The word “unprecedented” has been thrown around almost without thinking over the past 18 months.
But from lockdowns and border closures to the biggest peacetime budget line item—JobKeeper (a $90 billion)—was anything really unprecedented?
Or was everything about our COVID-19 experience, including the introduction of the undisputed rule by experts, really long ago?
For more than two decades, Australia has been run by a section of the managerial elite, largely free of the will of the Australian people expressed in elections. Instead, they rule by a technological mandate.
For example, since the global financial crisis, experts at the Reserve Bank of Australia have decided to keep the official cash rate as close to zero as possible to revive business investment and create full employment. But the flip side is that Australians have experienced the longest-lasting structural decline in new private sector business investment relative to the size of the economy.
The people of Australia have also signed the Paris Agreement against their will, partly because of climate science expertise, despite expressing their opposition several times in elections.
In 2013, Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott won a landslide victory after promising to repeal the carbon tax, a tax implemented by the previous Labor government in direct contradiction to earlier election promises.
The “climate election” of 2019 – which saw current Prime Minister Scott Morrison win a government on the back of resource-focused voters – leaves anyone still unsure how Australians felt about emissions reductions and economic security.
Sadly, this priority is now being ignored by the Prime Minister, who has expressed his desire to implement a net-zero emissions target.
Australians are, in some ways, well prepared for the technological COVID era.
Our experience has led to a desire among political leaders to remove “politics” from democracy and focus on expertise. However, this is nothing but the removal of democracy from democracy.
The leader of the Greens and the federal member for the seat of Melbourne, Adam Bandt, revealed that this was indeed his priority.
Speaking to The Age newspaper, he said he thought voters in Higgins’ federal electorate wanted an “evidence-based policy”, and that “the catastrophic failure to hear experts in the COVID crisis” will overtake the impacts of living. Experts on climate change.”
In addition to the fact that Australia’s federal and state response to COVID-19 was based entirely on “listening to the experts”, it raises the troubling question: if an MP’s job is only to apply the “expert” So what’s the point of holding elections” advice?
Politicians in Australia must represent the views of their constituents.
Their job is to listen to many different stakeholders, weigh their views, and make a decision that balances these insights with the best interests of the people who live in their electorate.
But democracy is no longer like that in Australia.
This was clearly evident in the federal parliament in August when Dawson’s federal member, George Christensen, was denounced by aides for a speech he made to the House of Representatives.
Christensen argued that “lockdowns do not destroy viruses, but they destroy people’s livelihoods and people’s lives.” There is substantial evidence supporting this statement, including most recently by the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA). Analysis Outlining how the lockdown is ravaging small businesses.
The IPA surveyed a three-week period from the start of the lockdown in Greater Sydney on 26 June and estimated that more than 540,000 jobs were lost in small and medium-sized businesses across Australia. This is equivalent to 25,000 per day.
The experience of New South Wales, Victoria and now New Zealand confirms what many have argued since the start of the pandemic; That it is impossible to eliminate the virus.
The federal government has now adopted this as its official position, with Treasurer Josh Frydenberg arguing on August 24 that “zero-COVID forever is unrealistic … it is an illusion that you can eliminate COVID-19.” … you must learn to live with it.”
Nevertheless, only two weeks before making this statement, Frydenberg and other government members voted to condemn Christensen for expressing a similar statement.
But condemnation should never have happened in the first place because it was Christensen’s job to transmit the views to his constituents. Furthermore, MPs should never be condemned, condemned or rescinded for expressing any views in Parliament, which is why they are given parliamentary privileges.
Worryingly, Federal Labor Senator Murray Watt even said that tech giant Facebook decided to condemn Christensen by removing a video of his speech.
The state of Australian democracy in 2021 is such that an elected representative of the people can be condemned for expressing an opinion that goes against the so-called “expert” advice of the time, while supporting the actions of their allied foreign corporations Those who silence the thoughts of millions of people. of Australians.
The Great Southern Land has invested vast resources in tackling COVID-19. Yet, we must beware of another: the highly contagious technocratic virus that has infiltrated and weakened our democracy.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times