David Biff, “Workers conned again,” Nation Review, January 31-February 6, 1975, p. 421. Mark Tier’s response reproduced below.

This week saw the birth of an organisation which has been advertised and packaged as its very antithesis. It was heralded as a “new political party for the workers”, it purports to be an “intelligent alternative for people who are prepared to work” and appropriately — by its own logic — is called the Workers Party.

But when you read a few lines in the party’s double page advertisement in the National Times this week, you soon realise that this radical sounding party is anything but a party for the workers.

First, it says that all the existing political parties manifest policies which substantially are the same, including the DLPs, and that the common factor is socialism — witness what has been done to “poor old Great Britain”. Next we are assured of the egalitarian nature of the Workers Party and how it represents such varied dichotomies as rich-poor, male-female, black-white, etc, but with the strict proviso that they must all be prepared to work. Here it is that the major theme of the party emerges; it is opposed to bludgers.

Bludging and government, it is implied, are synonymous and of mutual benefit. By taxing the gains of legitimate hard work, the government both acts in a robber capacity and provides additional means for more and better bludgers — that is, public servants. There are very few activities, we are told, which could not be better operated by private enterprise. So the present realm of the government is both wasteful and burdensome on the community, preventing it from becoming “one of the richest and most independent countries in the world”.

The Workers Party is then committed to a classical laissez faire philosophy, with the role of government being reduced to the rudimentary authoritarian measures needed to preserve the self-expression of its citizens, namely defence, police and law courts.

Other than a rehash of most of the more meaningless political clichés devolving from the 19th century, the Workers Party has blundered into some incredible absurdities. Listing other measures expressly mentioned as instruments of governmental repression of individual enterprise, the advertisement cites the Trade Practices act. This statute, with its British and particularly American precursors is, in fact, designed to preserve and maintain competition in the fact of restrictive activities such as price fixing by agreement and monopoly. To cite it as an example of repression, yet elsewhere affirm the right of relationship with others by voluntary agreement, is a mind-boggling contradiction.

Even more deceptive is the invitation to wage and salary earners on the basis certainly not of their individual enterprise and initiative, but because of the non sequitur that they are taxed too highly — a proposal which all parties nowadays basically accept.

The president of the Workers Party is presented as Dr John Whiting, war hero, miscellaneous worker and late starter (Whiting commenced studying medicine in his 30s). To round off the success story, we are informed that his revolutionary proclivities include politicking against the mythical proposed nationalisation of the medical profession.

The advertisement is authorised by Dr D. Yuille, secretary of the General Practitioners Society. If the connection proves to be more than an overlapping of membership, and the Workers Party is only a front for the GP society to electorally oppose the government (with probably an equivalent percentage of votes as the national socialists), then it will be breaching its own assertion that “it has no axe to grind for any pressure group”.

It is doubtful that any workers will be duped into joining the Workers Party, especially since its literature is not free. Information about the party costs $1 to $2 and is available by filling in a cut-out form containing a quasi oath of allegiance to the work ethic.

*****

Mark Tier, “Up the workers,” Nation Review, February 21-27, 1975, p. 486, as a letter to the editor.

It is apparent from your article, “Workers conned again” [reproduced above], that your correspondent has done nothing more than read our advertisement in the National Times. One trusts that your other articles do not have the same lack of depth. As a one-time Nation Review writer myself, I would not have allowed anything so meagre to appear under my name, but suppose you are not paying as much as you used to.

If Mr Biff had done just a little research, he would have been surprised to find that there are many areas in our platform where we would be in total agreement. In fact, in the same issue of Nation Review the last sentence of Mr Teichmann’s article, “School: the drone’s haven,” could almost have come directly from our party platform. It reads: “paying private school fees may soon be the most realistic way of financing the revolution”.

We propose a much more radical deschooling of society than perhaps even Mr Illich ever dreamt of. This is one of the many issues which comes under our policy of free trade. We agree entirely that the present education system is a total mess where teachers are not there to teach and students are there merely to be kept out of the way of their parents. A revolution in education cannot come ’til the present state monopoly is abolished. The only realistic alternative to the present system is a free market. When you look at private industry, which has made great strides in technology, efficiency and innovation and compare that with the education system or the post office, does it really take much to see that the problem is not that people don’t want to innovate in education, but are prevented from doing so because the government prevents a free market to exist in the field of education?

Under the general heading of non-interference comes such policy stances as the abolition of government intervention in all markets including, for example, drugs and prostitution, the abolition of victimless crimes such as laws against homosexuality, sexual activity of any kind, pornography, and censorship in general including the archaic libel laws.

You might also find our position on pollution is somewhat stronger and more consistent than anything that has ever been dreamed up by a Nation Review writer. We define pollution as “the transfer of matter or energy to the person or property of another without the latter’s consent”. Any pollution is a violation of individual rights, in particular, property rights. We see it as impossible to find any solution to pollution without absolute recognition of property rights. In such a situation where the pollution is in the air, in the water, noise or any other form, under our proposed criminal code, any injured party for whatever reason can seek complete redress against the polluter for all damages and costs. It should be noted that much of the problem of pollution today is caused by governments who as “owners” of the sea, air and rivers take no action to prevent pollution, and in fact sell licences to pollute. They also prevent any person damaged by pollution from gaining any redress except in very restricted circumstances. How many factories would spew smoke into the air if all the people around them could sue the factory for damages done to washing on the line, the cost of cleaning curtains and carpets, and re-painting their houses?

In keeping with our stance on property rights, we advocate returning to the aboriginals the lands held “in trust” by various paternalistic governments with absolute property rights which include minerals under the ground.

We also advocate the freeing of the airways from coercive government restrictions which would result in a plethora of radio, television and cable TV stations serving many diverse requirements for communication.

And so on.

While there are obviously many areas where we would disagree totally, I think your correspondent should at least now be in a position to have a little knowledge on the subject about which he is writing to improve his education and yours.

I should also point out that Mr Biff’s attempts to make the WP seem a front for the General Practitioners Society are totally misguided. Dr John Whiting is no longer an office-bearer of that society; Dr Duncan Yuille is no longer secretary of that society, and in any case the doctors are outnumbered by such people as myself, an economist, Mr Bob Howard, an engineer, Mr John Singleton, who did those “naughty” Liberal Party commercials, and Mr Ramon Barros, a lawyer.

We do have one thing in common: we all work for a living.

MARK TIER
Workers Party,
Darlinghurst, NSW