John Singleton with Bob HowardRip Van Australia (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1977), pp. 253-60, under the heading “Unions”.

To repeat what we’ve already said, labour, skills and knowledge are market commodities. Wages are their price. As market commodities, the laws of economics apply to them in the same way as all other commodities, and similar consequences will result if those natural laws are circumvented by Union mob rule or legislation. In addition, because people are involved, moral laws also apply. Specifically, individual rights are involved.

Few people would deny that we have a Union problem in Australia today. However, there is a great deal of confusion as to how solve it. This stems in large part from the fact that very few people have taken the trouble to work out which principles are involved, for it is only be reference to principles that you can determine what is the right thing to do. It can be assumed that it is generally accepted as right that our society should be moral and just. It is also generally accepted that we all possess certain individual rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and property. Can we, then, by applying these thoughts, sort out the issues involved in our trade union problem? When an employer advertises a job vacancy and invites people wanting the job to apply, and the various applicants apply, what is happening?

First, the employer has decided, for reasons of his own, that he is willing to engage in trade with a suitable employee. The employer is willing to exchange a certain amount of his property for a certain amount of work on the part of the employee. He has in his mind an idea of (1) just what work he expects to be done, (2) what it’s worth to him, and (3) what price he expects to have to pay for it. For his part, the prospective employee is willing to exchange his labour, skill and/or knowledge with a prospective employer, at a certain price. He has his own idea as to (1) what he has to offer, (2) what it’s worth to him and (3) what he would like to get for it.

When these two come together they determine whether or not the employee is suited to the job, whether or not he has the necessary skills or knowledge or physical requirements, whether they can agree on a price, and whether there are any other conditions to be met, and if so, whether or not they can be met. If all these can be agreed upon, they both have a decision to make. The employer decides whether or not he wants this particular employee, or whether he can do better. The employee decides whether or not he wants the job, or whether he can do better.

If they agree to do business with each other, the employer hires the employee. The price is the agreed wage and any agreed conditions, such as, sick pay, holiday pay, overtime, amenities, company car, or whatever.

What are the essential points of this process?

  1. It’s a free, voluntary trade.
  2. Each trades that which is his to trade. That is, they trade their property, which they own, or in other words, which is theirs by right.
  3. There is, in the agreement of the employer to hire, and the employee to be hired, at least an implicit contract. This could easily be formalised as an explicit, written employment contract.
  4. There was, in the discussion before the final decision was made, opportunity to discuss possible future contingencies, such as, wage increases, promotion, what happens if either one decided to opt out. These, if discussed, could form part of the implicit contract, but couldn’t necessarily be enforced. They could also be written into the formal contract, and then they could be enforced.

Because this was voluntary trade, neither the employer forced the employee to take the job, nor the employee forced the employer to hire him. Neither could force the other to do anything. Both could refuse and both could bargain. Both had a right to trade because they were each dealing with their own property, over which they had full control.

If we were to say now that people have a “right” to a job, what would this do to our example? It would mean that the employer could not refuse the employee that job. Or, on a broader scale, it could be said that employers have to provide jobs for all who want them. If you have a “right” to a job, that means someone has to provide you with one, and no one can refuse you one. This is clearly absurd, as it makes one group of people slaves to another group.

The matter is not improved by saying that it is the responsibility of the government to provide the jobs, because the government does not produce jobs. The government can redistribute money, but that will destroy as many (and in the long run, more) jobs as it creates, or it can print money to encourage economic expansion. That will temporarily create jobs, at the expense of accelerating inflation and, in the long run, create periodic recessions followed by catastrophic depression. Finally, whatever the government does, it will involve coercion of individuals, thus violating their rights and turning them into part-time slaves.

There is no such thing as a “right” to a job. We have only the right to offer jobs (as employers) or to seek jobs (as employees). We cannot demand that someone be forced to provide us with a job.

What about wages? Do we have a right to a “fair” wage, an “adequate living” wage, or to any wage at all? This question was answered in the section on Unemployment. Because wages are the price of labour, any attempt to fix them at a “fair” or “just” or “adequate” level violates the rights of both employer and employee to free trade, and, depending on where they are fixed, will call into play natural economic forces which will cause either a labour shortage, a balanced labour market, or unemployment. Obviously, what we all want is a balanced labour market, but that will only occur when wages are fixed at the free market level, in which case the fixing is totally unnecessary — that’s where they would have been anyway.

However, as we all know, the intended purpose of such fixing is to force wages upwards — to get them above the market level. Consequently, we have unemployment problems, and a wage-price spiral as a bonus. The futility of the process becomes even clearer when we realise that if, for example, employees are granted a one dollar a week wage increase, this nets them, after tax, maybe sixty cents a week, but represents an increase in costs of something like $1.20 a week to the company, after increases in payroll tax, workers compensation, are taken into account.1 These extra costs must be either absorbed by the company, or passed on in price increases. They can be absorbed by cutting costs, by laying off staff, curtailing expansion, continuing to use old machinery and plant or cutting profits, which will in turn reduce investment, expansion, etc. The end result is fewer jobs, lower productivity, poorer quality products. The only way the costs could be absorbed without damaging consequences would be if there had been a sufficient productivity increase prior to the increase in costs to cover the increase, but this is not usually the case. If the costs are passed on in price increases, the employees are really chasing their tails, because for every sixty cents they get, prices rise the equivalent of $1.20.

We see, therefore, that not only is the attempt to fix a “fair” or “just” wage immoral, because it violates both parties rights, it is also counter-productive, doing more harm than good. We must further ask ourselves, who is to determine just exactly what constitutes a “fair” or “just” wage, and what criteria they use to determine it.

The final “right” that is bandied around when Unions are talked about is the “right” to strike. Nobody has an absolute right to strike. Whether or not an employee is able to strike depends entirely on the terms of his or her employment. We have seen that the agreement of the employer to accept an employee and the employee to accept the employer’s job constitutes and implicit or explicit contract. If this contract was put down in writing, all conditions, contingencies and undertakings would be stated in it: wage, working conditions, holidays, sickness provisions, term of contract, escape clauses, rise and fall clauses to cover inflation, and so on. This contract would be legally binding on both parties, and disputes could be settled by negotiation or through the courts. No employee could strike if it breached this contract.

In a free market situation such contracts would quickly evolve, and standard forms of them would be available. The Australian Standards Association already has such standard conditions of contract for many business undertakings. Should events change circumstances in such a way that one or the other of the parties in the contract were disadvantaged, they could seek to re-negotiate the contract before its term expired, or failing that, they would simply have to wear it until the contract expired. Most decent people would be willing to re-negotiate if the circumstances were unusual or severe.

Where our industrial situation gets to be messy is in the fact that most employment contracts are implicit rather than explicit. This puts all parties in a fog, because nothing is definite, and nobody can be held to anything. In these circumstances, employees could claim a right to strike — legally. They may be bound by their word, but if there is no legal contract, they can simply walk out. However, while they can strike, they should not be able to forcibly prevent other people from being hired to replace them. They can’t have their job and eat it too. They can’t refuse to do a job, but insist that they still have the job. To strike means to withhold labour. This gives the employer a choice: either submit to their demands, or, negotiate a settlement, or eliminate the job, or hire someone else. It is, after all, the employer’s company, his plant, or equipment, and his money that he’s paying out in wages. If he is not willing to accept the employees demands, there is no way that in a free and civilised society, he should be forced to accept them. This would mean that the employees “right” to strike has precedence over the employers right to his property. All people have equal rights, but some are more equal than others?

Union activity that forcibly prevents other people from taking vacated jobs violates the rights of both the employer and the other people who want the jobs. The Unions may attempt to persuade a person not to take a job. They could even bribe him. But they cannot morally force him. If the Unionist demands his right to strike, this other person can equally demand his right to seek work, and the employer can claim a right to spend his money on whoever he likes, or on no one at all. Needless to say, the issues involved could be put beyond any doubt by using job contracts.

It is questionable whether or not union activity today helps or harms Union members. It certainly hasn’t helped the tens of thousands of unemployed, and it certainly hasn’t helped the economy, thus harming all Australians. Most gains that Unions make are sectional, with one group’s advances being paid for by another’s losses. They do not take the money out of the hands of the greedy rich and distribute it to the “workers”. They take it off their mates.

In fact, the redistribution of wealth is a bit of a myth. In the U.S.A. in 1968, out of a total of 68 million taxpayers, 383,000 or only six-tenths of one per cent, had taxable incomes of over $50,000. Their total adjusted gross income was $37 billion, or 6.6 per cent of the total gross income reported. Out of this they paid $13 billion, or 36 per cent in taxes. If the United States government took all of the $37 billion and redistributed it among 200 million Americans, they would receive the princely sum of $120 each, or an increase of 4 per cent in the disposable per capita income.2

Surveys by Opinion Research Corporation in the U.S.A. have found that the median opinion of people polled was that out of every dollar American corporations divided up between owners and employees, twenty-five cents went to the employees, and seventy-five cents went into profits. It is probable that similar opinions would be held here. The facts however, reveal a different story. In 1970, for example, in the U.S.A., 9 per cent of income went to profits, and 91 per cent went to pay employees.3 Of all personal incomes in the U.S.A. for 1970, 70 per cent was in the form of wages and salaries, less than 7 per cent was in the form of business and professional income, 8 per cent was interest payments and only 3 per cent was in the form of dividends.4

In Australia, for the year 1975-76, total household income was $59,814 million. Of this, $40,510 or almost 68 per cent was in the form of wages, salaries and supplements. Income of farm unincorporated enterprises was 2.2 per cent, other unincorporated enterprises, dwellings, interest and dividends was 18.5 per cent, and government cash benefits 10.6 per cent.5

We can see, then, that employees already get by far the major portion of the money available. Any redistribution that takes place then, is likely to be at the expense of their fellow employees. We have already discussed, under Unemployment, how Union activity and wage legislation harms the old, the very young and the unskilled, by forcing them out of the labour market. Union activity also harms the best workers in any occupation, because with award wages there is a tendency to pay employees in accordance with the award rather than in accordance with their work. This same Union activity harms the unemployed, because it prevents them from taking the jobs of strikers, and from taking jobs at lower wages.

By far the most destructive and harmful aspect of Union activity, however, is what it does to the production process. As an example of what modern production requires, consider this. In the U.S.A. in 1968, business had invested $30,000 for every production workers’ job. In our own iron ore developments in Western Australia, the figure is around $250,000 per job. We stated before (under Unemployment) that wages are paid out of production, and that a man digging a hole with a bulldozer should be paid more than a man using a teaspoon. The man with the teaspoon might work harder and longer, but the man with the bulldozer would do more. The catch, of course, is the cost of the bulldozer — that requires capital investment. In order to buy the bulldozer, the company has first to accumulate the capital. The more capital it is able to accumulate and invest, the more equipment it is able to make available to its employees, and the higher is their productivity and, consequently, their wages.

Union activity wrecks this process all along the line. They demand wage increases regardless of productivity; they reduce profits and hence capital accumulation; they resist the introduction of better equipment; they insist on over-staffing and general feather-bedding; and by striking, they further reduce productivity, production and profits, this triggering off a whole new round of price increases, job losses, business contractions, and so on. In general, Unions seek to reverse the law of cause and effect. Somehow they seek to distribute the cake before they bake it, and to distribute a bigger one than they bake.

Union activity has become political. In particular, communist and socialist Union leaders are using rank and file Unionists as cannon fodder in their efforts to bring about their communist and socialist totalitarian utopias. It is at least consistent that they have chosen to use totalitarian means to achieve their totalitarian goals.

All people have the right to get together to form Unions. That, however, does not give them a right to violate the rights of other people, whether they be employers or fellow employees. Compulsory Unionism, closed shops, job demarcation and industrial sabotage all violate individual rights, and all are counter-productive. Unions should not be used as a bludgeon. There are many things Unions could do for their members that would be of some use. First, they could back members with legitimate grievances against employers. Second, with their numbers, they could provide all sorts of services and facilities for members. They could bulk-buy at reduced prices everything from cars, to refrigerators, to holidays, to food. They could, as previously suggested, run their own businesses, for example, transport services, clubs, hotels. There are hundreds of possibilities, all of which would be helping the rank and file, rather than harming them. (And when their business ventures went broke they might gain a better understanding of business itself. There are no certainties at the race track or in business.)

With non-compulsory Unionism, the Unions’ success at providing real benefits for employees would be reflected in their membership numbers. (Why should I join?)

What is needed to bring all this about is very simply a strong government dedicated to getting itself out of people’s lives and protecting rights. But over the years, government legislation has helped build the power of Unions. And such government legislation should be repealed, along with all the other legislation that is currently strangling our economy. And, of course, if we had a healthy and growing economy, our current militant Unionism would die from a lack of interest.

It will be said, however, that a government cannot repeal these laws precisely because the Unions would stop it. If this is so, then we might as well come right out and admit that the real government of the country is the union movement. The real problem is that the government wants to solve the Union problem without giving up its own power. To do both is impossible. And only an entirely free economy, and a respect for individual rights will give us a real and lasting solution to the Union problem. Or any other problem.

  1. These figures were quoted by Mr Kerry Packer, The Australian, November 2, 1976.
  2. Figures from Henry Hazlitt, The Conquest of Poverty, Arlington House, New Rochelle, N.Y., 1973, p. 115.
  3. Ibid, p. 46.
  4. Ibid, p. 114.
  5. Quarterly Estimates of National Income and Expenditure June 1976, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 1976.
(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