Bob Howard, “Up the Workers!: they stood for legalised drugs, no taxation, abolition of government welfare and free education … but somehow the libertarians lost their head,” Australian Playboy, May 1979, pp. 105-10. Table of Contents»

1. Party Conception: The Bob Howard-John Singleton Meeting

I walked in to see John Singleton for the first time in mid 1974 feeling a bit like a dog that had finally caught one. I was there, but had no idea what I was going to say.

At that time I was editor of a small newsletter called Free Enterprise, which some friends and I published. We had no money and no prospects but were fired with ideological fervour, and as one of our faintly desperate activities we used to try to contact public figures who had made statements we agreed with. We were looking for the big break, I suppose, hoping to find some sympathetic millionaire who would give us the resources we needed to spread the message.

With dogged persistence, but little real hope, we contacted John Singleton. He had stirred up a great deal of controversy during the 1974 Federal election with his Liberal TV commercials. We figured that he might be on our side.

The zippy Sydney headquarters of his advertising firm, Doyle Dane Bernbach, contained a very different world from the one I was working in at staid old CSR. I felt a little odd standing in the velvet-lined boardroom wearing my dark grey pinstripe and clutching my ideology. And the man himself … young, blond and suntanned.

“G’day, buddy! C’mon in.” Not quite the smooth advertising executive I had expected.

We talked about the newsletter and what we believed in and were trying to achieve. We had a few beers, and I know John wasn’t really interested in doing anything to help us. But that didn’t matter, because he had a better idea. Fresh as he was from the demoralising experience of trying to get the Liberal Party to say something specific, and from the impossible task of trying to make Bill Snedden sound genuine, John believed that Australia needed a new political party — one that really promoted all the things the Liberals were supposed to stand for.

2. Party Platform

John asked me to get my friends together to draft a party platform — and gave us three weeks to do it. Some task for a bunch of amateur political philosophers who knew nothing about the specifics of politics or political parties. I don’t think any of us had even read a party platform.

Still, we were determined to get the party off the ground. Using the credo of a US libertarian group, economist Mark Tier, architect Patrick Brookes, solicitor Ramon Barros and I wrote out our draft. In it we spelled out our blueprint for a free society. It was an extremely radical philosophy with, from a political viewpoint, some unfortunate implications. But we were an ideological group, not a political group, and so we didn’t baulk at going where our philosophy took us. We believed it then and, even after all that has happened, we believe in it now.

Libertarianism — which permits ultimate freedom of thought and action — is by no means new. Its adherents include such historical figures as Lord Acton, Herbert Spencer, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine. Much of the modern resurgence of interest in the philosophy is due to Ayn Rand, unpopularised in Australia by Malcolm Fraser’s supposed admiration of her. Our group grew out of, and fortunately beyond, an Ayn Rand discussion group.

Our central principle was that no person or group of persons (including governments) had the right to initiate the use of force, fraud or coercion against any other person or group. As far as we were concerned, if you left other people alone you could do what you liked. This meant that we opposed such action as theft, murder, rape, fraud, assault and trespass. It also meant that we considered taxation theft, and therefore all things financed by taxation immoral — including government welfare and education. We opposed all government economic regulation, and wanted to abolish coercive monopolies such as the Mint, Australia Post, Telecom and the railways.

We aimed to legalise all prohibited drugs and allow open immigration, permit gambling and all forms of voluntary sexual behaviour, including prostitution and homosexuality. We proposed to abolish compulsory education, voting, and all types of voluntary commitment.

We stood for absolute economic freedom (a simple expression of individual freedom that, miraculously, is not recognised by the left) and absolute social freedom. We saw our major enemy, the chief initiator of force, fraud and coercion, and the cause of most of our economic and social problems, as the State.

Governments, we believed, were to blame for our problems, and did little to solve them. Inflation, for example, is a direct result of government fiscal irresponsibility — printing money to buy favours and gain political power. Unemployment is a direct result of artificially high wage levels that result from wage legislation, the government-created Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and the trade unions.

In its turn, trade union power is able to bring this country to its knees only because the unions have been made strong by government-granted privilege and government neglect. Successive governments have exempted unions from, for example, the Law of Torts and Damages — you can’t sue unions for damages or losses caused by industrial strikes — and have failed to protect the rights to freedom and property of business owners, consumers and workers.

And it’s all such a con. Union leaders use there members as cannon fodder in a much larger game; they need high unemployment and bankrupt businesses. They need an economic crisis, because it is out of that crisis that they hope to construct their supposedly benevolent socialist or communist dictatorship. In our platform we supported the right of people to join or not join a union, and to withhold their labour if they wished. But we also opposed the distribution of government privilege — to unions, businesses, countries or people. And we would certainly have abolished the Arbitration Commission and the entire vicious paraphernalia of government wage-fixing legislation.

While government interference continues, many of our problems are insoluble. Take the Queensland controversy over street marches. Streets are public property, so theoretically “the people” have the right to use them for marches. But equally, “the people” have the right to keep them free of marches. This is the eternal dilemma with public property. You can only please some of the people; the rest will be justifiably dissatisfied.

Our solution? Abolish public property — sell the streets! The issue could then be decided very easily by the street owner. As with every business, he or she would decide, on the basis of economic democracy, what was best in terms of dollars and cents. The supreme virtue of such a solution is that it provides a clear-cut means of resolving disputes. It is also flexible and responsive to public needs. Businesses prosper by providing what the public wants (in a free market, that is; not in a rigged market as we have now, where businesses often survive on government privilege), so the consumer would, in the end, dictate the terms.

The same applies to public utilities like Telecom and Australia Post, which regularly slash services and hike prices. No private business could afford to be so insensitive to consumer demand.

All these things are so very, very obvious. All it requires to see them is to break out of our knee-jerk mental attitudes — our habit of reacting to every problem with the attitude of “more control is required”, and “the government orta do something”. Governments will never solve all these problems because, more than anything else, they cause them.

There are some very unpopular political positions in such a philosophy. But our attitude was that if our fundamental principle was correct, and if all these positions followed logically from it, then we had no option but to stand behind them. So we did, and in doing so we made the new party an ideological party, a party dedicated to principle rather than popularity. John Singleton raised an eyebrow at some of the points in our draft: “Oooooh, mate,” he’d groan on reading a more contentious bit, “do we really have to say that?” But, to his credit, he did accept it.

When it was finished, we drew up a constitution, chose a party name and decided on a launch date — and in all these decisions we made mistakes.

3. Party Constitution

John suggested that we limit the constitution to one page. He wanted a simple document that would give the “points of order” merchants very little to play with. But we also wanted it to be strict, for two reasons. First, there was always the possibility of an external takeover, particularly in the early days. We didn’t want to start the party only to see it pass into the hands of some organised group of political opportunists. Second, knowing how unpopular certain sections would be, we wanted to minimise the chance of our philosophy being watered down for the sake of political expediency.

4. Party Name

The party name was a very contentious issue. We spent more time arguing about that than anything. “Why did you call it the Workers Party?” was the common lament. We initially decided to call ourselves the Independence Party, but at the last minute we realised it was too bland. We wanted a title with punch, and didn’t mind it being controversial. It was speculation about the name in The Australian that caused us to rethink. The Workers Party, too, had already been considered and rejected, but finally we went back to it. It was punchy, we knew it would be controversial and, importantly, it was appropriate — we did stand for people who worked. We didn’t believe in egalitarianism. We believed in reward for effort.

I think the name could have worked for us if the party hadn’t acquired its unfortunate image. The Lang Hancock-John Singleton-Max Newton-Sinclair Hill connotation of money, business and Rolls-Royces didn’t quite fit the traditional image of the name — even though all those people have worked much harder than most for what they’ve got. But in politics it’s not what you are that counts, but what you are seen to be, and our name came to be seen as a typical advertising-style try-on. We ended up caught in a double bind. One large group hated us and the name because it was, in their eyes, a fraud — we stood for big business and the rich, not the workers. Another large group wouldn’t have anything to do with us because, well, you couldn’t tell your friends in Toorak or Vaucluse that you belonged to the Workers Party, could you?

If I could go back now, I would choose the name that most closely represents our ideology: the Libertarian Party. But perhaps it’s as well that we didn’t use that name; it remains untarnished for the future.

5. Party Launch Date

The third mistake we made was over the launch date — Australia Day, 1975. It was much too soon. But that was symptomatic of a much more fundamental problem that goes right to the heart of the question of why the party failed.

6. Ideological Party Different to Populist Party

I have stressed the fact that we were an ideological party, and I’ve done that simply because ideological parties are very different from other political parties. The conventional parties are concerned primarily about popularity. Principles are used only when it is considered safe, and especially when it’s convenient. Rather than use them to derive hard-line political positions, these parties either reject them, or at best temper them by reference to their ultimate gods — the opinion polls. If a particular policy is unpopular, then they fall over themselves to show how they support it. If it’s unpopular, then, regardless of what they have previously said on the matter, they instantly seethe with righteous indignation and angrily denounce it. If it’s very, very unpopular, they may even feel safe to moralise about it. Occasionally they make a mistake and back a loser, and then we are treated to the pathetic spectacle of their mental gymnastics as they struggle to change positions.

Orwellian “newspeak” and lovely memory holes reign supreme. “Politics is the art of the possible”, they say. And then, with due reverence: “You can’t do anything unless you are in power.” To that end, politicians willingly pervert our language and develop amazingly selective memories. Unfortunately, by the time they get into power, they’re so compromised that they find it almost impossible to do the things they supposedly want to do. As American newspaperman H.L. Mencken once put it: “Elections are advance auction sales of stolen goods”, and governments merely “brokers in pillage”. Control of government for them is control of the political means of gaining wealth — the vast machinery of privilege distribution. It’s an unholy alliance of power brokers and privilege seekers conspiring to rip off the unfortunate taxpayer.

Given the system of government that we have, this cannot be avoided. Democracy is inherently immoral. It’s a numbers game where at best a majority — and frequently a minority — can do what it likes.

But might does not make right; that’s the philosophy of the lynch mob. The original concept of democratic government was that it be severely limited in what it could do — limited by constitution. This meant that the will of the majority (theoretically), via the government, could apply to certain things, but that there was a whole range of citizens’ activities beyond the reach of government. Some of these were detailed in the American Bill of Rights, for example.

But this idea has long since been corrupted and perverted. The US Constitution specifically forbids involuntary servitude, yet for years America had the Draft. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, yet in the US there are numerous examples of censorship. Our own Constitution stipulates that trade between States be free. Yet, in the recent case over wheat, a majority of our High Court managed to talk itself into believing that regulated trade is somehow still free trade.

Our system of government is not democratic in the original sense. Rather, what we have is an abuse of democracy — democracy gone wild. Government can interfere with, and regulate, any and every part of our lives. They can seize our children, our property, ourselves — at will. They have done so in the past, and will do so until we wake up and stop it. It doesn’t matter which political party is in power. From Liberal/NCP to Labor to the Democrats — they all accept the basic rules of the game. They do the same things to get power, and operate the same way once they’re there. All they disagree about is who gets what.

Of all the major parties, Labor is the most honest, and the closest to have real principles. But even there, the indications are that the future of the Labor Party will lie along the same shameful lines as the Liberal/NC parties. It was ironic to watch the post-’77 election debate in Labor circles over the issue of radicalism versus gradualism. Unfortunately the outcome was never in doubt. Power is the name of the game, and for that reason people like Tom Uren, Jim Cairns and Bill Hartley will never oust the Neville Wrans and the Don Dunstans. More than any other person, I think Neville Wran embodies the future of the Labor Party, a political force less and less distinguishable from the Liberals.

The Liberal/NC parties are no more than very sad and sick joke. They typify what Alexander Solzhenitsyn saw so clearly — the lack of moral courage that is destroying the West. Not only have these parties disgraced their Liberal ideals, they have even managed to go a long way towards destroying those ideals as ideals for most Australians.

The Democrats, of course, embody perfectly the democratic disease. They accept the principles of democracy so completely that they even decide what they believe by popular vote — a totally disastrous course of action. The Democrats’ idea of a third party representing “middle Australia” is somehow or other to position themselves between Labor and the Liberal/NC parties. In other words, they seek to outcompromise the lot of them. Reluctant or weak-willed compromise in the face of political pressure is bad enough, but embracing compromise as a positive virtue, as the Democrats have done, must surely be the ultimate indication of intellectual bankruptcy.

We entirely rejected the ideas and methods of these parties. What we offered in our platform was a radical alternative view of the way in which government should operate. To misquote Frank Chodorov: “The only way to get rid of the abuse of government power is to get rid of that power.” That was our credo.

As an ideological party we functioned differently from the major parties. Rather than take our political positions from opinion polls, we took them from our basic philosophy. We stood for what we thought was right, rather than what we thought was popular. So, whereas other parties change their beliefs to suit public opinion, as an ideological party we sought to change public opinion to suit our beliefs.

But of all the mistakes we made, the grand-daddy of them all was failing to realise what this implied. While we were very definite about not compromising our principles, we made the mistake of trying in every other way to operate like a normal party. We accepted without question that the goal of our activity was to get people elected, and that the name of the game was to get money, to get members and to contest elections. We should have known that was suicidal.

With a philosophy as radical and as far outside the mainstream as ours, the maximum potential thinking vote for us was five percent nationally. The only way we could have increased that figure would have been by the virtual con-trick of hiding the more unpleasant aspects of our philosophy and selling only the popular surface aspects. Who, for example, isn’t in favour of lower taxation? But who is in favour of an open go in heroin traffic? We stood for both but pushed only one, and there are no prizes for guessing which.

By accepting normal political goals, we committed ourselves to a certain course of action. We rushed into launching the party without proper preparation, on the implicit assumption that it was just another job of selling a product to the masses. So we held meetings, ran advertisements, sought media and press exposure and tried to talk everyone we saw, from best friends to taxi drivers, into joining the party.

7. The National Board

A national organisation of sorts evolved. The party was run by a board of government directors, made up of John Singleton (chairman), Adelaide doctor John Whiting (president), ex-secretary of the militant General Practitioners’ Society Dr Duncan Yuille (secretary), and me.

They were heady days, and for a while we did okay. Our membership grew, we quickly established ourselves in most States, and we even polled well in our first elections. In fact, in our very first electoral test, the Greenough by-election in Western Australia, we came within about 50 votes of beating the Labor Party.

8. Again: Ideological Party Different to Populist Party

But the mix was wrong. Ideological parties cannot survive by imitating the methods of normal political parties. We just didn’t realise the true nature of the problem we were up against. We should have realised it was hopeless to try to mass market the party.

Conventional political parties when they begin have a very limited time in which to succeed. They have to score at elections because that’s all they exist for. If they haven’t done that within five, or at the most, 10, years, they’ve had it. But ideological parties, facing as they are the huge task of bringing about massive and fundamental changes in public opinion, need to think in terms of 20 and 30 years. Possibly the best example of the methods and dedication such parties need is to be found in the career of Lenin and his Bolsheviks in Russia.

Lenin realised the crucial importance of a strong party structure, of a dedicated cadre of committed and educated party members, and of an effective party newspaper. No party can survive for 20 or 30 years without these things. Needless to say, we had none of them.

9. John Singleton and John Whiting

There was a prejudice in our party against organisation. This was partly an understandable reaction against bureaucratic procedures and structures, but it should not have blinded us to the importance of building, in a systematic and deliberate way, a party structure. If necessary, we should have forgotten about elections for a while and simply concentrated on building that structure. However, the temperament and style of John Singleton was not suited to that, and the rest of us, in our ignorance, were not able to advise him to use his talents in the way they should have been used, while we got on with the job of building the party. Instead, everyone was sucked into the mad chase for popular support. Binding John in the same way we did to our cause was like hitching a champion race-horse to a milk-cart.

Singleton is a brilliant seat-of-the-pants man, not a slow, methodical planner-builder. He never pretended to be an intellectual and did not want to be the party’s figurehead. He thought he was wrong for that, and so we elected John Whiting president instead. But Whiting’s isolation in Adelaide, coupled with the fact that the media made their own choice about who they preferred to talk to, more or less pushed Singleton into becoming their major spokesman.

But good though Singleton was, he couldn’t succeed, because of the fundamental mistake we had made in operating as a normal party. By trying to mass-market our philosophy we misrepresented ourselves, misused the resources we had and made it impossible to get those we needed to survive. This happened because the only way we could make our presence felt was to simplify vastly our philosophy and concentrate on the most popular parts of it. This led to an undue emphasis on economic issues, with tragic consequences.

More than anything else, we became firmly identified as a big business party. We were seen to stand for conservatism and for money interests by promoting free enterprise and being associated with people like Lang Hancock, Sinclair Hill and Max Newton. And how ironic that was, because real free enterprise of the sort we wanted is the very last thing the big boys of the Establishment corporations want. They prefer the closeted world of the mixed economy, where their friends in government can protect them from the rigours of the market.

10. Lang Hancock

Contrary to popular opinion, we were not funded by Lang Hancock. He disagreed with many aspects of our platform and correctly predicted that we wouldn’t succeed. He wished us well, and appeared at functions on our behalf, but he believed that it would be detrimental to whatever slim chance we had for us to be too closely associated with him. In his own words, he would simply be “lead in the saddle” — something that concerned him more than it did us. Lang Hancock is a fighter, with enormous moral courage, and there is every indication that his message is beginning to get through to people. I only wish he didn’t suffer from the traditional conservative errors of underestimating the importance of civil liberties, overestimating the importance of defence and not understanding the motivation of the environmentalist-natural living-alternative lifestyle movement.

It’s an unfortunate blindness that seriously undermines his credibility with the most important section of the political community — young people.

Unfortunately, as he feared, his conservative image did rub off on us. We helped this along by another error — beating the anti-communist drum with a series of public meetings featuring Max Newton.

11. Max Newton

Newton always struck me as a formidable man. He reminded me of Rex Connor in many ways, though he was at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. I really don’t know how much of our philosophy Max accepted. There must have been enough in it that was important to him, but again, in our ignorance, we didn’t make use of his talents to best advantage. Anti-communism is a dead issue at best, and as far as young people are concerned it’s just about a total turn-off — not because young people are pro-communist, but because they are understandably quite cynical about it’s use as a political issue. It was a double mistake on our part, because emphasis on it leads to a misrepresentation of international politics. A good case can be made out for accepting Britain and the US as the two most imperialistic powers of this century; to see the USSR as the big bogey is to do little more than to repeat the propaganda that we’ve been fed in comic books and history books for the past 30 years.

12. Sinclair Hill

If our association with Lang Hancock and Max Newton helped us to be indelibly associated in the public mind with conservatism, then the NSW Senate campaign featuring Sinclair Hill brought the money image to the fore again. It wasn’t fair, but then I guess such things seldom are. Hill ran because he believed in what we stood for. Like Singleton, Hancock and Newton, he is a boots-and-all, blood-and-guts type of man. He didn’t profess to be an intellectual, but he had sound commonsense and the courage to stand up and be counted. But his campaign was doomed from the start. You can’t mass-market ideology, no matter how much you simplify it.

13. And Again: Ideological Party Different to Populist Party

And because we simplified our message, much of our support was shallow. Many of the people who gave us that support didn’t know much about what we stood for, and probably wouldn’t have agreed with it anyway. All they know was that we espoused some vague notion they believed to be free enterprise, but they would never have carried it as far as eliminating all government economic regulations and all government statutory bodies.

This attitude wasn’t confined to those people who voted for us, either. Too many of our members shared it. Because of our unfortunate image as a conservative, business party, we attracted a certain type of membership. If we had been seen as a radical, libertarian party, it could have been a different story.

This difference was crucial in many respects. Most important was the members’ attitude to party success, which came to be seen in terms of electoral results. We had to do well in elections or else. In their eyes, we had failed in our task.

So when we failed to get anyone elected in 1975, and worse, when Fraser was elected, this support quickly disappeared. And when that happened, the party died.

14. Failed to Attract Young Idealists

The sort of support that we needed, the sort of members who would have been prepared to work unflaggingly for our ideals without the prospect of immediate success, were the idealists in the community — in particular, young idealists. These people are motivated primarily by their beliefs, and don’t need the constant stimulus of electoral success to keep them going.

Unfortunately, because of the way we marketed ourselves, because of the unfortunate image we acquired, we alienated most of these people. There was no way, for example, that we could have gained a foothold on the university campuses. There we were not only seen as the lackeys of big business, but, far worse, we were labelled fascists. In the light of the philosophy we stood for this was a ludicrous claim, but in retrospect I can see why we were seen in such a negative way. It was because we were seen as conservatives. The conservatives’ psychology makes them intolerant of civil liberties, and leads them to repress activities that in any way smack of permissiveness, of sensuality, of a lack of control. Thus they value highly law and order. Almost in spite of themselves, this leads them to attempt to stamp out these very human activities, because that is impossible, finally to champion a fascist police state. This is why Joh Bjelke-Petersen is branded a fascist, and why Queensland is seen as a wowser police State.

The stupidity of the situation was that we in the Workers Party and the people in the universities had so much in common. Our goals — peace, freedom, a decent, human world — were similar, even though our proposed means were different. More than any others, those were the people whose support we needed for our long-term survival and ultimate success.

15. The Main Lessons: Think Longer Term — 20-30 Years; Kick, Prod, Provoke; Don’t Compromise, Water Down or Dress Up

All this need not have happened had we realised the simple fact that we were an ideological party and acted accordingly. If we had thought in terms of 20 or 30 years for ultimate success, if we had realised that our primary strategy was to work on public opinion to create a market for our ideas, then we might have used tactics appropriate to the task.

We shouldn’t have worried about being popular or practical or realistic. We should have been proud of being political ratbags. You can’t change public opinion by telling people what they already agree with. Instead of moving towards the people by watering our message down or dressing it up, we should have kicked, prodded and provoked people into examining their prejudices and assumptions and, by so doing, moved them towards us.

As the radical left has done successfully for the past 30 years at least, as well as Aborigines, gays, women and ecological groups, we should have recognised that the slow process of change is best accomplished through uncompromising, radical shit-stirring.

If we had adopted this tactic, we would have been able to remain true to ourselves. We would have developed a far stronger party, made up predominantly of committed young idealists, and we could have built a public image that more truly reflected the nature of our philosophy. And whereas John Singleton was misused as a leader of an ideological party operating in a conventional political manner, he could have been a shit-stirrer par excellence.

As it was, we survived through 1975 in pretty good shape. Ironically, we owed that more than anything else to Gough Whitlam and the fear that his Labor government was creating in the community.

When Fraser was elected to power in December, 1975, the Workers Party went into swift decline.

Many of our best people were burnt out by the ferocious effort they had put into the election, and while the results were okay (about 175,000 votes nationally), they weren’t spectacular.

But more than anything else, it was the great contradiction of being an ideological party, but operating as a normal party, that killed us. When a party ends up being so misunderstood that it is supported by people who should rightly be its enemies and hated by those who should be its friends, then there is no way it can possibly work.

And it’s all such a terrible shame because, more than ever, I think the ideas of the Workers Party are not only the most important, the most radical and the most integrated ideas ever presented by an Australian political party, they are also the ideas that must be implemented if we are ever to solve our pressing social, economic and political problems. But then, I guess there’s always next time.

(in order of appearance on
  1. Governments Consume Wealth — They Don't Create It
  2. Singo and Howard Propose Privatising Bondi Beach
  3. Singo and Howard Speak Out Against the Crackpot Realism of the CIS and IPA
  4. Singo and Howard on Compromise
  5. Singo and Howard on Monopolies
  6. Singo and Howard Support Sydney Harbour Bridge Restructure
  7. Singo and Howard on Striking at the Root, and the Failure of Howard, the CIS and the IPA
  8. Singo and Howard Explain Why Australia is Not a Capitalist Country
  9. Singo and Howard Call Democracy Tyrannical
  10. Singo and Howard on Drugs!
  11. Simpleton sells his poll philosophy
  12. Singo and Howard Decry Australia Day
  13. Singo and Howard Endorse the Workers Party
  14. Singo and Howard Oppose the Liberal Party
  15. Singo and Howard Admit that Liberals Advocate and Commit Crime
  16. Up the Workers! Bob Howard's 1979 Workers Party Reflection in Playboy
  17. John Whiting's Inaugural Workers Party Presidential Address
  18. John Singleton and Bob Howard 1975 Monday Conference TV Interview on the Workers Party
  19. Singo and Howard on Aborigines
  20. Singo and Howard on Conservatism
  21. Singo and Howard on the Labor Party
  22. Singo, Howard and Hancock Want to Secede
  23. John Singleton changes his name
  24. Lang Hancock's Foreword to Rip Van Australia
  25. New party will not tolerate bludgers: Radical party against welfare state
  26. Singo and Howard introduce Rip Van Australia
  27. Singo and Howard on Knee-Jerks
  28. Singo and Howard on Tax Hunts (Lobbying)
  29. Singo and Howard on Rights
  30. Singo and Howard on Crime
  31. Singo and Howard on Justice
  32. Singo and Howard on Unemployment
  33. John Singleton on 1972 cigarette legislation
  34. Singo and Howard: Gambling Should Neither Be Illegal Nor Taxed
  35. Holed up, hold-up and holdout
  36. The libertarian alternative vs the socialist status quo
  37. Workers Party Platform
  38. Singo and Howard Join Forces to Dismantle Welfare State
  39. Singo and Howard on Business
  40. Singo and Howard on Discrimination
  41. Singo and Howard on the Greens
  42. Singo and Howard on Xenophobia
  43. Singo and Howard on Murdoch, Packer and Monopolistic Media
  44. Singo and Howard Explain that Pure Capitalism Solves Pollution
  45. Singo and Howard Defend Miners Against Government
  46. Singo and Howard on Bureaucracy
  47. Singo and Howard on Corporate Capitalism
  48. The last words of Charles Russell
  49. Ted Noffs' Preface to Rip Van Australia
  50. Right-wing anarchists revamping libertarian ideology
  51. Giving a chukka to the Workers Party
  52. Govt "villain" in eyes of new party
  53. "A beautiful time to be starting a new party": Rand fans believe in every man for himself
  54. Introducing the new Workers' Party
  55. Paul Rackemann 1980 Progress Party Election Speech
  56. Lang Hancock 1978 George Negus Interview
  57. Voices of frustration
  58. Policies of Workers Party
  59. Party Promises to Abolish Tax
  60. AAA Tow Truck Co.
  61. Singo and Howard on Context
  62. Singo and Howard Blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbour
  63. Singo and Howard on Apathy
  64. Workers Party is "not just a funny flash in the pan"
  65. Singo and Howard on Decency
  66. John Singleton in 1971 on the 2010 Federal Election
  67. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John Pty. Ltd. Advertising Agents
  68. Viv Forbes Wins 1986 Adam Smith Award
  69. The writing of the Workers Party platform and the differences between the 1975 Australian and American libertarian movements
  70. Who's Who in the Workers Party
  71. Bob Howard interviewed by Merilyn Giesekam on the Workers Party
  72. A Farewell to Armchair Critics
  73. Sukrit Sabhlok interviews Mark Tier
  74. David Russell Leads 1975 Workers Party Queensland Senate Team
  75. David Russell Workers Party Policy Speech on Brisbane TV
  76. Bludgers need not apply
  77. New party formed "to slash controls"
  78. The Workers Party
  79. Malcolm Turnbull says "the Workers party is a force to be reckoned with"
  80. The great consumer protection trick
  81. The "Workers" speak out
  82. How the whores pretend to be nuns
  83. The Workers Party is a Political Party
  84. Shit State Subsidised Socialist Schooling Should Cease Says Singo
  85. My Journey to Anarchy:
    From political and economic agnostic to anarchocapitalist
  86. Workers Party Reunion Intro
  87. Singo and Howard on Freedom from Government and Other Criminals
  88. Singo and Howard on Young People
  89. Singo and Howard Expose how Government Healthcare Controls Legislate Doctors into Slavery
  90. Singo and Howard Engage with Homosexuality
  91. Singo and Howard Demand Repeal of Libel and Slander Laws
  92. Singo and Howard on Consumer Protection
  93. Singo and Howard on Consistency
  94. Workers Party is born as foe of government
  95. Political branch formed
  96. Government seen by new party as evil
  97. Singo and Howard on Non-Interference
  98. Singo and Howard on Women's Lib
  99. Singo and Howard on Licences
  100. Singo and Howard on Gun Control
  101. Singo and Howard on Human Nature
  102. Singo and Howard on Voting
  103. Singo and Howard on
    Inherited Wealth
  104. Singo and Howard on Education
  105. Singo and Howard on Qualifications
  106. Ron Manners on the Workers Party
  107. Singo and Howard Hate Politicians
  108. Undeserved handouts make Australia the lucky country
  109. A happy story about Aborigines
  110. John Singleton on Political Advertising
  111. Richard Hall, Mike Stanton and Judith James on the Workers Party
  112. Singo Incites Civil Disobedience
  113. How John Singleton Would Make Tony Abbott Prime Minister
  114. The Discipline of Necessity
  115. John Singleton on the first election the Workers Party contested
  116. Libertarians: Radicals on the right
  117. The Bulletin on Maxwell Newton as Workers Party national spokesman on economics and politics
  118. Singo and Howard: Australia Should Pull Out of the Olympics
  119. Singo and Howard Like Foreign Investment
  120. Mark Tier corrects Nation Review on the Workers Party
  121. The impossible dream
  122. Why can't I get away with it?
  123. The bold and boring Lib/Lab shuffle
  124. Time for progress
  125. The loonie right implodes
  126. Max Newton: Maverick in Exile
  127. John Singleton on refusing to do business with criminals and economic illiterates
  128. Censorship should be banned
  129. "Listen, mate, a socialist is a bum"
  130. John Singleton on Advertising
  131. John Singleton on why he did the Hawke re-election campaign
  132. Sinclair Hill calls for dropping a neutron bomb on Canberra
  133. Bob Howard in Reason 1974-77
  134. John Singleton defends ockerism
  135. Singo and Howard talk Civil Disobedience
  136. The Census Con
  137. Singo and Howard Oppose Australian Participation in the Vietnam War
  138. Did John Singleton oppose the mining industry and privatising healthcare in 1990?
  139. Bob Carr in 1981 on John Singleton's political bent
  140. John Singleton-Ita Buttrose interview (1977)
  141. John Singleton on elections: "a Massive One-Day Sale!"
  142. John Hyde's Progress Party praise
  143. King Leonard of Hutt River Declares Defensive Just War Against Australia the Aggressor
  144. Singo says Lang Hancock violated Australia's 11th commandment: Thou Shalt Not Succeed
  145. Singleton: the White Knight of Ockerdom
  146. John Singleton bites into Sinclair Hill's beef
  147. Save Parramatta Road
  148. 1979 news item on new TV show John Singleton With a Lot of Help From His Friends
  149. Smoking, Health and Freedom
  150. Singo and Howard on Unions
  151. Singo and Howard Smash the State
  152. Singo and Howard on the big issue of Daylight Saving
  153. Come back Bob - It was all in fun!
  154. A few "chukkas" in the Senate for polo ace?
  155. Country Rejuvenation - Towards a Better Future
  156. Singo and Howard on Profits, Super Profits and Natural Disasters
  157. John Singleton's 1977 pitch that he be on a committee of one to run the Sydney 1988 Olympics for profit
  158. Thoughts on Land Ownership
  159. 1975 Max Newton-Ash Long interview on the Workers Party
  160. The Electoral Act should allow voters to choose "none of the above"
  161. The great Labor Party platform: first or last, everybody wins a prize
  162. The politics of marketing - laugh now, pay later
  163. Singo and Howard call Australia fascist and worse
  164. The mouse will roar
  165. Viv Forbes and Jim Fryar vs Malcolm Fraser in 1979
  166. Quip, Quote, Rant and Rave: four of Viv Forbes' letters to the editor in The Australian in 1979
  167. Australia's First Official Political Party Poet Laureate: The Progress Party's Ken Hood in 1979
  168. Hancock's playing very hard to get
  169. Harry M. Miller and The Australian disgrace themselves
  170. Ocker ad genius takes punt on art
  171. John Singleton 1976 ocker Monday Conference Max Harris debate
  172. John Singleton mocks university students on civil liberties and freedom of choice in 1971
  173. Murray Rothbard championed on Australian television in 1974 (pre-Workers Party!) by Maureen Nathan
  174. John Singleton profile in 1977 Australian MEN Vogue
  175. I think that I shall never see a telegraph pole as lovely as a tree
  176. Ralph Nader vs John Singleton on Consumer Protection
  177. John Singleton's first two "Think" columns in Newspaper News, 1969
  178. Singo and Howard on Ballet
  179. Product innovation comes first
  180. Protect who from a 'mindless' wife?
  181. A party is born
  182. Tiny Workers' Party gives us a hint
  183. John Singleton on the ad industry, consumerism and innovation
  184. Workers Party Economic Policy Statement, December 1975
  185. Lang Hancock on the Workers Party, secession and States Rights
  186. John Singleton and Howard on Government Largesse
  187. Counterculture must exclude government handouts
  188. John Singleton's 1974 Federal Liberal Election Campaign Ads
  189. John Singleton believes in the Workers Party
  190. Write-up of John Singleton's 1978 speech to the Australian Liberal Students Association
  191. Singo in 1987: "Joh doesn't go far enough ... I want absolute deregulation of the economy"
  192. Maxwell Newton chapter of Clyde Packer's No Return Ticket (1984)
  193. Singo and Howard on Totalitarian Socialism and Voluntary Socialism
  194. Rip Van Australia on Ripoff Vandals Taxing Australia
  195. Singo and Howard beg for tolerance
  196. John Singleton's 1985 advertising comeback
  197. Singo and Howard Demand End to Public Transport
  198. John Singleton and Howard on Fred Nile, Festival of Light, FamilyVoice Australia and the Christian Lobby
  199. Capitalism: Survival of the Fittest
  200. Return Australia Post to Sender
  201. Singo and Howard on Public Utilities
  202. John Singleton and Howard say monarchy should be funded by monarchists alone
  203. John Singleton on cigarette advertising
  204. Singo in 1972 on newspapers' demise
  205. John Singleton farewells Bryce Courtenay
  206. John Singleton on Australian political advertising in 1972
  207. Gortlam rides again
  208. Announcement that Lang Hancock will be guest of honour at the Workers Party launch
  209. John Singleton on trading stamps, idiot housewives and government
  210. 1975 John Singleton-Sir Robert Askin Quadrant Interview
  211. Singo asks two prickly questions
  213. Why John Singleton can't keep a straight face
  214. Why John Singleton Defends Smokers Rights
  215. Tony Dear on Paul Krutulis, the Workers Party and murder
  216. An Ode to Busybodies
  217. Progress Party and Workers Party lead The Australian
  218. How many tits in a tangle?
  219. Viv Forbes in 1978 on loss-making government, the Berlin Wall and misdirected blasts of hot-air
  220. John Singleton wants the Post Office sold and anti-discrimination legislation scrapped
  221. A speech from the Titanic
  222. A crime must have a victim
  223. John Singleton vs Australia Post
  224. Minimum wages the killer
  225. Has Fraser got his priorities all wrong?
  226. John Singleton says "the royal family should be flogged off to the U.S."
  227. John Singleton vs Don Chipp and the Australian Democrats
  228. John Singleton vs Don Lane
  229. John Singleton. Horseracing. Why?
  230. John Singleton's 1986 reflection on the Workers Party
  231. Bob Howard in 1978 on libertarianism in Australia
  232. John Singleton on the stupidity of anti-discrimination laws
  233. Thou shalt know the facts ... before thou shoot off thou mouth
  234. Charity: An Aesop Fable
  235. Bob Howard announces the Workers Party in freeEnterprise
  236. New improved moon
  237. Announcing people ... YES, people!
  238. Creativity in advertising must be pointed dead on target
  239. John Singleton on barriers to, and opportunities for, effective communication
  240. Wayne Garland on John Singleton on Advertising
  241. John Singleton schools ad course
  242. John Singleton: advertising awards
  243. Mr Singleton Goes to Canberra for Australian Playboy
  244. John Singleton on his TV career for Australian Playboy
  245. John Singleton sacked for telling the truth about Medicare
Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
(in order of appearance on
  1. Ron Manners’ Heroic Misadventures
  2. Hancock's Australia
  3. Hancock on Government Help
  4. Wake Up Australia: Excerpts Part 1
  5. Wake Up Australia: Excerpts Part 2
  6. Lang Hancock's Five Point Plan to Cripple Australia
  7. Governments Consume Wealth — They Don't Create It
  8. Up the Workers! Bob Howard's 1979 Workers Party Reflection in Playboy
  9. Jump on the Joh bandwagon
  10. John Singleton and Bob Howard 1975 Monday Conference TV Interview on the Workers Party
  11. Governments — like a red rag to a Rogue Bull
  12. Lang Hancock's Pilbara-Queensland Railway Proposal
  13. Singo, Howard and Hancock Want to Secede
  14. Lang Hancock's Foreword to Rip Van Australia
  15. New party will not tolerate bludgers: Radical party against welfare state
  16. Small and Big Business Should Oppose Government, says Lang Hancock
  17. A Condensed Case for Secession
  18. Hancock gets tough over uranium mining
  19. Hancock's threat to secede and faith in Whitlam
  20. PM's sky-high promise to Lang
  21. Lang Hancock: "a catherine-wheel of novel suggestions"
  22. Govt "villain" in eyes of new party
  23. The spread of Canberra-ism
  24. Govt should sell the ABC, says Lang Hancock
  25. 1971 Monday Conference transcript featuring Lang Hancock
  26. Aborigines, Bjelke and the freedom of the press
  27. The code of Lang Hancock
  28. Why not starve the taxation monster?
  29. Lang Hancock 1978 George Negus Interview
  30. Party Promises to Abolish Tax
  31. Right-wing plot
  32. "The best way to help the poor is not to become one of them." - Lang Hancock
  33. WA's NCP commits suicide
  34. "You can't live off a sacred site"
  35. Hancock: King of the Pilbara
  36. Bludgers need not apply
  37. New party formed "to slash controls"
  38. Workers Party Reunion Intro
  39. Workers Party is born as foe of government
  40. Government seen by new party as evil
  41. Ron Manners on Lang Hancock
  42. Does Canberra leave us any alternative to secession?
  43. Bury Hancock Week
  44. Ron Manners on the Workers Party
  45. Lang Hancock on Australia Today
  46. Hancock and Wright
  47. Lang Hancock on Environmentalists
  48. Friends of free enterprise treated to financial tete-a-tete: Lang does the talking but Gina pulls the strings
  49. Lang Hancock, Stump Jumper
  50. Lang Hancock: giant of the western iron age
  51. The Treasury needs a hatchet man
  52. We Mine to Live
  53. Get the "econuts" off our backs
  54. 1971 Lang Hancock-Jonathan Aitken interview for Land of Fortune (short)
  55. Gina Rinehart, Secessionist
  56. 1982 NYT Lang Hancock profile
  57. Enter Rio Tinto
  58. Hamersley and Tom Price
  59. News in the West
  60. Positive review of Hancock speech
  61. Lang Hancock International Press Institute General Assembly speech, Canberra, 1978
  62. Australia's slide to socialism
  63. The Great Claim Robbery
  64. Why WA must go it alone
  65. Lang Hancock in 1976 on Public Picnics and Human Blights
  67. Resource Management in Australia: Is it possible?
  68. The gospel of WA secession according to Lang Hancock
  69. Crystal Balls Need Polishing
  70. Minerals - politicians' playthings?
  71. John Singleton-Ita Buttrose interview (1977)
  72. Boston Tea Party 1986 style, hosted by Lang Hancock and Bob Ansett
  73. Singo says Lang Hancock violated Australia's 11th commandment: Thou Shalt Not Succeed
  74. Singleton: the White Knight of Ockerdom
  75. Tactics change by Hancock
  76. Lang Hancock complains to Margaret Thatcher about Malcolm Fraser
  77. 'Phony crisis' seen as 'child of politics'
  78. Lang Hancock on nuclear energy
  79. Lang Hancock beats the left at their own game on civil liberties
  80. Lang Hancock's Favourite Books
  81. 1977 Lang Hancock Canberoo poem
  82. Hancock's playing very hard to get
  83. Hancock proposes a free-trade zone
  84. An Open Letter to Sir Charles Court
  85. John Singleton 1976 ocker Monday Conference Max Harris debate
  86. Lang Hancock in 1984 solves Australian politics
  87. Lang Hancock on the Workers Party, secession and States Rights
  88. Lang Hancock asks what happened to Australia's rugged individualism?
  89. Precis of Ludwig Plan for North-West
  90. Announcement that Lang Hancock will be guest of honour at the Workers Party launch
  91. Lang Hancock's March 1983 attempt to enlist "former presidents of nations and heads of giant companies" to save Australia
  92. Lang Hancock asks us to think how easily environmentalists are manipulated for political purposes
  93. Invest in free enterprise
  94. Democracy is dead in Australia and Lang Hancock's education
  95. Lang Hancock Incites Civil Disobedience
  96. Hancock sounds call to battle Canberra
  97. Mining policy a threat
  98. Over Whitlam's head
  99. Lang Hancock suggests that newspapers don't give space to politicians unconditionally
  100. Lang Hancock on saving Australia from socialism
  101. Secede or sink
  102. Australia can learn from Thatcher
  103. John Singleton. Horseracing. Why?
  104. How Lang Hancock would fix the economy
  105. Lang Hancock: victim of retrospective legislation
  106. Lang Hancock supports Joh for PM
  107. Hancock seeks miners' tax haven in the north
  108. The Ord River Dam
  109. Why Lang Hancock invested in Australia's film industry
  110. Lang Hancock's 1983 letters to The Australian: Lang's precedent for Steve Jobs, renaming the Lucky Country to the Constipated Country, and more
  111. Australia's biggest newspaper insider on manipulating the media
  112. 1980 Lang Hancock-Australian Penthouse Interview
  113. Canberra: bastion of bureaucracy
  114. Pilbara can be the Ruhr for South-East Asia
  115. 1982 Lang Hancock-John Harper Nelson Interview
  116. Australian elections are one of the greatest con games in history
  117. Our leaders are powerless
Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
(in order of appearance on
  1. Advance Australia fascist: The forces that make Australia a fascist country
  2. The Economic Guerrillas: A lecture in honour of Maxwell Newton
  3. Maxwell Newton Audio at
  4. Max Newton on Video at first Mises Institute Conference (1983)
  5. Up the Workers! Bob Howard's 1979 Workers Party Reflection in Playboy
  6. Max Newton stars in Ron Paul video
  7. Bunny of the Welfare State
  8. The Crumbling Oligarchies
  9. Is Australia So Bad That It Can't Get Worse?
  10. Max Newton: Cauldron-Journalist
  11. Max Newton: a muckraker makes good
  12. An open letter to Bob Hawke, B. Litt., Oxon; from Maxwell Newton, B. A., Cantab.: In black and white
  13. Welfare Creates Poverty
  14. Welfare State a National Disgrace
  15. A "spy" replies
  16. Ron Manners on the Workers Party
  17. Josh Frydenberg vs Maxwell Newton on Sir Robert Menzies
  18. The traumatic birth of a daily
  19. The Bulletin on Maxwell Newton as Workers Party national spokesman on economics and politics
  20. Menzies: A Legacy of Lies and Legislation Limiting Liberalism
  21. Max Newton: Maverick in Exile
  22. King Leonard of Hutt River Declares Defensive Just War Against Australia the Aggressor
  23. Crying in the wilderness
  24. State aid and the privileged
  25. Maxwell Newton on Reg Ansett
  26. How to stop Labor running wild
  27. 1975 Max Newton-Ash Long interview on the Workers Party
  28. The Working Journalist in Public Administration
  29. Max Newton: controversy is an asset
  30. Maxwell Newton chapter of Clyde Packer's No Return Ticket (1984)
  31. The "irresponsible" way is the only way
  32. Maxwell Newton on Moral Hazard
  33. Maxwell Newton on Handout America and unbridled Welfare Mania in 1980 New York Post
  34. Tony Dear on Paul Krutulis, the Workers Party and murder
  35. Max Newton on the gold standard
  36. Maxwell Newton on ideas for cutting government waste
  37. Maxwell Newton on Bureaucracy
  38. Maxwell Newton measures bullshit tertiary schooling
  39. Australia's biggest newspaper insider on manipulating the media
  40. Never put your faith in politicians
  41. Profiting from propaganda
Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5