A SICKENING POWER STRUGGLE

The Political media commentators relished the power play at Canberra last week, making their own contribution by fueling speculation as to who was doing what. Events will eventually demonstrate that much of what has been written and said is baseless speculation. But it helps to sell papers and sustain radio and TV ratings.

Certain facts are clear. Four men involved in a political power struggle, which has nothing to do with policies, are Mr. Malcolm Fraser, Mr. Andrew Peacock, Mr. John Howard and Sir Phillip Lynch. Mr. Andrew Peacock wants Mr. Fraser's position, and is backed by a group who either dislike Malcolm Fraser personally or believe that Mr. Peacock as Prime Minister would be more likely to save their threatened seats at the next elections. Sir Phillip Lynch managed to survive the successful Fraser challenge to Billy Snedden in 1975, retaining his position as deputy leader of the Liberal party. When Mr. Andrew Peacock challenged Sir Phillip for this position following the last Federal elections, his vote was sufficiently strong to indicate that Sir Phillip's support was in doubt for the future.
Even if Sir Phillip ever thought he could become leader, he now has no hope. He is in fact more concerned about surviving as deputy leader of the Liberal party. Sir Phillip's controversial statement on welfare just prior to the Lowe by-election, followed by his statement last that the government might ease corporate taxes in the next budget, could only mean that Sir Phillip was attempting to defend his own position if Mr. Peacock's supporters were successful in having party positions declared vacant. But these statements have been counter-productive and Sir Phillip's position must now be regarded as in serious danger.

If veteran political commentator Laurie Oaks is correct, the drama at Canberra last week was the result of a "set up" by Malcolm Fraser and his supporters, with a view of discrediting Andrew Peacock before the Victorian elections, privately written off by the Liberals. Such is the low nature of power politics. Whatever the truth about all the wheeling and dealing, Mr. Peacock must make his challenge following the Victorian elections. If a "spill motion" were successful, Treasurer John Howard would then become a candidate for one of the top positions.

Western Australian Liberal Member Mr. John Hyde, who fancies himself as an authority on economics, has said that Mr. John Howard would have an obligation to stand for the leadership, a prospect which we find most chilling. We would rate John Howard as one of the greatest economic illiterates ever to have been Federal Treasurer. The convulsions inside the Liberal party are those of a party in its death throes.

Irrespective of where Fraser, Peacock, Lynch and Howard finish after Mr. Peacock makes his move for a spill, or if the spill motion fails, the electors have been provided with another revolting spectacle of power-hungry party politicians demonstrating that they are more concerned with self than with serving the Australian people. Hopefully this spectacle will stimulate the growing movement based upon conscience voting and genuine responsible government.

BEHIND THE ABORIGINAL 'LAND RIGHTS' ISSUE

Anyone who has read Stalin's text book, "Marxism and the National and Colonial Question", and studied the Communists' long interest in Australia's Aboriginal peoples, is not surprised to find that the Communists have been in the forefront of the campaign for "land rights" for the Aboriginals. While welcoming what has been done in South Australia, where the Dunstan government gave over approximately one tenth of the State to one tribe, and in the Northern Territory, the Communists see these developments as but first steps towards the ultimate objective of the Aboriginals becoming a sovereign nation. They can then call upon other nations, such as Cuba, to help them.

Establishing separate nations appears contrary to the Communist teaching in favour of a Communist world. But as Mr. Eric Butler points out in his book, "Dialectics" (80 cents posted) Stalin stressed that "The national movement of oppressed countries must not be evaluated from the viewpoint of formal democracy, but from the viewpoint of real results in the general balance of the struggle against imperialism".
Communist dialectics demand that while Communists opposed separate development in South Africa - "apartheid"- they support it in Australia.

The Marxist strategy for exploiting Australian Aboriginals is assisted by the activities of part Aborigine Mr. Charles Perkins of the Commonwealth Affairs Department. Large numbers of part-Aboriginal radical activists, falsely claiming to speak for the genuine Aboriginal people, are being financed by the Australian taxpayers or by the World Council of Churches. Mr. Perkins and these activists have openly threatened violence at the Commonwealth Games unless the Queensland State government accedes to their demands. Press reports last week said that the Queensland government had decided not to make any further comments concerning the threat of violence at the Commonwealth Games.

But if the Queensland government felt that such an attitude would end controversy, they were proved wrong when last week a half-page advertisement appeared in "The Australian" (March 27-28), authorised by Dr. H.C.Coombs for "The Aboriginal Treaty Committee", appealing for funds to assist with the campaign to have a Treaty negotiated between the Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders and the Commonwealth of Australia. The advertisement contains an attack upon the Queensland government's new legislation governing Aboriginal reserves, legislation which has the support of genuine Aboriginal spokesmen. But these spokesmen are not publicised by the general media.

Dr. Coombs, Socialist architect for many years of disastrous financial policies, and his associates, are conducting a campaign to persuade the Fraser government to apply pressure to the Queensland government. To date Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen has stood firm against pressure from both the radical activists and the Commonwealth Government. In doing so he is holding a major frontline for Australia against the strategy of exploiting the Aboriginals for the purpose of destroying Australia as a free nation.

BRIEF COMMENTS

In an attempt to justify his highly paid position as Federal Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr. Al Grassby often writes to the press on the subject of "racial discrimination". But he is as careless with his facts as with his arguments. A typical case of Grassby misrepresentation was provided in a letter to "The Age", Melbourne, of March 18th, attempting to reply to one of many critics. In his letter Mr. Grassby wrote, "As far as the Australian community today is concerned, perhaps Mr. Walker should address himself to the fact that...no candidate representing a racist organisation has been elected to Parliament since World War 11."
For Mr. Grassby's benefit, the Australian Country Party listed until recent years defence of "White Australia" as one of its policies. While not using the term "White Australia", the Liberal party supported the traditional immigration policy and opposed multiracialism and multiculturalism up until the time of the Fraser government. Mr. Grassby's own party, the Labor Party, was even stronger in its defence of the "White Australia" policy, a defence vigorously conducted by Mr. Fred Daly until Mr. Gough Whitlam replaced him with Mr. Al Grassby. Without consulting either their own members or the Australian people, the parties changed Australia's Immigration policy. This form of "guided democracy" is supported by Mr. Grassby. Any national referendum on Immigration would result in an overwhelming rejection of the present policy. That is why the Grassby's are afraid to conduct such a referendum.

It is not surprising to find Victorian Liberal Senator Missen supporting Labor Senator Garth Evans' bill to change the constitution establishing a fixed term for parliament, thus removing the Senate's power to reject supply. In an address entered in "Hansard" before he left for the USA, Senator Missen claimed that crises have "poisoned the political atmosphere since 1975." Any reduction in the powers of the Senate means that a government could bring in the most horrendous budget without any check in the Senate. Only where there are effective internal checks and balances in government can the individual's rights be protected.

Prime Minister Fraser still continues to slap the Soviet Union gently on the wrist while at the same time presiding over the export of economic blood transfusions, which help to sustain the Communist criminals. The Australian Wheat Board has announced with satisfaction that it has financed its latest sale of one million tonnes of wheat to the Soviet on credits provided at commercial rates of interest. The Soviet has been hard pressed for adequate grain supplies because of yet another failure in its own grain crop, and at the same time is short of foreign credits with which to import. The USA, which has combined with the Australian Wheat Board to assist the Soviet with grain, has also provided short-term credits. Some cynical critics are suggesting that President Reagan is opposing the financing of the Siberian natural gas pipeline only because most of the pipeline and equipment is being provided by the Western Europeans and the Japanese, but is not opposing wheat sales on credit because most of the grain comes from the U.S.A. As Dr. Antony Sutton points out in his great classic "National Suicide", the West provides massive economic aid to sustain the Soviet while at the same time spending billions of dollars on defence against the Soviet. Those financing this treachery know what they are doing, even if the politicians don't.

Electoral comment authorised by E.D. Butler, 273 Lt. Collins St., Melb.