THE BUDGET

Yet again, Australians have been subjected to the anticipated avalanche of economic drivel inherent in a repressive Budget. Yet again, it is signally evident that the Treasury economists (who prepared the Budget) had it merely read out by their Parliamentary front man, John Howard. Mr. Howard's unspectacular training has been in the field of Law, not economics.

Several inconsistencies tease the mind. We have been lectured by the Prime Minister that the principal thrust of the Government's economic strategy is to, first of all, bring the inflation rate right down. Now he is talking about an inflation rate of 3%! If this is the way to economic stability, then why did not an economic upsurge result from the trough of the Great Depression, when the inflation rate was zero? As all who lived through those years remember, economic recovery came only because of a world rearmament programme in readiness for the outbreak of World War II, planned years in advance by those "in the know".

In the thrust to lower the inflation rate in Australia, the Government will further drain some one and a half billion dollars from the economy; and thus further unemployment is mathematically certain. This has been conceded by the Government, and both Mr. Hawke and Sir William McMahon are talking in figures of approximately half a million unemployed this time next year. We consider that an unemployment figure of 8% is not unrealistic at this time. All this will delight the revolutionaries in our midst: tens of thousands of demoralised, angry, young men and women - many with good educational qualifications - will be like sticks of gelignite in the hands of the Marxist revolutionary strategists who will detonate them in an attempt to blow up the Establishment.
A good start may be made in the advance towards the Australian Revolution, so longed for by the Halfpenny's and the Carmichaels, and their ilk.

We are unable to foresee the inflation rate falling significantly even so: the sharp increase of 16 cents per gallon of petrol will rip through the economy causing costs and hence prices to jump up like jacks in the box. The somewhat farcical impost on the earnings of children (pocket money), and the so-called "goodbye tax" of $10 are probably more intended to create a "climate" of austerity (an anti-inflation "mood") than to be a revenue raiser of any seriousness. The worthwhile reduction of Sales Tax on new cars to 15% is an admission that Sales Tax is inflationary, and that the release of purchasing power will stimulate consumer demand, which will happen, but probably only for a short time.
New cars will be some $500 cheaper to buy, but against this more purchasing power is being drained out of the economy by way of higher direct taxation, and indirect taxation on such items as imported cars, clothing, electronic products etc.
We don't anticipate that the price of locally produced cars will long stay at the present level, they will move up nearer to the price of medium quality imported cars.

The rumblings from Canberra do signify that all is not well in "Fraser's Castle", and this discontent indicates backbench and Senate disaffection with the Fraser gaggle: we believe that time is running out for Malcolm Fraser, and those few who have hitched their wagons to a sinking star.

PYRAMIDS OF POWER

This was the heading of a letter submitted by a well-informed correspondent to The Nowra News (NSW) recently. The writer is a Mr. W. Prescott, of Hyams Beach, NSW. The letter follows:

"Sir, One of your correspondents recently commented on the affiliations and performance of our sitting Independent; doubtless with a desire to boost the image of the endorsed and reputedly democratic Liberal candidate. Notably, and perhaps with striped paint or dry water in mind, the Marxists of the Labor Party also profess democratic motivation, but any who care to read Marx's Communist Manifesto will note that their programme includes:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents to public purposes (Ratepayers please rote).
2. A heavy progressive or graduated Income Tax (which no Party rejects).
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance (all Parties in that direction).
Items 4 and 10 of the Manifesto are reflected faithfully in the legislation of all Parties (with no exceptions) and ensure more and more power to governments and less and less freedom to the individual.

Now, it is said of the British - and I cannot speak for other elements in our now varied population - that 'when they laugh it off, it's on', or in other words, their sense of humour which often serves them well, is sometimes a weakness - as when one of W.S. Gilbert's characters declares: 'When in the House M.P.s divide, if they've a brain and cerebellum too, they've got to leave that brain outside, and do just what their Masters tell 'em to!'

"Very funny, but what else do they leave outside? The answer is self-respect, responsibility, and loyalty to the electors - as distinct from that dereliction of duty or betrayal of trust known as loyalty to the Party. Obedience, through fear of expulsion, is another way of putting it.

In view of the prevailing prattle about democratic motivation it would be wise I think to review Democracy's nature; in course of which Lincoln's definition can be thrown out. "For the People?" Hardly borne out by results. "Of the people"? Impossible. Consider the littered parks. But while the idea persists that politicians represent the will of the electors, the fact is that the structure of our society is much less democratic then pyramidal - a matter requiring elaboration.

"To get an idea of it, imagine a triangular sided structure having a base of rank and file as in the Unions, the Army, Big Business, the Parties - and superimposed, a smaller number of more influential officials, such as shop stewards, N.C.O.s, sub-Managers, and Secretaries, and so on right up to the Apex of power, where, it may be imagined, the ultimate, but not always visible power resides.

"But not so: for above and embracing all of these, a further series amalgamates the leadership into still more powerful pyramids taking their direction from an International Group presided over by "World Leaders", such as may show up from time to time as spokesmen for the U.N.O. or the C.F.R., or the E.E.C., or the World Bank. Shuttled through these, like threads in a tapestry, are the representatives of the various Societies whose members have infiltrated Governments and Administrations everywhere.
Above them all, out of sight, are those who aim to rule the world! Which might help to explain why such matters as conservation, prison reform, the (phony) energy crisis, and so on get media assistance.

"The Party system then is a conspiracy against the Public, and part of a greater conspiracy. The trick is to be always apparently in opposition, while in fact always moving in the same direction, and until electors wake up to it in sufficient numbers, and use their power - within the law - we shall have no chance of survival as a free people or hope of a better world.

"On the subject of Independents, one of my friends - with school coteries or business cliques in mind - thinks that even if today we had no Parties, they would soon form. Perhaps so, but if the electors are vigilant to ensure representation that possibility can be relegated to the realm of 'first things first'. Cross these bridges when we come to them."

SHIFTY EVASION

Questions on the New International Economic Order are evoking some evasive political footwork from parliamentary and industry leaders. The following question was put to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr. Ian Sinclair, at the National Party State conference in Queensland, held earlier this month:

"Is it a fact that the Federal Government is currently negotiating a New International Economic Order to be known as the N.I.E.O. - and would this N.I.E.O. encompass the establishment of International Commodity Boards which would control the production and distribution of raw materials including wheat, coarse grains, rice, sugar, bauxite, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, tin, cotton and wool? And further, to establish buffer stocks around the world, would it be financed by a Common Fund with the powers to create the means of payment for its own activities; would these boards have power over all and accountability to none? Considering the enormity of the consequences if the Government is considering these steps, then why did the Minister not touch on these points in his address today?"

Our correspondent says: "Mr. Sinclair answered nothing, merely mentioning that all they were trying to do was find a way to assist the under developed nations. He looked cranky but perhaps that is his usual countenance and said they were arranging for the stockpiling of wheat, and side tracked the issue that way, but all very briefly...."

It is quite clear that there is a cover-up going on concerning the N.I.E.O. Leaders apparently do not want any discussion on these proposals amongst the rank and file. Another industry leader in Queensland's Graingrowers Organisation in a written reply to a branch implied that evidence on the N.I.E.O. had been concocted by "misinformed persons". Although he took care not to be specific, this could well apply to the submission made by the Institute of Economic Democracy to the Senate Committee studying the issue, which has sparked off widespread discussion and concern.

As a recent delegate to an International Monetary Fund conference representing Australia, Mr. Sinclair obviously knows much more than he told delegates to the National Party Conference. On this issue, more than any other, the National Party should be diligently seeking a mandate from rural and mining industries. They haven't done much so far to inspire confidence on the question.