in Australia, where governments remain totally focused on reducing the economy’s productive potential.

The Albanese government, under the Svengali and serial ministerial failure of Chris Bowen, has turbocharged carbon abatement programs crippling energy. It has:

Vastly increased direct and regulatory-enforced expansion of the transmission lines in an attempt to allow wind and solar to work.
Introduced a requirement for the top 215 businesses to reduce their emission levels by 30 per cent over and above reductions made necessary by the subsidies generally.
Put in place measures to combat objections to intrusive wind farms and transmission lines.
Refused to introduce requirements for the rectification of land and safe disposal of the materials used in wind and solar facilities.
Vastly expanded the budgetary assistance to wind, solar, and hydrogen.
Introduced costly requirements on firms to identify the emissions of their own activities and of those of their suppliers and customers.

The measures have been put in place by politicians, hardly any of whom have any knowledge of the energy sector, how it works, and what its costs are. Politicians have been pressed in this direction by the so-called experts, a professional elite supported by and bankrolled by subsidy-seekers, who see the global warming con as a means by which they can get paid for promoting particular forms of energy.

But the outcome is already apparent in the loss of competitiveness of our industries. The bellwether is smelting and all three of the major aluminium smelters are now in hospital care, relying on government support to offset the imposts they incur from government penalties on cheap electricity. The distress is also seen in agricultural and mining industries, which in addition to being buffeted by ever-increasing environmental costs, with their prices set globally, are seeing their margins come under pressure.

Every week brings another measure – last week we saw requirements on car retailers to ensure more fuel-efficient – higher cost cars are sold with penalties on sellers that fail to meet these requirements, penalties that will certainly increase the price Australians pay for motor vehicles.

This week, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek boasted of spending $205 million of taxpayers’ money to buy back another 44 gigalitres of water from Murray irrigators. This is part of a process to divert 2,700 gigalitres per annum (out of 7,000 gigalitres ‘high security’ water available) from productive agriculture to uses designated as ‘environmental’. These measures massively reduce the productivity of the Murray-Darling region, responsible for 35 per cent of the nation’s farm income. They were originally justified to respond to environmental agitators’ spurious claims that irrigation was creating salt infusions, claims that were reinforced during the ‘millennial’ drought of 1997-2008 by specious assertions that climate change would drastically reduce the available water. These original rationales having been disproven, politicians’ and activists’ hostility to productive enterprise have lent the programs an ongoing inertia.

We also saw a new $100 billion a year in additional carbon tax floated by Ross Garnaut and Rod Sims; their study’s funding source was not revealed but the beneficiaries would likely be, in my opinion, subsidy-seeking economy wreckers. While ostensibly rejecting that proposal, the Prime Minister has foreshadowed extensive new decarbonisation spending programs. Nothing is being learned from the collapse of Australia’s nickel mining industry, which cannot compete with overseas mines favoured by the low-cost coal-generated electricity that Australian governments are closing down.

In addition to the current $10 billion a year in subsidies through regulations forcing the use of wind and solar, and billions of dollars spent on revoking the productive use of irrigation water, governments provide huge sums to groups that promote such waste. Unlike squandering through inefficiency that is endemic in government programs, all this spending is aimed at poisoning once highly competitive low-cost industries. Adding to measures that load the dice against employers in workplace relations, it is akin to government forcing the nation to manufacture bombs to be dropped on the people financing them.

Has anybody put the solution more succinctly than Trump-aligned Presidential hopeful, Vivek Ramaswamy? His answer was, ‘Drill. Frack. Merit over “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”. Stop paying people to stay at home instead of work. Fire bureaucrats. Shut down corrupt agencies. End lobbying.’

Alan Moran is a noted economist who has analysed and written extensively from a free market perspective focusing on environmental issues, housing, network industries, and energy markets. First published here.

Related Topics:#AlanMoran #AustralianPMChrisBowen #FrontierCenterForPublicPolicy #GovernmentDebt

Up Next

Trump Could Bring Back “America First”. What Could Happen to Canada’s Natural Resource Exports?

Don't Miss

Harvard drops COVID vaccine mandate for students; other holdout colleges may follow suit

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta court upholds conviction of Pastor Artur Pawlowski for preaching at Freedom Convoy protest

Opinion / 9 hours ago

Trudeau and Singh Scheme to Delay Election, Secure Payouts on the Taxpayer’s Dime

Health / 9 hours ago

Canadian Health Organizations Unite to Demand Truth on Vaccine Safety

Agriculture

Sweeping ‘pandemic prevention’ bill would give Trudeau government ability to regulate meat production

Published on November 1, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Bill C-293, ‘An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,’ gives sweeping powers to the federal government in the event of a crisis, including the ability to regulate meat production.

The Trudeau Liberals’ “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill is set to become law despite concerns raised by Conservative senators that the sweeping powers it gives government, particularly over agriculture, have many concerned.

Bill C-293, or “An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,” is soon to pass its second reading in the Senate, which all but guarantees it will become law. Last Tuesday in the Senate, Conservative senators’ calls for caution on the bill seemed to fall on deaf ears.

“Being from Saskatchewan I have heard from many farmers who are very concerned about this bill. Now we hear quite a short second reading speech that doesn’t really address some of those major concerns they have about the promotion of alternative proteins and about the phase-out, as Senator Plett was saying, of some of their very livelihoods,” said Conservative Senator Denise Batters during debate of the bill.

Batters asked one of the bill’s proponents, Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie, how they will “alleviate those concerns for them other than telling them that they can come to committee, perhaps — if the committee invites them — and have their say there so that they don’t have to worry about their livelihoods being threatened?”

In response, Mégie replied, “We have to invite the right witnesses and those who will speak about their industry, what they are doing and their concerns. Then we can find solutions with them, and we will do a thorough analysis of the issue. This was done intentionally, and I can provide all these details later. If I shared these details now, I would have to propose solutions myself and I do not have those solutions. I purposely did not present them.”

Bill C-293 was introduced to the House of Commons in the summer of 2022 by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. The House later passed the bill in June of 2024 with support from the Liberals and NDP (New Democratic Party), with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois opposing it.  

Bill C-293 would amend the Department of Health Act to allow the minister of health to appoint a “National pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.” 

It would also, as reported by LifeSiteNews, allow the government to mandate industry help it in procuring products relevant to “pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified.”

A close look at this bill shows that, if it becomes law, it would allow the government via officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after consulting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and of Industry and provincial governments, to “regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture.” 

The bill has been blasted by the Alberta government, who warned that it could “mandate the consumption of vegetable proteins by Canadians” as well as allow the “the federal government to tell Canadians what they can eat.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trudeau government has funded companies that produce food made from bugs. The World Economic Forum, a globalist group with links to the Trudeau government, has as part of its Great Reset agenda the promotion of “alternative” proteins such as insects to replace or minimize the consumption of beef, pork, and other meats that they say have high “carbon” footprints. 

Trudeau’s current environmental goals are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades, as well as curbing red meat and dairy consumption.

Agriculture

Time to End Supply Management

Published on October 30, 2024

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Génie

According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management.

The New Democrats and the Liberals have pledged to tackle inflation, curb price gouging, and address child poverty. Leaders like Jagmeet Singh have railed against corporate greed while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has introduced programs claiming to feed your children.

But despite these announcements, food affordability remains a serious problem in Canada. If our political leaders are truly committed to making nutritious food accessible for all Canadians, they must confront the largely ignored factor: Canada’s supply management system.

Supply Management Hurts Families

Supply management, which governs the production and pricing of dairy, eggs, and poultry in Canada, was designed to stabilize farmers’ incomes. However, it now acts as an unnecessary burden on consumers, artificially inflating the cost of essential food items. Farmers are given strict quotas on how much they can produce, and sky-high tariffs—often more than 200%—are imposed on imports.

This creates a closed market that keeps prices far higher than in a free-market system. According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management. This is no small sum to households already feeling the pinch.

To put it in perspective, a litre of milk in Canada costs between $1.50-$2.50, compared to USD 1.00 (around $1.35 CAD) in the United States, where such market controls don’t exist. The cost of other staples, such as eggs and chicken, follows the same pattern, with Canadians paying significantly more than their American counterparts.

These artificially high prices disproportionately affect families struggling. As inflation continues to drive up the cost of housing, fuel, and other essentials, paying extra for basic food becomes the tipping point between having three meals a day or skipping meals to cover rent or bills.

The Conservative Opportunity: Free Markets and Family Values

The Conservative Party has historically championed free markets and policies promoting family well-being, but they also support the food cartels.

In a genuinely free market, prices are determined by supply and demand, leading to lower consumer costs and more production efficiency. Ending supply management would achieve both goals.

While Conservatives have long supported free markets, they have been reluctant to challenge supply management, largely due to political concerns in Quebec, where the system is popular among producers. Being pro-trade and supporting supply management are incongruous political positions.

However, with the Conservatives drawing closer to forming government, potentially without significant electoral support from Quebec, now is the time for a strategic shift. Shedding the protectionist policies would be a bold and forward-thinking move to distinguish the party as serious about free markets and family welfare.

It would also send a powerful message to voters across the country, particularly in regions where food insecurity is rising. Conservatives could frame the policy change as a direct effort to reduce food prices, ease the burden on low-income families, and protect Canadian consumers from the high costs supply management imposes.

The Ethical Case: Dumping Food While Canadians Go Hungry

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of supply management is the appalling waste it produces. To keep prices high, in 2023 alone, tens of millions of litres of milk were discarded—wasted food that could have gone to Canadians in need. This is an unconscionable practice in a country where nearly 2 million people rely on food banks to survive. How can wasting food while so many families struggle to afford basic groceries be justified?

This waste flies in the face of compassion and fairness, and contradicts the principles of a free market.

The Bloc Quebecois’ Game

Given that the significant dairy industry in Quebec benefits immensely from supply management, the Bloc Quebecois is seeking to leverage the weakness of the Trudeau minority in exchange for a Bloc bill, Bill C-282, that would shield supply management from future changes. The Bloc Québécois Bill C-282 wants to amend the Trade and Development Act. Reportedly, it has support from all parties in Parliament.

One of the key setbacks is the restriction supply management places on open market access. It hinders the ability to fully embrace free trade agreements. A primary objectives of Bill C-282 is to prevent the Canadian government from making concessions in international trade agreements that could undermine the supply management system. This is particularly relevant in trade negotiations where foreign countries often seek increased access to Canada’s agricultural markets.

Consequently, this limits the potential for growth in agricultural exports. Central Canada benefits the most from supply management, and although its trade reverberations hurt everyone, they seem to hurt Western producers the most.

A Call to Action for All Parties

For New Democrats and Liberals, the solution to supporting families and children through food affordability lies in targeting alleged corporate greed and expanding social programs. But if they are serious about addressing child poverty and food insecurity, they would confront supply management. Likewise, for Conservatives, ending supply management is a natural extension of their free-market impetus and commitment to family values.

The time for change is now. Regardless of party, all political leaders should recognize that dismantling supply management would be a direct, meaningful step toward making food more affordable for all Canadians, as well as maximizing agricultural chances to expand Canada’s exports. With the rising cost of living pushing more families into food insecurity, we cannot afford to let outdated policies continue to inflate prices, immorally perpetuate waste, and curtail chances for greater growth in Agrifoods.

Dismantling supply management would offer tangible relief to millions of Canadian consumers, particularly low-income families. All other parties should start by killing Bill C-282.

Marco Navarro-Génie is the Vice President of Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy