Translating deep thinking into common sense
Australia’s Ron Paul: David Leyonjhelm talks to Savvy Street
By Vinay Kolhatkar
November 9, 2014
SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)
In September 2013, David Leyonhjelm became the first Australian, and one of the world’s firsts, to gain political office on an expressly libertarian platform. He took office as a Federal Senator for the state of NSW on 1 July 2014. The Savvy Street’s Vinay Kolhatkar (VK) caught up with him in November 2014.
VK: Tell us a bit about yourself. Where did you grow up? What was Australia like in those days?
DL: I was born in Nhill, in Victoria’s Wimmera region. We moved to Heywood, in western Victoria, when I was very young. My family had a dairy farm plus sheep and beef cattle.
The phone service on the farm was a party-line, which meant it wasn’t private. Entertainment was based around the radio. I was the eldest of 4 children and my oldest sister and I were avid fans of the radio serial “No holiday for Halliday”.
I trapped rabbits to make pocket money, driving the tractor to get around the traps. I helped my father with the cows and calves, although I was a very bright student, a keen reader and much more interested in school than the farm.
When I was 12, my parents sold our farm and moved to the outskirts of Melbourne, where my father had a job as a farm manager. They separated a year or so later. The best part was I ended up attending Dandenong High School, which was a good state school with high academic standards. As a result, I achieved very good results in my final year at high school which enabled me to enrol in veterinary science at Melbourne University.
VK: At what point in your life did you become a classical liberal? Was there one book, one thinker, or a series of events that led to it?
DL: I am a classical liberal from first principles. That is, I have never been comfortable with the government telling me what to do and how to live my life.
Two issues that animated me in my early years were conscription and abortion. Conscription was personal; I didn’t want to go into the army. Conscripts were also being sent to Vietnam, although that was never my main concern. I just didn’t like the idea of being forced to spend two years doing something I had no interest in.
Abortion was also somewhat personal. Contraception was less commonly available in those days (condoms were only available from chemists and some doctors refused to prescribe the pill for unmarried women) and unwanted pregnancies were not uncommon. Abortion was also illegal, with doctors and women being prosecuted.
For these reasons, and others, I developed a strong sense of civil rights from an early age. However, I did not think in terms of economic liberty until much later in my life, when I started paying significant taxes. And I didn’t realise there was a coherent philosophy binding the two together until I was aged in my forties. I think it was Milton Friedman who helped me make the connection.
VK: You haven’t held high political office before. Have the first five months in Canberra been what you expected them to be?
DL: My expectations regarding the issues have been pretty accurate. I can read legislation and explanatory material and have a good understanding of the overall context of the various policies. Having a solid set of values and the benefit of the party’s policies is of enormous help in deciding what to focus on.
What I hadn’t expected is the overall intensity of the position. My calendar is constantly filled with meetings and media interviews. I have six staff to manage. Sitting days in Canberra are incredibly hard work, often lasting 14 hours. I am not particularly keen on being away from home so much either.
Having said all that, it is an honour to be elected to parliament and I take my role very seriously. I am constantly on the lookout for opportunities to advance the values and policies of my party and it is very satisfying when I achieve some gains.
VK: In your view, is the Palmer United Party (PUP) left, right, or just confused? Do you see any common ground with them at all?
DL: It is a populist party with protectionist and nationalist inclinations. While not inherently socialist, there is considerable enthusiasm for spending other people’s money without thinking about where it comes from.
I have not found much common ground with them so far, although they are not inclined to engage with the other crossbench senators. Clive Palmer determines their voting policies and he only talks to the major parties.
VK: What kind of success do (/did) you expect with respect to your efforts on the metadata storage and the Foreign Fighters (FF) Bill? Or are they ultimately bargaining chips?
DL: Neither is a bargaining chip. They involve fundamental liberal issues on which I will not compromise.
I don’t think Labor will support metadata storage so it could be a close vote, dependent on PUP.
VK: Is your view that the West itself not conduct air strikes against ISIS, or that Australia not take part, or that an act of aggression is too serious to leave to the executive branch even though you would have supported it if PM Tony Abbott had been required to secure a two-third vote in both houses?
DL: It is LDP policy that the decision to commit armed forces to conflict should require a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament.
I am not convinced that Australia needs to involve itself in the conflict in Iraq (or Syria), given the substantial number of countries with far greater interests at stake. Having said that, I am certain that containing ISIS is necessary (it will never be conclusively defeated through military action). Therefore, I have no objections to air strikes against ISIS, although if I was American I’d probably be arguing that others should do most of the work.
VK: At a CIS meet, Senator Bob Day told me that he believed anthropogenic global warming theory was nonsensical. If he were to sponsor a bill to collapse RET (Renewable Energy Target) and Direct (Climate) Action, would you support it?
DL: The LDP has no position on the global warming/climate change issue. However, we strongly oppose government measures to prevent or mitigate it. I have written and spoken about the RET and would like to see it abandoned. If that was not achievable, adding hydro-electricity to the renewable target would prevent any further misallocation of taxes into subsidies for wind farms and solar.
VK: You must have had several meetings with the Treasurer. While professing to be a belt-tightener, is he at all amenable to stopping the multibillion dollar wastage on inefficient energy subsidies, NBN, Sydney 2nd airport (proposed) capital subsidies, subsidies to SBS, ABC, Screen Australia, Direct Action etc. or is he just unable to join the dots? I mean, can at least a capital item be bargained against allowing a budget item, or is cross-item bargaining off the table?
DL: The government has a lukewarm attitude towards spending cuts due to the political cost. Many of its budget corrections so far have involved increased tax revenues.
I haven’t had much opportunity to push for spending cuts in addition to the government’s own proposals yet.
VK: Scientists and agricultural economists have claimed that Greenpeace is responsible for the deaths of 8 million children via its work in frustrating the adoption of Golden Rice (a GMO food that enhances Vitamin A in rice and thereby prevents deficiency that kills and blinds millions of children every year). That’s over 300 times the number the U.N. claims ISIS has killed (which is 24,000). Why is there no focus on inexpensive foreign aid that will not risk the lives of Australian soldiers, such as disrupting Greenpeace, which would yield phenomenal results in both outcomes and goodwill?
In my view, Greenpeace should be charged with crimes against humanity.
DL: I wrote about Golden Rice a year ago. In my view, Greenpeace should be charged with crimes against humanity.
Foreign aid is a political “good cause”, both domestically and internationally, and it is difficult for the government to cut back (although it has to some extent).
VK: As a libertarian principle, voluntary adult polygamy ought not to be illegal. Do you agree? Would your proposed gay marriage bill go that far?
DL: No. We need to remain aware of what the community is willing to accept.
VK: Is the LDP prepared to fight inflation, arguably the largest welfare scheme in Australia, a heartless wealth transfer from pensioners and savers to super-rich asset owners and borrowers, by proposing a dissolution of central banking, even if gradual? I recall that “End the Fed” became Ron Paul’s catchcry to such an extent that all he needed to do was to stand up and the crowd would belt it out for several minutes.
DL: No. The US Fed is not directly comparable to the Reserve Bank. Paul also got nowhere with his campaign. I’d prefer to focus on lower taxes and individual liberty. The Australian government will not consider abandoning central banking while the rest of the world relies on it.
VK: If the above-the-line Senate party preferences are ended, how will the LDP counter to ensure its survival?
DL: If GVTs [Group Voting Tickets] are abandoned, they will probably be replaced by compulsory preferential voting above the line. Our strategy is to ensure the LDP is widely known and understood by the next election so that we appeal to all voters as either their first or second preference.
VK: What is your number one regret in life?
DL: My number one regret is that I didn’t take a greater interest in political philosophy earlier in life.
VK: Many thanks for your time, Senator.
About the Author: Vinay Kolhatkar
