THE PHONY TAX DEBATE

A Press headline reads, HOWARD MAKES RUN WITH TAXATION ISSUE. This headline referred to a statement last week by Liberal leader at Canberra, Mr. John Howard that he was "delighted that the Prime Minister wants to make tax the main issue in the next election, because the Prime Minister's record on taxation is a deplorable one." Mr. Howard claimed that Mr. Hawke had not answered four questions on taxation. "All of them should have been capable of a straight answer; not one of them was answered by the Prime Minister, for the very simple reason he doesn't know anything about what has happened to taxation under his own administration." Mr. Howard went on to say that the Hawke Government has "abandoned any attempt to bring down the overall levels of taxation."

The memory of most electors is, unfortunately, notoriously short. But many of them can still recall that Federal Treasurer John Howard was no more successful than Mr. Keating in reducing the total level of taxation. Treasurer Keating has taunted Mr. Howard with the charge that he has not promised that if elected he would not tax "fringe benefits". Mr. Howard has tried to skirt around the subject, no doubt recalling his painful experiences when he tried to tax Central Queensland miners on their subsidised housing.

Federal Liberal front bench Member, Mr. Wilson Tuckey, Opposition spokesman on Small Business, has not helped Mr. Howard with his claim that the Opposition would, if elected, impose some fringe benefit taxes - on housing, cars, and education. Mr. Tuckey says, "We would make a very great distinction between what we considered a fringe benefit and what has currently been decided to be a fringe benefit." As we have constantly pointed out, any worthwhile overall reduction in taxation is impossible under, present financial policies. Unless Mr. Howard is going to modify those policies, with the best intentions in the world, he will be forced to do what he did when Treasurer in the Fraser Government - constantly look for ways and means to keep taxing the people.

In the meantime the Auditor General has criticised the Tax Office, charging that it had been unable to implement and to police the Government's prescribed payments system. Even with an expanded army of tax officials, it will be impossible to police the Fringe Benefits Tax. We are not able to confirm the accuracy of the claim that the total cost of collecting the Fringe Benefits Tax will be at least approximately the same as the amount of increased tax collected, but there is no doubt that an increasing level of total taxation results in an increasing resistance by taxpayers, this in turn requiring more tax collectors. This is the road to complete totalitarianism, with taxation officials exercising greater powers than the police.

Writing in The Weekend Australian of September 27-28th, well-known commentator Katharine West says, "If the Hawke government continues its draconian taxation, and if the Howard Opposition fails to come up soon with something dramatically better, both Government and Opposition will deservedly lose the next national election to a team of candidates much closer to community opinion."
Even if Katharine West's optimism is sustained by events, no new set of politicians can do any better than what Australians have endured for years - unless they are prepared to tackle the basic financial question. But if alternative candidates can challenge the present phony taxation debate, they will be playing a role in helping to save Australia.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION ISSUES PAPER

Human Rights: 114
Whilst traditionally the protection of human rights was a matter for the States, with Australia becoming a party to various international Conventions on human rights the question arises should this now be a federal or state power?"
THIS IS SLIPPERY STUFF. Our Comment: Common law gives adequate protection for human rights, and all power should be as decentralised as possible, in conformity with the Christian emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual: the individual must have the maximum possible authority over his own affairs.

Why did Australia become party to international Conventions on human rights? Did the people sanction it by referendum? NO, the people did not. They were not asked. There should be no laws on human rights at all which are based on external treaties. We have traditionally done most satisfactorily with our own common law, and do not need Mickey Mouse legislation- the real purpose of which is to achieve the opposite to that which is propounded.

Let us recall our "Thought for the Week" (O.T. August 15th) written by Professor Lauchlan Chipman, viz, - "Politicians have found out that, if you erode civil liberties and human rights in the name of defending them, you will not only get away with it, but even be allowed to boast about it." Notice the above implication that Australia's acceptance of, and adherence to international conventions on human rights is some sort of natural process. It isn't anything of the sort. It's all a great confidence trick. The people of Oz are being "had". This trick has got whiskers on it.

The idea is to establish the belief that an inexorable, natural process is taking place: then set up an argument as to the best way of dealing with it; steering the decisions in the way desired by the manipulators. The mass of the people falls for it all the time. No human rights legislation. No treaties with overseas countries without the consent of the Commonwealth Parliament. The External Affairs Power of the Australian Constitution to be severely curbed so that its abuse is impossible. Legislation based upon foreign treaties (the United Nations Charter is a "treaty") must not be able to be forced on the six sovereign States of Australia without their full consent.

What the political subversives are working towards is the "Enshrinement" (Ye Gods!) of human rights legislation in the Australian Constitution. As the matter is at present, human rights legislation could be overturned by a succeeding Commonwealth government. Supporters are aware that the Libs. & Nats. have undertaken to abolish the Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission on return to power. (As it happened, the "Labor" Hawke Government dropped the issue - temporarily). Senator Gareth Evans was most upset. But he and his ilk were responsible for the destruction of the power of the Crown at State level. And this is bad enough. This had to be done as a precursor to the coming attack on the role of the Crown at Commonwealth level. The power of the Crown is still there; but the attack to come would be impossible if the power of the Crown were still fully established in the States. The Crown had to be knocked out in the States, first. This has been done. But the subversives have a long way to go, yet. Let us see to it that they never get there! We well know what they are up to, and we can and will stop them.

'WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD'

BRIEF COMMENTS

Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was prominent among Commonwealth leaders who, at the Lancaster House conference in 1978, proudly announced that the Constitution they had drawn up for Zimbabwe would ensure a multi-racial democracy in which minority rights were ensured. There was to be political freedom and "equality". Having obtained power, Comrade Mugabe soon made it clear that the Lancaster House agreement was but a piece of paper, to be torn up as soon as practical. Now comes the news that the Mugabe government intends to move to abolish the Upper house, to eliminate the 20 seats reserved for the white electorate, and to amend the Constitution to establish the one party State. The white exodus must increase.

Editorialising on the Zimbabwe situation, The Australian, of September 26th, manages to balance the threat by Mugabe with Mr. Ian Smith's alleged contempt for free institutions, quoting Smith's words at the National Press Club, when the former Rhodesian Prime Minister commended the concept of "meritocracy", as against that of allowing "incompetent, unintelligent and unprincipled" people to have a vote. A genuine democracy requires that voting be responsible. Irresponsible voting means the destruction of democracy.