AFTER THE ELECTION

"I think that Bob Hawke's Labor Party will win a majority in the House of Representatives, there will be a hung Senate (but with fewer Democrats than there are now) and that the country will be in for a period of unpleasant political bickering and increased divisiveness". - Peter Robinson, in The Sun-Herald (Sydney) Feb 27th.

This seems to sum up, as well as any of the political commentators, the likely political "prospect before us". Of course, it doesn't go far enough. Supporters will recall that it is only a little over seven years since Sir John Kerr defused a serious political crisis (not a Constitutional crisis) in November 1975, by dismissing the Whitlam Labor Government, appointing a Fraser caretaker Government, and referring the problem to the Australian people by way of a Federal election. The result of that election was the annihilation of Labor, as was to be expected.
The Australian electorate was becoming alarmed that proper limits of government powers were being exceeded. Perhaps not in an articulate manner, but the feeling was there nevertheless.

An "instinctive feeling", as described by the great Kossuth in our "thought for the week". The same "feeling" was present in December 1949, when the Chifley Government was thrown out of office to make way for the Menzies Coalition Government. The writer of this item well remembers being told by a council worker (sweeping the main Street) in a Sydney suburb - "I'm scared, they (the Chifley Government) are getting too much power." This is how the Australian electorate responded then to the excesses of government.

Mr. Peter Robinson puts his finger on one danger; that of the Socialist ideologues... "It (Labor) will have to find means of keeping the reins on its quite considerable collection of ideological crazies". Political ideology can often be like one of the (new) religious cults, in that it blinds its victims to (political) reality. Such politicians have their ideological visions (Reality to them) and force, if they can, these visions on an unwilling electorate. Indeed power can send men (and women) quite mad and there must be protective safeguards for the populace at large. In just seven years the political climate in Australia has virtually turned a full circle. The Fraser Government, itself, is now almost certainly to be ejected from office. Why? Mr. Robinson again... "they have no record on which to stand".

One of the fundamental principles of organisation is that an organisation moves towards fragmentation if and when it fails to fulfill its intended function. What all this points to is the extreme volatility of the Australian electorate, and those in other major Western democracies. All these governments are not fulfilling their intended roles, because they can't. Why not? Because under modern finance economic conventions, the solution to political, economic, and social ills is quite impossible. This then means that accepted finance economic conventions are fallacious? Yes, they are; and further deterioration - leading to ultimate revolution throughout the remainder of the "free" world is as certain as the next sunrise, if the existing practices are persisted in.

Mr. Hawke is about to have his turn in the Australian political stage. He will eventually be swept aside as Malcolm Fraser is being swept aside now. Mr. Peter Robinson again... "The swinging voters who will put Labor in this time will consciously be taking a gamble. They will not be converts and they may quickly revert to previous suspicions if Hawke and Labor seem to fail them. "Exactly".

We have already gone on record and expressed our view that Australia, (with other countries) is now on the periphery of revolutionary politics. Things won't be the same any more from now on. We are interested to read that Peter Robinson thinks so too... "I suspect that this year of 1983 will be a watershed in Australian politics, with a radicalisation, a polarisation, and a splintering of opposition becoming increasingly apparent from now on." Yes, indeed.

Well, that's the situation. What's the best we can do about it? This brings us to the Senate. The key to the protection of the Australian people. The prime virtue of the Westminister system of government is that it prevents concentrations of political power. It accords with that mysterious Trinitarian principle running through the universe which is interwoven so very often in the nature of reality. Like length, breadth, width (the physical dimensions), solid, liquid, gas (the states of matter) - body, mind, spirit (the nature of Man). It has something to do with the Mystery of the Trinity, but as we are not theologians we must leave it rest there.

Lower House, Upper House, Crown, divides political power and has so far prevented totalitarianism and loss of freedom of the individual. When Sir John Kerr, in November 1975, dismissed the Whitlam Government, he was acting constitutionally (even the Socialists will admit that. They say he shouldn't have done it). Naturally.

He acted constitutionally because of the division of power (enshrined in our Constitution) among the three branches of the Parliament. Many supporters do not realise that the Crown is one of the three branches of Parliament, just as vital as the other two (Representatives and Senate). The Constitution carefully provided for such a political crisis, which struck Australia in 1975. It gives the Crown (Governor General in Australia) the power to do what he did and refer the problem to the Australian people.

We all know how the Australian people responded. We can't know the exact composition of the next Senate. What we hope for is that neither of the major Parties has control of it. So that a few independents and Democrats hold the balance of power. That will give the man and woman in the street more protection against excesses of government. Senator Chipp is right enough when he claims that had it not been for the Democrat Senators we would all be paying extra sales tax on previously sales tax exempt items, which would have been extended into other areas, for sure.

Modern governments are so desperate for funds as they grapple with the enormous expenses of Welfarism, the inflation generating budget deficits, the astronomical costs of modern technology in the Defence forces that they are out to raid any areas at all which will satisfy the Treasury, but not yet by raiding Australian's bank deposits. Surely, this is one of Malcolm Fraser's most cataclysmic boo-boos.

What all supporters must now consider top priority is to do everything possible to strengthen the Senate as a House of Review, and a check on aggressive legislation. Those who read these lines before the election on March 5th, are urged to place those small teams who are "fair dinkum" first. Such as the "Integrity" team. Then place the major party candidates last with the Communists.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Mr. Hawke says that a Labor Government will reintroduce the "World Heritage (Properties Protection) Act" to stop the building of the Franklin Dam, in Tasmania. It was introduced in the Senate by "Chippocrat" Senate Mason and passed in that House with Labor support. Mr. Hawke was swept away with his own oratory at a recent conservation rally in Melbourne. He said that he'd use the constitutional powers of the people of Australia to force the abandonment of the Franklin Dam project. This is typical trendy totalitarian stuff. The people of Tasmania have voted in referendum (FOR) the Franklin Dam. No matter. It's ideology that counts!
The rights and the will of the people of Tasmania; a sovereign State are to be trampled underfoot "by the constitutional powers of the people of Australia". What rot!
The real situation, the design behind all the clamour is that the subversives see the areas of conservation (such as the Franklin Dam) a crack into which can be driven the wedge of centralism. In plain words, the Tasmanian Wilderness issue (pretty emotive stuff) is being used to attack the principle of States Rights (meaning decentralisation of government). The High Court in its "Koowarta" decision has ruled that the Commonwealth has the right under the so-called "external affairs powers" to pass legislation based on Treaty obligations with other nations and the United Nations and hence it could over-rule the States. Legal experts say that this is not certain at all, but has to be tested. Mr. Hawke has said that he doesn't know what States Rights are. Let us hope that the Senate - the States House will be able to let him know exactly what States Rights are.

Two North Vietnamese military commanders, General Vo Nguyen Giap and General Vo Bam let a few cats out of the bag in a recent French documentary on T.V. The decision to attack South Vietnam was taken in 1959. One year before the Vietcong was formed in South Vietnam. In the same year General Bam was charged with the duty of opening up an infiltration trail to the South. This was 2 years before President Kennedy increased military support for President Diem. Bang goes the Communist propaganda that the Ho Chi Minh Trail was built to match the American build up. The Vietnam War was a political defeat for the United States of America. It was lost on the streets of Melbourne, Sydney, Washington and Los Angeles and in the homes of millions of Americans via the television. The war could have been won in a matter of months at any time, if the will had been there (documentation exists). It was Chairman Mao-tse-tung who once said that the nations with the will to win the struggle for the world, "WILL WIN". The West is losing this battle.

A civil war is building up in Zimbabwe. Some estimates of casualties in Zimbabwe run as high as three thousand. Army deserters, supporters of Joshua Nkomo and other armed bands are roaming the lands inflicting these killings and wounding. The situation is further deteriorating.

From Hansard
The Senate: (December 2nd): Senator Brian Harradine (Tas):
Senator Evans stated clearly that there is abroad within Australia a great deal of wishful thinking on the results of the Koowarta case. I support the view that if the Koowarta decision will hold for this piece of legislation. Let us not make any bones about it. The Australian Democrats have nailed their flag to the mast. A whole new Pandora's Box will be opened up. If the Democrats get away with Senate endorsement of this open-ended piece of legislation what will we see next? Australian Law Journal summary of the essence of the Koowarta case referred to general multilateral conventions or treaties. It may surprise honourable senators to know that in the course of our history Australia has been a signatory to or has been covered by no fewer than 500 multilateral treaties.
Senator Harradine continuing, "I hope that the Australian Democrats are clearer on their constitutional base than they are on their Standing Orders. This so-called World Heritage Properties Protection Bill seizes on just one of those international conventions which Australia happened to ratify on 22nd August 1974. It uses it as a steamroller not just in relation to the rights of Tasmania in respect of South West Tasmania. The area is not really South West Tasmania. It goes up to about 40 kilometres from Devonport, but also with an open ended application to other areas which might be nominated to the World Heritage Committee in Paris. As I mentioned during the second reading debate. This Bill does not necessarily have to apply only to one area. It can apply to a building, a group of buildings or paintings. Provided they are nominated the trigger is supplied.
"The Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania should have examined this aspect in more detail. According to page 211 of its report it appears to have accepted the argument of Mr. Murray Wilcox, Q.C., who presented evidence as President of the Australian Conservation Foundation. Senator Missen mentioned that Mr. Wilcox had a great deal to do with the preparation and drafting of this legislation. I have no wish to disparage his legal standing. Indeed I have no ability to do so. But we are warranted in drawing attention to his prominent association with an interested and committed organisation, namely, the Australian Conservation Foundation......"

Senator Crichton-Browne (W.A.):
"......The Commonwealth was entered into in the first place on the basis of a declared division of power. Definitive, precise, articulate powers were laid down in the Constitution for the benefit of the States and ultimate residual powers rested with the Commonwealth. There have been insidious attempts over the years to undermine those powers. The tragedy is that members of the Australian Labor Party do not believe in State Rights. The aspirant to the leadership of the A.L.P. (speech made December 2nd, '82) Mr. Hawke, has said: 'The answer, I think, is that we, who are by nature a fairly conservative people, have become infatuated by the assiduously cultivated phenomenon called 'state rights'. I must confess that I do not have any idea what State Rights are.... 'I believe the logical implication of this analysis is that Australians would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of government - that is the States who no longer service the original purposes and act as a positive impediment to achieving good government in our current community'.
"....I just remind Senator Evans of paragraph 4 of the amendment which he may not have read, which is about States Rights. There are some other matters. Senator Evans blessed us with his undivided wisdom and knowledge recently when he edited a book called "Labor and the Constitution, 1972-75, which was published in 1977, telling us of all the insidious ways in which the commonwealth could usurp the powers of the States without altering the Constitution. I refer particularly to paragraph 4 which deals with whether it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to invoke the foreign affairs powers set out in section 51 of the Constitution, which is all about States' rights I wish briefly to sum up by saying that Western Australia never wanted to belong to the Federation in the first place. It did so as a result of a great deal of pressure exerted by the then Secretary of State for the colonies, Joseph Chamberlain, who told Western Australia that if we did not go to a referendum we would not get self government. Under a great deal of duress and a great deal of pressure we went to a referendum…"