THE ANTI-TAX REVOLT GROWS

The Federal Electorate of Diamond Valley, Victoria, is one of Australia's "litmus-test" electorates. It is one of the many outer-metropolitan electorates which now play a major part in deciding the fate of Governments.

The current Liberal Member for Diamond Valley, Mr. Neil Brown, obviously is well aware of the realities of his situation, as witnessed by his stinging criticism of his Government's tax "rip-off" tactics last week-end. Diamond Valley 'voted Mr. Brown into office in 1969. In the pro-Whitlam swing of 1972 it rejected him. The A.L.P. held the electorate at the 1974 elections. But in the violent anti-Whitlam back-lash of December, 1975, Mr. Brown is re-elected with a massive majority of 14,000. However, Mr. Brown knows that in another election that majority could disappear. It certainly would at present.

He is receiving a growing volume of mail protesting about the Fraser Government's financial policies. Some Members of Parliament are interested in principles, but more are interested in political survival. If sufficient electors unite to make it clear to Members of Parliament, particularly those in swinging" electorates, that their political futures depend upom opposition to Government financial policies, then there is a real possibility of an effective back-bench revolt.

While the Fraser Government has felt that it could resist the mounting criticism of business spokesmen, who have been calling for tax-cuts to stimulate consumer demand, it cannot indefinitely resist a grass-roots electoral protest through back-bench Ministers.

In his criticism last week-end, Mr. Brown reminded Mr. Fraser that "The Government made a very firm commitment to substantial taxation reform at the past election", continuing, "but this seems to have been forgotten. In the policy speech, Mr. Fraser said that one of the most significant contributions to prosperity would be our personal income tax reforms. We would reduce the tax burden and put an end to Labor's tax rip-off. If that is still the Government's intention, they seem to be approaching it in a leisurely fashion."

Mr. Brown observed that tax indexation would not operate until July and that "In any case, indexation does nothing to reduce the present crippling burden of income tax. It only stops it from getting worse."

While Mr. Brown disclaims the suggestion that he is "leading" a back-bench revolt by Members, it is certain that he has a growing number of supporters. The National Country Member for Dawson, based on Mackay on the central Queensland coast, has good reason to be even more uneasy than Mr. Brown. Only a 3.7% swing against Mr. R.A. Braithwaite would end his political career. Mr. Braithwaite says "I know I'm not misreading the groundswell of opinion in my electorate when I say people feel taxation cuts are about the best way to restore initiative in the workforce."

The most urgent necessity at present is for the Government to implement a financial policy to increase purchasing power without stimulating more inflation. A drastic reduction in Sales Tax is the first essential. A whole range of prices would fall immediately, this reducing the pressure for increased wages. This should be followed with the application of consumer discounts to a number of basic items in the economy. This would further increase purchasing power.
Those who are against increased consumer demand should be challenged to point out which sector of the free-enterprise system cannot meet increased demand without any difficulties.

Prime Minister Fraser has recently provided a further glimpse of his philosophy when he quoted with approval Captain Bligh's statement that his revolting crew did not know what was good for them. If Australia is to be prevented from a revolution, "Captain" Fraser must be forced by determined and united electoral pressure to change the course on which he has embarked.

Signs of back-bench Members responding to electoral pressure should be the signal for increased activity demanding the implementation of a genuine anti-inflation financial policy.

RHODESIA STILL UNDEFEATED

The courageous Anglican Priest, Father Arthur Lews, expresses the view in a brave little booklet published late last year, that Rhodesia remains undefeated. (Extensive extracts from this booklet are published in the January issue of The New Times, the League's monthly finance-economic publication) Rhodesia can only be defeated by treachery in the West.

What a sickening spectacle when a representative of once-Great Britain, Mr. Ivor Richards, chairman of the Rhodesian Geneva Conference, accepts the views of five Presidents of African "front-line" States That the "Patriotic Front" of Mr. Joshua Nkomo and Mr. Robert Mugabe should be recognised as the only legitimate representative body of Rhodesia. And that if this recognition is granted, the terrorist campaign against Rhodesia will be halted.

Mr. Mugabe is Moscow's man and has recently expressed the view that he did not think that the Geneva Conference would bring "independence" to Rhodesia. "The settlement will come from the battlefield, not from Geneva", Mr. Mugabe said in Tanzania.

Editorial writers who moralise about terrorism have a blind eye when it is a question of terrorism against Rhodesians, black and white. We die not notice any moralising editorials when 27 black African workers were gunned down in cold blood by terrorists during Christmas week. Mr. Nkomo issued a statement claiming that there were no terrorists in Rhodesia, only "freedom fighters". There was much ado when the French permitted an alleged Palestinian terrorist to leave France, but no editorial concern was shown when African terrorists were released from Zambian prisons to attend the Geneva Conference as members of the Mugabe group. These terrorists were booked into the luxurious Hotel Intercontinental, where the price of a room alone exceeded their daily allowance. But they had no worries as The World Council of Churches provided support through the Swedish Development Agency

At the time of writing there appears little prospect of Mr. Ivor Richards being able to reconvene the Rhodesian Geneva Conference. Terrorist pressures on Rhodesia are increasing, with the new Carter Administration making it clear that it is going to adopt a strong anti-Rhodesian and anti-South African stance. The Soviet expresses pleasure in developments, claiming that they "saved" Angola last year. The West is warned not to make any offensive statements concerning Communist expansion in Southern Africa. The Soviet is moving into Southern Africa only to help the "oppressed" people.

As usual, the Soviet Marxists insist that they have am "international duty" to assist all freedom fighters.

Developments appear to have brought Prime Minister Yorster of South Africa back to some sense of reality, and a much firmer line than previously. In his New Year message, Mr. Vorster said: "It is my firm conclusion that if a communist onslaught should be made on South Africa directly or under camouflage, then South Africa will have to face it alone and certain countries who profess to be anti-communist will even refuse to sell arms to South Africa to beat off the attack."

In the meantime the Rhodesians, holding the Southern African front line, fight on, still undefeated. How long is the Fraser Government going to talk about the Soviet danger in the Indian Ocean while helping the Soviet's satellite Mozambique to increase the terrorist pressure on Rhodesia?

BASIC FUND

Brief Comments

A report from Canada confirms our own experiences concerning supplies of Koestler's explosive documentary, The Thirteenth Tribe, which explodes the Zionist "Chosen Race" hoax. Political Zionists have been buying up quantities of the book, which has become almost impossible to obtain. The January issue of The New Times carries a review of the Koestler work.

In the meantime the British Socialist Government has decided to withhold the publication of some British Cabinet papers relating to Palestine in 1946. Mr. Christopher Mayhew, Mr. Ernest Bevin's parliamentary secretary in 1946, said that the papers had probably not been released "because they revealed the unusual forms of pressure, including assassination threats, which Zionists used at that time against British ministers, including Mr. Bevin and myself." Although Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin was a Socialist, he was a patriot and always attempted to defend British interests. The Political Zionists hated him for this.