NEW ZEALAND FEELS THE INTERNATIONAL HEAT

Mr. Eric Butler reports from New Zealand, where he is currently lecturing under the auspices of the New Zealand League of Rights. Upon his arrival to lecture on the menace of party politics, he appeared in a nationwide television programme of 30 minutes, and since has been reported extensively on radio and in the press, Mr. Butler writes:
"Like Mr. Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister Muldoon of New Zealand is projected as a strong leader. He came to off ice in 1975, the same year that Mr. Fraser came to office. During the 1975 election campaign Mr. Muldoon had same hard things to say about the Labor Government for breaking its word and stopping the 1973 South African rugby tour. The Labor politicians were the worst type of liars, he said. He did not believe that politicians should interfere in matters of sport. A tour by the South African rugby team would not only be welcome, but Mr. Muldoon said he would be there in the grandstand cheering for the New Zealand All Blacks.

It is no secret that even many Labor devotees of rugby warmed to Mr. Muldoon and cast their votes for him in 1975. But Mr. Muldoon has now come out against the proposed Springbok tour, scheduled to start in July. True, he is only expressing his "personal opinion", but he has let it be known internationally that he is against the tour. Fearing a loss of votes at this year's general election, Mr. Muldoon does not want to have to halt the tour by refusing visas to the South Africans. He hopes that the publicising of his "personal opinion" will result in the tour being cancelled, thus saving him from the unpleasant situation in which he finds himself.

Mr. Muldoon says that while he does not agree with the methods of the gaggle of agitators and do-gooders opposing the tour, their opposition will require costly police protection. He also says that he believes that the majority of New Zealanders are now against the tour. All the surveys suggest that the majority of New Zealanders want the tour to go on.
I find that there is a deep-seated resentment by a wide cross section of New Zealanders against the campaign to deny them the freedom to watch a rugby series against their traditional opponent, South Africa. One would have thought that a National Party Prime Minister would have insisted that, if necessary, the New Zealand police should be used to uphold the rule of law against those who blatantly say they are determined to break it.

Clearly Mr. Muldoon is no Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who had no problems in Queensland during the last South African rugby tour. The Queensland Premier insisted that the rule of law would be maintained, with those wishing to watch the South Africans play rugby free to do so without being annoyed by agitators.

The reason for Prime Minister Muldoon's about face on South African tours is clear: Mr. Muldoon's Government is in deep trouble. The finance economic crisis continues. Mr. Muldoon is no more successful in "fighting" inflation than is Australian Treasurer Howard. But this is not surprising when Mr. Muldoon's government continues to impose the same heavy taxation burden being imposed by the Fraser Government.
Mr. Muldoon has also been engaged in "hocking" New Zealand to the same international financial groups who have been financing the Communists. He fears that international credit may be cut off if he shows any sympathy towards South Africa at a time when a massive international programme is being mounted against the South Africans. There is also the threat that African States, many of them run by blood handed dictators, will attempt to have New Zealand isolated, economically and in the field of sport. The West Indies have already threatened that if the South Africans are permitted to come to New Zealand, the New Zealand cricket tour of the West Indies could be cancelled.

New Zealand is at present the major fulcrum being used by those international forces attempting to lever South Africa out of the Western orbit. The capitulation by Prime Minister Muldoon shows once again that freedom loving people cannot afford to put their faith in party politicians. The New Zealand people are fighting back, but I regret to report that unless some type of miracle happens, not only will South Africa be subjected to another major international rebuff, but New Zealanders will also experience a defeat at the hands of the international totalitarians."

JEREMY LEE REPORTS FROM REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN

"Yesterday's papers came out with headline stories on a recently published government report on the oil industry. The massive seven volume report claimed that the oil companies, led by the big four of Imperial Oil Ltd, Shell Canada Ltd, Gulf Canada Ltd, and Texaco Canada, worked together in such a way as to artificially increase prices and reduce competition. This resulted, the report claimed, in the overcharging of the Canadian people by some 12 billion dollars between 1958 and 1973. That amounts to a sum of $2,500 for every man, woman and child in Canada over the 15 year period.

The report came out at a very handy time for Prime Minister Trudeau. The Government's recently formed Petrol Company, named Petro-Canada, (emblem - the red maple leaf) has been running into heavy flak due to the chaos and uncertainty it is causing in the industry. It was formed, according to Trudeau and his merry men, to increase Canada's equity in its own resources. But many are asking whether nationalisation is a worthwhile substitute for foreign ownership. At least with the latter there is reasonable service for consumers.
Ironically, it was the sale of Imperial Oil service stations by Prime Minister Trudeau's father to John D. Rockefeller that gave Pierre his fortune and the palm-strewn path to power.

Is it really true, therefore, that Trudeau's Petro-Canada is a threat to the big Oil Companies? The answer can be seen in the current situation. Hundreds of small, genuinely Canadian companies are fleeing over the border into the USA, following the Canadian government's savage taxation policies and the restrictions of the N.E.P. (National Energy Policy). The big oil boys, whose main interest has always lain in the fields of refining, marketing and distribution are complacently going along with Trudeau's policies. A recent feature by Canada's Financial Post (28/2/81) said: "...currently we import about 25% of our daily requirements of approximately 1.9 million barrels of crude, partly offset by exports of up to 100,000 b/d of heavy crude. The National Energy Programme says we can end imports by 1990 but industry spokesmen who commented on the NEP at last month's National Energy Board supply and demand hearings unanimously rejected such contentions. They say the NEP makes it more difficult, not easier, to become self-sufficient...."

Meanwhile, the battle for Canada's Constitution continues. The former British Prime Minister James Callaghan has, characteristically, taken up the cudgels on Trudeau's behalf, and is, in addition, attempting to exploit the growing rift between Mrs. Thatcher, who also appears to acquiesce in Trudeau's designs, and the growing number of Tory backbenchers who refuse to be a rubber stamp for a socialist centraliser in Canada. A panel of lawyers, appointed by the Province of Quebec to report on the implications of Trudeau's proposed Bill of Rights, has made it clear that it would invalidate many existing Quebec laws. The panel was led by a former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, Yves Pratte, who has also been to London to warn British politicians of the dangers of Trudeau's intentions.
While it may be true that many laws do need repeal, or are unjust, Pratte's basic argument is the same as the cogent argument put forward by Sir Robert Menzies - namely, that a Bill of Rights often diminishes liberty by establishing written bounds and limitations; and that English Common Law, properly applied, contains a far more flexible recognition of rights and liberties; the more so because it seeks not to legislate equally for the lion and the lamb."

BRIEF COMMENTS