WHAT ABOUT THE 'NEW NATIONALS'?

The current Australian political scene reminds us of a statement made some years back, by Sir Marcus Oliphant, former Governor of South Australia. Sir Marcus said that modern governments are elected dictatorships, with the role of the individual member being little more than that of recording his vote as demanded by his party. It is significant that no Independent has been elected to the Federal Parliament from mainland Australia since Jack Lang was elected in 1946. Rarely has an individual Member of Parliament crossed the floor in recent times. We mention the growing domination of the individual Member as a backdrop to commenting on the latest Sir Joh bombshell.

We have commented previously that without in any way giving Sir Joh unqualified support, we agree that he has acted like a catalyst in the Australian political situation. He is right when he claims that by his proposed Federal offensive, he has stirred the Liberal and National party leaders at Canberra to consider some policy changes. But these changes are only marginal, as witnessed by Liberal leader John Howard's claim that he also favours "fllatter' taxes.

But what about the threat of increased indirect taxation? While Sir Joh says that the "New Nationals" would hold a referendum to "make 25 percent tax the upper limit on personal taxation", he is not as yet agreeing to support the introduction of the Swiss system which enables electors to challenge all legislation if 10 percent petition for a referendum.

The manner in which the 12 Queensland National Members of the Federal Parliament were ordered to leave the Opposition Coalition, raises the fundamental question of representative government. There has been no question of electors being consulted. If the 12 Members eventually become Members of a Federal government, then it appears that they will automatically and unquestioningly support whatever policies the government puts forward. There was a time when, unlike the highly disciplined Labor party, National (previously Country) and Liberal party Members were permitted a greater degree of freedom. If Sir Joh really favours freedom and personal responsibility, he will attempt to ensure that New National Members are in the position where they can truly represent their electors.

Writing in The Weekend Australian of April 11th-l2th, perceptive political commentator, Katharine West, writes that Sir Joh has "allowed himself to be dragged down to the level of a party leader apparently embroiled in the party politics voters like least of all: open brawling between seemingly self seeking careerists. If Sir Joh wants to revive his federal election prospects, he needs to rid himself of the image and reality of being mixed up with a divided and minority political party." We endorse those views.

If Sir Joh is to provide the type of leadership Australia so desperately needs, he must project himself as the leader of a movement, above sectional party politics, with a realistic, limited objective programme, which while it will not solve all Australia's problems, will set Australia on a road to a meaningful future. What concerns mature political observers is the role of Queensland president of the National Party, Sir Robert Sparkes, who obviously sees Sir Joh merely as a means of advancing his own strategy, to make the Nationals the major anti-Labor party at Canberra after the next Federal elections. It is vital to recall that Sir Robert Sparkes has been one of the principal opponents of every really constructive policy Sir Joh has put forward, such as the "Petersen Plan" for reversing inflation, and the establishment of a State Bank in Queensland.

With the threat of small business leaders proposing to select a team of Federal candidates separate from the existing parties, and with possible competition between a number of anti Labor candidates, a situation is developing in which a genuine grassroots movement may extract some firm commitments from the candidates offering. Sir Joh's candidates will have the opportunity of demonstrating just how much they have to offer. The League will not recommend support for any candidate whose first priority does not include return of the control of the Constitution to the Australian people, and a constitutional provision that the people have the reserve power, via a referendum, to challenge any legislation. We will be interested to hear what the "New Nationals" have to say on this issue.

EXPLOITING BITTER FRUITS OF 'THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION'

One of the most frightening aspects of the hysterical Grim Reaper film on the AIDS threat is that it ignores basic issues and truths, which are regarded as unpalatable by the liberal humanists. And it subjects the young to a campaign, which further dehumanises the sex act. Not only are condoms now displayed on TV almost as an essential life aid, but children as young as 11 are to be taught at school about how to use them. "Sex education has already resulted in promiscuity among children at a younger age. Apart from serious psychological damage, there has been a big increase in venereal diseases. The message associated with the Condom Culture is that it is okay if it is safe.

The sex drive is one of the strongest of human instincts, primarily to ensure that human life continues, and a study of history shows that every Civilisation has attempted to evolve a culture whereby sex can express itself constructively inside generally accepted standards of behaviour. The noblest of literature, including that of ancient Greece and Rome, has always portrayed love between a man and a woman as something transcending sex, even though sex itself is a manifestation of love. The ideal has always been loyalty and fidelity.

Natural law philosophy, quite apart from the Christian view, has always stressed that marriage between normal males and females partakes of reality and that stable family life provides the best environment in which the young can develop as creative and psychologically balanced individuals. Stable family life with normal sexual behaviour ensures stable and orderly societies.

What might be described as the modern Sexual Revolution was given a major impetus by the Jewish psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, described by Malcolm Muggeridge as one of the major "demolition" men of last century. According to Freud, many of man's ills resulted from a suppression of sex. Man had to be "liberated" from any feeling of guilt, concerning sex. Toleration of sexual freedom led inevitably to the demand that homosexuality be regarded merely as "an alternative life style." Rights for gays has become the slogan of an increasingly aggressive minority, and it is that minority which the AIDS campaign, either consciously or unconsciously, is tending to protect.

The basic facts concerning AIDS are: At least 90 percent of AIDS cases originate with male homosexuals. There is a percentage originating from heterosexuals who practise anal sex, generally as a means of contraception. And, finally, there are cases originating with the needles used by drug users, many of these also homosexuals. Unless through a blood transfusion, a risk now almost completely eliminated, normal children are much more likely to die from drowning or a car accident, than they are to die from AIDS.

The overwhelming majority of the population, providing normal traditional sexual standards are maintained, are at little risk from AIDS. They are not the source of the problem. But by including them as a target for the massive fear campaign, this tends to direct attention away from the basic source, those practising unnatural sex. Gays have rights, but it should be made clear that they also have responsibilities.

The anti-AIDS campaign misses a tremendous opportunity to direct attention to the benefits, which result from traditional sexual ideals. As a number of critics have pointed out, it will do far more harm than good. But perhaps that is what it is meant to do.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Reviewing the recently published book The Petrov Affair, lecturer in politics at La Trobe University, former Labor Senator Jim McClelland, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald agreed that it was complete mythology that the Petrov defection in 1954 was a conspiracy between ASIO and Menzies to defeat Dr. Evatt and the Labor party. McClelland wrote, "This belief has been enshrined in Labor folklore and is a clinical specimen of the truism that it is easy to persuade people to believe what they want to believe." Such as the Labor myth that the CIA masterminded the end of the Whitlam government in 1975! With even a Communist official, George McIlroy, reviewing the book, Better Read Than Dead, agreeing that Evatt was a victim of his own delusions, it is pertinent to ask why yet another survivor of the notorious Auschwitz, George Marue, writes in his recently published version of the Petrov affair, Escapes and Escapades, that he learned as an ASIO agent that the Menzies Government "was using its security service for political purposes."

The uninformed may smirk at the Rev. Fred Nile's description of rock and roll as 'demonic and anti-social', but students of the rock and roll cult document its baneful influence. When Shakespeare wrote of music soothing the savage beast, he was not talking about anything resembling rock and roll, which is a reversion to the primitive. The Rev. Nile was complaining about a new six-part title, "Roll Over Beethoven", described as the rock and roll textbook for high school students. It has been given the endorsement of Federal Education Minister Senator Susan Ryan and formulated in consultation with N.S.W. Education Department Curriculum Branch. It will be available in Victorian schools next year.

With Prime Minister Hawke endorsing the Business Council of Australia's campaign for four-year parliaments, and the Opposition with no objections, it is highly likely that a referendum will be held on this issue at the time of the next Federal elections. But there is the problem of the term for Senators, now double that of the Members of the House of Representatives. An eight-year term for Senators is unthinkable. Or is it? Before electors agree to a longer parliamentary term, they should insist on the protection of the right to petition for a referendum against unwanted legislation.