SOPHISTICATED CAMPAIGN AGAINST QUEENSLAND PREMIER

The barrage of invective, slander, and "holier-than-thou" bigotry launched against Mr. Bjelke-Petersen is the intensification of a growing campaign to eliminate the man who, more than anyone else, is a thorn in the side of revolutionary politics. The Aurukun-Mornington Island affair is the latest example of a situation where a smear barrage is being used to cloud the real issues.
Something of the paranoia of media critics and frustrated federal politicians is apparent in the several claims made that the Queensland Premier is insane or requires psychiatric treatment. Such suggestions used to be confined to Soviet style countries that used the mental health treatment for critics or dissidents whose arguments were too strong to counter by normal methods.

Latest to use this tack is Democrat Party leader Don Chipp, a political Don Quixote if ever there was one, who suggests that he has to question Mr. Petersen's sanity. Phillip Adams, writing in The Age (8/4/78) claimed that "Australia's smallest, noisiest and most irresponsible minority (one man with a handful of neanderthal henchmen) has kidnapped an entire State..." The Australian (9/4/78) reported a prayer vigil in Brisbane by the so-called "Concerned Christian Movement" during which 12 protesters were arrested; and so the propaganda barrage goes on.

The truth is that the Queensland Premier, and the State Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, Mr. Charles Porter, have forestalled by their resolute action, another completely unconstitutional intrusion by the Federal Government as part of a deadly exploitation of a race question. Although some starry-eyed federal politicians may not realise it, there is both national and international concentration on the aboriginal question as an issue with the potential to place Australia on the same rack on which Rhodesia and South Africa are now suffering.

The part played by the new cuckoo in the nest, the Uniting Church, is significant. Claims have been made that this body has been dealing with Aborigines for the last 70 years. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Uniting Church is a very recent merger between Methodists, Congregationalists and Presbyterians, the terms of which forced many Presbyterians to form separate congregations. There are at least four separate Presbyterian Churches as a direct result of the merger.
Dr. Potter, Secretary to the World Council of Churches, which is directly financing terrorist activities in Southern Africa, was special guest at the inauguration of the Uniting Church. What is not generally known is that the Aboriginal people of Aurukun voted overwhelmingly against their involvement in the Uniting Church. They preferred to stay Presbyterian. The do gooders talking so patronisingly about self-determination for Queensland Aborigines are strangely silent on this aspect.

While many sincere Australians have moved into the Uniting Church, there is no doubt that it has become a ready made vehicle for radical exploitation. The first prayer vigil against the Premier of Queensland two years ago was launched at a meeting in Brisbane so stacked with left wingers, radicals and Marxists that Mr. Porter was able to expose the real aims of the movement in a speech in Parliament. It is apparent that the Uniting Church has been able to exploit and confuse the Aborigines on Queensland Reserves who until quite recently were content with State Government administration.

It is hardly surprising that 750 Aborigines - basically simple and unsophisticated people - are prey to the intense propaganda methods now being used on the Aborigine question. Behind this propaganda is the long-term aim of creating black states in northern Australia, in which the last people to exercise real control, would be the Aborigines. From a defence angle such a step would be disastrous.

Although the 1967 Referendum gave the Commonwealth Government power to legislate on behalf of Aborigines, this never included the power to intrude on State sovereignty of land, nor to set up separate States. In fact a separate clause of the Constitution sets up provision for New States, such steps to be taken only in conjunction with existing States. No mention has been made of this clause in the Fraser Government's proposed legislation. The truth is that the Commonwealth is exploiting emotional arguments as an excuse to act illegally. If there were any justice on Mr. Fraser's side, he would be as eager as the Queensland Premier to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

It is now conceivable that the United Nations will begin to point its finger at Australia. The Age (22/3/78) reported moves by the ALP's Senator Keeffe, asking for a U.N. investigation of Australia's treatment of Aborigines. His letter included the question of Queensland Aborigines. Amongst his accusations was the statement that the Federal Government is ignoring Aborigines over uranium. He might have mentioned the appalling mess the Federal Government has made of the aboriginal question in the Northern Territory. However, those who have criticised the Federal Government's handling of uranium seem to have no compunction in urging the same government to impose their standards on aboriginal people in Queensland. They are trimming their moral arguments to their political objectives.

AUSTRALIAN FISHERMEN IN SOVIET NET

Not content with subsidising Australian beef to the Soviet Union, a new proposal for Soviet involvement in Australia's fishing industry is now under consideration. The Western Advertiser (30/3/78) said: "Russian interests have promised a $100 million per year industry based at Portland if a joint venture proposal is approved by the Federal and Victorian Governments. In addition, a $10 million cannery would be constructed at Portland to employ 200-300 people, providing a two year study drew the same conclusions the Russians have already about the potential of the area.

Some local trawler men are opposed to the Russian scheme and consider it a trade off for Australian beef and wheat exports to Russia...." Those involved in this proposal include the Russian State Fishing Organisation, Sovrybflot, with a 45% interest, Commercial Bureau (Aust) Pty. Ltd. with 28%, and a newly formed company, Australian Bight Trawl Industries with 27%.
The report says that research by the Russians indicates the potential exists for $50 million a year of snap frozen, headed and gutted fish to be exported to Russia. Sovrybflot, the Russian State organisation which controls the Soviet fishing fleet of about 3,000 vessels worldwide, has recently developed a joint venture of fisheries in Spain and the Canary Islands, and conducted surveys off South America. They propose to build processing facilities at Portland, using USSR technical help, and extension of the operation to northern waters, with the possibility of similar plants at Albany, Broome and Darwin.

The same paper reported that Portland trawler men are fighting to keep the Soviets out. They claim that there could be a wholly Australian owned trawl fishing industry worth $35 million within five years if the Communists are kept out. The SAFCOL group has told Federal Minister for Primary Industry, Ian Sinclair, to whom the submissions for the joint venture have been made, that it is actively opposed to any joint venture with foreign interests in the waters of southern Australia.
Evidence from the past indicates that the Soviet fishing fleet and installations have also been used as part of Russia's naval operations, in regard to intelligence, surveying and tracking. To allow Soviet involvement in Australia waters is insanity. We have yet to hear what Defence Minister Jim Killen has to say about such a proposal - or has he even been consulted? Significantly, Portland happens to be in Prime Minister Fraser's electorate of Wannon - the same Fraser who warned of the dangers of Soviet penetration of the Indian Ocean two years ago.

BRIEF COMMENTS

In spite of the Commonwealth Government's economic policies of "restrained" deflation the Budget Deficit, with which the Treasury and its political marionettes are obsessed, is way up: over $300 million above what it was this time last year. Figures published in the dailies this week disclose that the Government's Social Security Bill thus far this financial year (nine months) is $5,586 million. Recent revelations of Social Security rackets indicate that unknown millions of this amount has been poured down the drain at the taxpayers' expense; and the medical profession is losing public respect as its members are being accused of taking the "hypocritic" oath, rather than the Hippocratic Oath.
The Budget Deficit would be much higher if the Government had not borrowed some $1,700 million overseas this financial year, and under the existing finance economic conventions, inflation would be higher than it presently is also. What in fact the Government has been doing has been to "push back" the burden of interest bearing debt into the intermediate future. Loans from overseas Finance Houses are repayable with interest over a longer period of time than loans the Government creates and lends to itself (Deficit) at a smaller rate of interest: the key point is that the expansion of the volume of the Deficit is immediately more inflationary - the Government's overseas debt burden less immediately so. The debt burden of overseas borrowings is "pushed back" and paid for in taxation, inflation, and other ways, by many Australians who were not even in remunerative employment at the time of the transaction of the original overseas loan. No solution to our ills is possible that does not transgress the tenets of orthodox finance.

Common Law (contd.)
The word, Law, is one of those delightfully vague words which public men delight to play with, to the confusion of their listeners. What we are interested in here are the fundamental laws of society, or "Laws of God", as they are called. These laws of human behaviour were accepted more or less universally, and they embodied the minimum standard of behaviour permissible to ensure the survival of the tribe. They represented negative laws: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal. They represented laws which reasonable individuals would police or enforce themselves.
It is interesting to notice that those who have made a study of primitive tribes and of the development of civilisation believe that stealing, killing, and wars only started with the dawn of civilisation that is, when men became organised and "controlled".
It is also interesting to note that society will not tolerate killing and stealing by its private members. The wilful destruction of a human life is considered a heinous and cowardly offence, but the destruction of half a million lives by an atom bomb is considered quite an achievement, even though it was done obviously as an experiment - and quite an unnecessary experiment.
(James Guthrie, here in 1946, is referring to the fact that the Japanese had actually sued for peace many months before the first atom bomb was dropped in Hiroshima. Some students of the Conspiracy consider that these peace overtures were deliberately rejected in order that a suitable "demonstration" of A-bomb horror could be given to the world. This subsequent propaganda value, the "threat of A-War" international politics, helped to force the nations of the West in the direction of One World Government and submission to International Communist global strategy in the interests of peace, more or less at any price…On Target) - from Our Sham Democracy.