NEW ZEALAND'S INCREDIBLE DR. SUTCH CASE

Mr. Eric Butler reports from New Zealand.
"When Dr. William Sutch, top New Zealand economic adviser to both Labor and National Governments in the past, was arrested and charged with a breach of the Official Secrets Act in September last year (1974), there was immediate alarm in Marxist circles. A Defence Committee was quickly formed, one of its purposes being to collect funds to help Dr. Sutch. No mention was made of Dr. Sutch's considerable wealth. This only came out later.

The Attorney-General Dr. Finlay reacted to the Sutch arrest with comments which were used to attempt to turn the affair into an attack upon the New Zealand Official Secrets Act, and the Security Service. There is good reason to believe that the Sutch Defence Committee had possession of the complete potential jurors list weeks before they were legally entitled to have it. Nearly all those described as married women or housewives on the list were approached up to three weeks before the trial by persons claiming to represent unidentified market research groups. The questions were designed to ascertain views on political-sociological issues.

Dr. Sutch was brought to trial as a result of the New Zealand Security Service observing him engaged in a number of clandestine meetings last year with a Soviet diplomatic official, Mr. Dimitriv Razgovorev, First Secretary of the Soviet Embassy in New Zealand. In spite of a Government request that Mr. Razgovorev, and another staff member, Mr. Vitaly Pertsev, stay within the Soviet Embassy following the Sutch arrest, both immediately left the country.

When arrested by the police on September 27th, of last year, Dr. Sutch denied that he knew the Soviet First Secretary, or that he had been at places where he was observed. Three weeks later, on October 17th, he wrote to the Attorney General offering an incredible explanation for his behaviour. He was accustomed to taking long walks and friends had told him that the Russian people prefer to meet outside rather than inside.

In spite of tremendous pressure on the Labor Government, a Magistrate found that there was a case to answer by Sutch after dispositions had been heard. The Chief Justice found that there was a case to answer when he heard an application to strike out the charge against Sutch in the Supreme Court. The presiding Judge ruled that there was a case to answer when defence counsel raised the matter during the trial. Although witnesses, including Dr. Sutch's wife, well known for her close association with pro-Communist activities, were called in defence, Dr. Sutch was never called by his defence counsel to give an explanation of his association with the Russians. Dr. Sutch clearly did not relish the prospect of a close cross-examination before the jury. But when he was acquitted, within a few days he was on New Zealand television, telling his story - for a fee!

He offered the explanation that the meetings with the Russians were to discuss Zionism. Presumably such discussions had to take place in the dark, sometimes whilst standing in the rain! And then he advanced the theory that Razgovorev might have sought meetings with him with a view to defecting and seeking asylum in New Zealand. Dr. Sutch said that he had reached this conclusion "in retrospect".
"Even Attorney-General, Dr. Finlay, admitted, as reported in the New Zealand press on February 28th, that he "was taken completely by surprise by this novel suggestion".

New Zealand Truth took up the matter in a series of hard-hitting comments, asking, "Why did Sutch lie?" and commenting rather pointedly that "If Dr. Sutch doesn't like our view of the matter, there is a procedure available to him which would enable him to submit himself to cross-examination under oath on all aspects of the matter."

The question most asked by informed and concerned New Zealanders is, "Did Dr. Sutch pass information to the Russians which enabled them to do some hard bargaining concerning meat purchases?" Whatever the answer, the Soviet has been obtaining New Zealand mutton at almost give away prices. And Dr. Sutch's friends continue their campaign to abolish both the New Zealand Security Service, and the Official Secrets Act. It is instructive to ponder on the fact that this economic "expert " has advised so many New Zealand politicians.

ANNUAL DINNER AND SEMINAR - QUEENSLAND AND NORTHERN N. S. W.

UNITED STATES ON THE (GLOBAL) RETREAT

"The World is about to witness 'globa1 retreat' by the U.S. according to British Indo-China expert, Sir Robert Thompson". - The-Herald (Melbourne) March 21st.

Sir Robert gave his expert judgments on a programme broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation (B.B.C.) His judgments were gloomy, but realistic...He said, among other things that …"The Americans are now retreating before Moscow, and we are about to see the strategic surrender of the United States."

The League was warning of disaster in Vietnam well before 1968. In March 1968, the League brought out a special Vietnam Issue of its monthly Intelligence Survey titled.. . "End the War In Vietnam - By Winning It." It was an open letter to the Prime Minister of the day, John Gorton who is now squirming in spite and rancour against Malcolm Fraser, the man who was the catalyst in Gorton's downfall. We have no sympathy for John Gorton; he had his chance, but failed.

The special Vietnam Issue of the Intelligence Survey detailed blunders and errors of the Americans, and pointed out that the no win policy of just "containing Communism" with a view of forcing the Communists to the conference table was absurdly unrealistic. Communists never sit down at a conference table with anyone until and unless they are in a position of strength to demand concessions!

General Douglas MacArthur, during the Korean War of the early fifties, prophesied that unless he was allowed to win the Korean War, which he had at least two opportunities of doing, decisively, then America would be fighting Communists in another part of Asia within ten years of that date. General MacArthur was not allowed by Washington to bomb the bridges over the Yalu River in North Korea, over which the Red Chinese poured their men and munitions. Victory was thus rendered impossible; his prophecy proved all too correct.

Many other informed journals have given early warnings of the Vietnam no-win farce. The Social Crediter of May 7th, 1969 observed:- "Let no one suppose that the U.S.A. is fighting Communism in Vietnam. We stated before it occurred that when the U.S.A. stepped up its military operations in that country, it would be a sign that all possibility of a stable South Vietnamese Government had been eliminated, so that, after a show of force, the Americans could declare the situation hopeless, and convincingly accept an invitation to leave the country...

"Remember Mr. Nixon's "Peace With Honour"? Remember Mr. Nixon?" The American Journal, Science and Mechanics (March 1968), quoted twelve foremost U.S. ex-officers including former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Chief of Naval Operations, former head of Strategic Air Command, and former head of Vietnam air operations. Their joint statement was... "the war against North Vietnam can be irrevocably won in six weeks... Communist intimidations and aggressions in the free areas of Asia can also be struck a paralysing blow in the same brief frame of time..."

The message, which comes through loud and clear, is that the retreat, globally, of the U.S.A. is the result of an intentional, deliberate policy. What we are on the point of witnessing new in South East Asia is the domino "theory" becoming a reality. South Vietnam is all but gone, Cambodia is all but gone. Next will be Thailand, most probably, then Malaysia, then Indonesia (a tougher nut to crack) then us (Australian & New Zealand).

Incidentally we have noticed a nice twist, which the mass media have begun to give to the Communist military forces in South East Asia. No longer are these the forces of Communism, say in South Vietnam. They are now "the forces opposed to the Saigon Government". In Cambodia, the Communist forces are "the forces opposed to the Lon Nol Government". The inference is, we suppose, that if we only help to remove those darned Saigon and Lon Nol Government then all will be well. The A.B.C. seems to be the worst offender in this subtle twist of propaganda.

Those who can withstand exposure to stark reality to gain a firm understanding of the treachery in the West's apex of power are urged to read "The Moving Storm" by B. W. Monahan, Price: $1.60 from G.P.O. Box 1052J, Melbourne, Vic. 3001

MALCOLM FRASER ENDORSES STATES' RIGHTS

"The States would be given extra tax powers under a Liberal Federal Government, the new leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr. Fraser said yesterday." - The Australian, March 24th.

Mr. Fraser said that he supported the Canadian system of taxation, in which Federal powers of taxation had been pruned to accommodate State of Province sovereignty. This is certainly a step in the right direction, and we trust that the States will not make the mistake of refusing these taxing powers. Sir Robert (then Mr.) Menzies offered the States their taxing power back soon after the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government was swept into office in 1949; but the States refused. What a cosmic blunder! As a direct result of this refusal to accept responsibility they are slowly being squeezed to death. But this is only a step in the right direction.
The League wants to see the States with full revenue raising powers, as before the Second World War.

Economic democracy must come before political democracy. State Governments must be economically sovereign before they can be politically sovereign. Otherwise they cannot repel the incursions of Canberra. The third tier of Government, Local Government, is dependent upon a strong State Government. Local Government is now under Socialist attack through "regionalisation" and the R.E.D, schemes, all bait for Local Government starved of finance.

The passing of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act by the Whitlam Government, which the Liberals did not oppose allowed the Canberra Socialists to by-pass the States, and thus give handouts to Local Government "regions". It means the beginning of the end of Local Government also, as under the Socialists proposed "regionalisation" scheme the "region" is to be administered by a Canberra appointed bureaucrat (local Kommisar) with some "region" advisers, appointed or elected locally but one can imagine just how much say they'll have, as moneys will be issued from Canberra, and it is true, as ever, that the man who pays the piper calls the tune.

It is most unlikely that we shall see a Canberra politician recommend the return of full taxing powers to the States, because this will mean the erosion of the power, economic and political of Canberra. In fact, it would mean the reversal of political and economic centralization, viz, decentralization. The whole process of power grabbing and empire-building would be swung into reverse.

Some "Australian Government" (i.e. Commonwealth) Departments would be abolished, others pruned right down. Social Security, Labour, Commonwealth Police, Media, Health, Housing, and many, many others, would be abolished or pruned drastically. The bureaucrats would be deserting Canberra in droves; the sort of exodus we would like to see! But there is not the remotest chance of this even beginning to happen until Big Brother is deprived of his mighty Power of the Purse.

INTERESTING SIDELIGHTS ON PORTUGAL

"The date for Portugal's general elections was in doubt today after the ruling military Revolutionary Council banned the Right-wing Christian Democratic Party, and two extreme Left-wing groups from taking part." - The Age (Melbourne) March 20th.

Most people can understand that the Communist Revolutionary Council would ban Right-wing (anti-Communist) parties, but would be puzzled over the banning of Left-wing (pro-Communist) parties. As to the Left-wing parties no information is given concerning the Workers' and Farm Laborers' Alliance. We can only assume that this party errs from the Kremlin ideology. The other Left-wing party, the Maoist Movement for the Reorganization of the Proletariat is Peking-oriented and hence totally unacceptable to the Kremlin.

The Obsession With Growth
The reason for the obsession of governments with "growth" now becomes clear. Because money is issued through production, the only way for money issue to expand is through the growth of production. Under present policies, the only choice is between industrial growth and depression. But even if money expands by 10% (or whatever the interest rate happens to be) all is not well. It may save us for the time being from a depression, but the day of reckoning has not been avoided; merely postponed. For under present policies, an inevitable concomitant of an increasing money supply is an increasing amount of overdraft debt. This is the problem when all money is brought into existence as an interest-bearing debt, no money is ever issued to pay the interest. It must be filched from following issues, and as larger and larger issues follow one another in an expanding economy, the amount, which must be found to pay the interest on each succeeding issue, is greater and greater. Therefore there is an inescapable buildup of debt. The higher the interest rate, the greater the rate of expansion must be, and the faster the debt will increase.