It’s fun to go to a protest where there are signs that urge people to “SAY NO TO THE NANNY STATE”. A less convincing sign that was displayed at last night’s protest against Victoria’s new 2am lockout was one that pictorially argued that Saddam Hussein = John Brumby, implying that the former Iraqi dictator was, in fact, a better than average Labor premier.

Crappy phone camera shot: crowd gathers at Treasury Gardens at about 5:30pm.

There was a degree of success yesterday before the protest: some forty-seven licencees were granted temporary exemptions to the 2am rule. However, they had to agree to some fairly onerous extra regulations, such as doubling their security, and agreeing not to advertise or promote the fact that they were open for new customers after 2am. This could provide a compromise position for the licencees and government to agree on, but the government has indicated that it wants to push on with the lockout regardless.

Brumby is playing up the effect drunken violence has on ruining lives.Sure, but there doesn’t seem to be much evidence to suggest that a lockout is the correct policy solution. Three people were stabbed in brawls in the city last night. But conspiciously, they were stabbed before midnight - a 2am lockout would have no effect on this incident. It’s hard not to agree with another placard held up last night: “POLICE NOT POLICY”

My IPA colleague, Tim Wilson in the centre of the photo whips up the crowd with his blue megaphone. When he told a reporter that he was from the Institute of Public Affairs, the reporter was pretty confused.

The media has reported about 3000 people turned up to the protest - that seems about right to me, but I’m hardly a protest veteran. Having marched to the Victorian parliament (30 minutes before the organisers actually wanted them to) the speeches when we got there were unfortunately a bit lacklustre. One speaker, a Greens candidate for (I presume) the Gippsland byelection decided that his five minute speech should focus on windfarms and carbon emissions, not liquor licences.
Outside the Victorian Parliament.

Members of the Socialist Party were handing out flyers when we turned up that maintained that the key issue with the lockout was war, racism and capitalism. Most of my IPA colleagues were smart enough not to take one - I absentmindedly accepted the flyer because I was distracted looking to get a NO 2AM badge. No dice, unfortunately.

But for the most part, the protest did well to keep on message. I don’t think the vast majority of those who attended were otherwise politically-minded - the idea of a late-night lockout offends a lot of people who hold no strong views on baby bonuses, FuelWatch and infrastructure spending. It would be great if more of these people could become activated in a libertarian direction, but I’m sadly skeptical.

Certainly the Liberal Party missed the opportunity to push an anti-Brumby message - imposing a late-night lockout was, embarrassingly, a key Liberal policy for the last election. Still, the chance to take sides with both partiers (by opposing the lockout) and law-and-order folks (by demanding more police on the streets) against the Labor government was depressingly, and, to my mind foolishly, discarded.

The protest was worth it, but it was hardly a massive blow for liberty - the issue now rests with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Policies designed to be experimental have a tendancy to quickly become the status quo - it is, after all, easier to sell a onerous policy to the public as a ‘trial’. Even though the Melbourne 2am lockout has not yet begun - it begins on June 3 - the Federal Government is hoping to expand it to NSW. And given how eager the Brisbane police have been to support their lockout, the Melbourne police will no doubt be as supportive.

The reports from the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy seem to indicate that the federal government is eager to fit lockouts into their anti-drinking strategy - Nicola Roxon has stated that they could be looking to implement a “national framework”. Lockouts have been sold to Victorians as an anti-violence measure, but have quickly become integrated in the broader anti-drinking war - a much more flexible position from which to argue that the Melbourne trial has been a success.

Also in the reports is the possibility that the government might place limits on alcohol content of some beverages, saying that the Council is considering “options for reducing alcohol content in products including those aimed at young people”.

One of the good things about the previous government is that even though they would announce ambitious-sounding, nanny state-esque programs, there would always be less than meets the eye. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case with the Rudd goverment.

(The Institute of Public Affairs has been a big critic of the 2am lockout. I wrote about it in my Sunday Age column: “Don’t close the door on our envied bar culture“, Tim Wilson wrote about it in the Herald Sun: “Logic locked out“, and John Roskam had a piece in The Age this week: “Who will cut the apron strings of government?“. I wrote about some of the possible unintended consequences of alcopops tax increase in “Put a cork in it, Mr Rudd - you’re missing the point“.)

Overland was kind enough to publish a longish letter of mine responding to Shane Cahill’s characterisation of the wartime Institute of Public Affairs as ‘fascist’, or at least fascist-sympathetic: “Not fascist at all“.

The title pretty much says it all, but needless to say, Cahill’s article relies on insinuation rather than evidence, and his argument fails even the most rudimentary scrutiny. “If, as Cahill clumsily infers, the IPA council was trying to sow the seeds for Japanese-style fascism in Australia, sponsoring a radio show that condemns totalitarianism and centralised government seems to be a strange way to go about it.”

I wrote a (substantially different) piece for the IPA Review on the same topic earlier this year: “What ‘fascist mob’? Overland and the IPA“

In the absence of any other discernable criteria for judging contemporary art, most people in the art world would insist on art at the very least that an artwork displays at least a degree of creativity.

That anyway was what struck me when I saw the photograph of this now apparently controversial piece by the ‘artist activist’ Van Thanh Rudd. Sure, the message (how on earth could someone believe that the problem with the Chinese Olympics is its commericalisation?) is absurd, but not unusual. But what is remarkable about this piece is how heavy-handed and lumpen it is - three cliches slapped onto a monotone canvas. It is hard to think of more obvious and tedious symbols. Olympics = Olympic torch. Resistance = burning monk. Capitalism = McDonalds.

Some other pieces of Rudd’s - which are online here - exhibit a little more creative spark, but he doesn’t appear to be able to raise his work above shallow symbolism. Politics = parliament house. A crosshair is superimposed over the BHP logo, symbolising the ‘target’ of his anger, I guess. Other paintings even rely on flags to represent countries. This is paint-by-numbers politics.

(Of course, it comes as no surprise to learn today that the cliches offered aren’t even Rudd’s own, they’re Banksy’s. Appropriation is a legitimate and often very powerful artistic technique, but appropriation isn’t just as simple as copying. To do it right, the artist has to expand, comment or critique the work being referenced. There is nothing in Rudd’s piece to suggest he has even tried.)

There’s something just inherantly dull about much low-end contemporary art which seeks to have a ‘political’ message. If your political views are unsubtle and common, your art will be too. Artists who do not have anything unique to say when they speak don’t suddenly become edgy when they paint their opinions on canvas.

I have a piece contrasting the dynamic investment and innovation on mobile networks with the politicised and sluggish environment created by fixed-line regulations in The Australian today: “Don’t strangle communications networks“

I have a piece in the Sunday Age today criticising the Victorian government’s new policy to lock patrons out of bars in the city and inner suburbs after 2am: “Don’t close the door on our envied bar culture“

I had an article in the last week’s Sunday Age on the alcopop tax increase: “Put a cork in it, Mr Rudd - you’re missing the point“

I’ve just returned from a trip to the United States, attending the Heritage Resource Bank and Atlas Foundation’s Liberty Forum in Atlanta. The two events are specifically designed to provide support and workshops on free market think tank strategies and issues.

Its nice occasionally to go to a conference where the focus is on networking and broad discussion of ‘issues’. But it is immensely more valuable to attend a conference filled with workshops that detail exactly how, for instance, a small think tank could run a new media campaign, complete with recommended equipment.

Both the Heritage and the Atlas conferences were in the latter category. And the resources and support available to think tanks in the United States are absolutely awe-inspiring. Compared to Australia, the political culture is more conducive to libertarian and conservative thought, the philanthropic culture much stronger, and the sheer size of the country means that there is a much larger pool of talent to draw from. While people who believe in the primacy of individual liberty are dismissed in Australia as either corrupt or insane, in the US they are better integrated into the political culture, if not entirely part of the mainstream.

However, the main reason I attended was to accept the Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award for Best Magazine on behalf of the IPA Review.

This award would not have been possible without the many contributors, supporters and, indeed, readers who have been involved with the IPA Review for its 61 years of continuous publication. Very shortly we will be providing the entire IPA Review archive online for free - the magazine has been a central part of Australia’s postwar political culture and we firmly believe that this invaluable resource should be easily available to researchers and students.

Don’t forget to subscribe to the IPA Review today!