I would easily classify myself as a moderate liberal. One that recognizes that freedom is one of the most important target for the good of mankind.
On the surface, this article seems to say the same thing. But it oversimplifies the situation. Old Australia (1840–1890) was growing faster… Well! I’m not sure this was caused by a minimal government. It was just a time of geographical expansion with more land and minerals to exploit every year. This benefited those that had relative power but not others who also probably cherished (their own) freedom. As the 1881 Queenslander newspaper said at this time: “the development of the mineral and other resources on the country, have been in a great degree prohibited by the hostility of the blacks, which still continues with undiminished spirit” (1881). Growth for sure, but only for those in power.
“Governments that focus on […] the proper and free functioning of markets” are doomed to fail. A free market is a market that preserve the freedom of the powerful, to eventually increase inequality of wealth to such a point that populism, possibly violence, becomes the only possible reality. Said otherwise, free markets are naturally distorted in favor of those that have power and knowledge.
Tuning the counter distortion that needs to be applied for the best of all, on the long term, is definitely non trivial however.