WHAT ABOUT THE JOH CAMPAIGN NOW?

Over many years we have said that the National Party, successor to the old Country Party, had little chance of effectively representing rural Australia while it remained in partnership with the Liberal Party. The Country Party did at one time have some realistic policies, such as long-term, low-interest credits for rural industries. Before he was made a Cabinet Minister, present National Party Deputy leader, Mr. Ralph Hunt, gave a well publicised address calling for the establishment of a Rural Bank which would implement a long-term, low-interest credit policy. The destruction of rural Australia had started long before the Hawke Government came to office. Spokesmen for the National Party have consistently claimed that they had to be in Coalition with the Liberals in order to have an input into policy making. If they did attempt to have an input, the results were nil. There was a greater concern about obtaining Cabinet positions and the "perks" of office than having realistic policies adopted.

Now that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen has achieved his first objective, splitting the Federal National Party from a badly divided Liberal Party, members of the National Party can no longer claim that they must heed the views of a Coalition colleague. The way has been cleared for some competition between non-Labor candidates. At least the campaign by Sir Joh has made it possible for electors to exert some influence. This means, of course, that electors will need to use their initiative and join the grassroots movement now growing across Australia. We do not subscribe to the widely promoted view that competition among non-Labor candidates will weaken the non-Labor vote. The present high rating of the Hawke Government in the polls is the result of the perception of confusion in the ranks of the main Opposition party, the Liberals, together with Hawke-Keating propaganda campaign to convince the Australian people that the economy is improving. A slight reduction in the high inflation rate and a fractional fall in some interest rates are headlined as big success stories. The reality is that Australia continues on a disaster course.

We have previously expressed reservations about the pro-Joh campaign and do so again. Sir Joh has shaken the Australian political scene as it has never been shaken before, and this has been an enormous plus. But a "Joh for PM" campaign is another matter. This is not a realistic objective. What is realistic is a movement served by Sir Joh, which can, particularly in the Senate, elect sufficient representatives to hold the balance of power. But what about policies? Apart from his flat-tax policy, still not spelt out to the electors, Sir Joh has been vague, his general attitude being "trust me". Quite frankly, this is not good enough. Blind trust in one man is an abdication of the electors' responsibilities. And we have little confidence in some of those masterminding the "Joh for PM" campaign, including Sir Robert Sparkes and the National Party's campaign coordinator, Mr. Fred Maybury. Mr. Maybury is an advertising man and his statements indicate that he sees the situation where he has to "sell" Sir Joh in what he describes as a Presidential style campaign.

Mr. Maybury's claim to fame is that he directed the successful campaign, which against what appeared to be the polls, re-elected Sir Joh at the last State elections. Objective observers believe that the main factor in Sir Joh's win was not the enormous sums of money spent on advertising, but the backlash of Queensland electors against a media campaign, which they perceived to be completely unethical and unfair.

Mr. Maybury's initial "Joh for PM" effort; the distribution of car stickers through the media, was an expensive flop. Australia is not going to be saved by advertising gimmicks, but by limited objective basic policies designed to bring together the grass roots movement across Australia. The keynote should be that a pro-Joh movement seeks to serve the Australian electors, to provide them with an opportunity to have an effective say in their own destiny. A firm commitment to implement the Swiss system of an electors' veto of unpopular legislation is the first essential. Initially Sir Joh did mention the Swiss principle in at least two addresses. But now he appears to have backed away from this on the advice of some around him. And this is what concerns us. And that is why we urge all readers to participate fully in the growing National Survival campaign.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION : WEDGE OF INSTABILITY

"The Liberal Party's decision to oppose the Government's latest anti-discrimination legislation has been attacked by one of the Party's top women." The Sun (Melbourne) April 27th.

The legislation referred to is Affirmative Action legislation, which is based on a United Nations Convention calling for the removal of all manner of discrimination against women. It is beloved of the Feminists such as Senator Susan Ryan, the present Minister for Education. There is the probability that no less than nine Liberal Senators could cross the floor to vote with the Government on the Affirmative Action legislation. The "wets" in the Liberal Party are pushing for Affirmative Action. The general "pie in the sky" philosophy behind Affirmative Action is that it will help to provide a more "balanced" society', a "fairer" society - as women have been discriminated against by men for centuries. Human beings have been in some forms of societies for thousands of years, so we wonder why the Socialists' dream of their "fairer society" hasn't occurred well before the present.

Affirmative Action is really discrimination in reverse: it discriminates against men. Women can be shoved ahead of better-qualified men because they are women. This, to produce a "fairer society"! We appreciate that all this is a philosophy of the brainwashed. Yes, there certainly is a subversive thrust behind all this Mickey Mouse legislation based on U.N. Conventions and Declarations. It sounds fine; but it doesn't work (it is producing appalling results in the U.S.A., with some firms employing "Human Rights" lawyers so as to avoid legal entanglements with vexatious employees). The ultimate promoters of Affirmative Action know it won't work, but will cause enmity and instability in any society, which introduces it. On one ground, alone it promotes the disintegration of the family by forcing, encouraging women out of the home into that beloved "work force".

Christians should accept that there is a Natural Order in which men have their role, and women have a complementary role. One is not complete without the other. Men cannot perform the role of a mother in the rearing of children, however diligently they try: they don't understand the constant emotional needs of a child, as a woman does. And what is more important than the rearing of emotionally stable children??? Ye Gods! Take a look at our society now. How many women are interested in pushing back the limits of Man's knowledge in space; or whatever??? It's just not their scene, by and large. No, the RadFem Brigade is suspect. There are too many Communists and lesbians in their ranks. One can often hear them ranting and raving on national radio.

Read "The Death of Eve", by Alan Barron ($7.50 posted) and "The Australian Revolution", by Arthur Tuck ($3.50 posted), both books available from League bookshops.

BRIEF COMMENTS

The Citizen (leading South African newspaper published in Johannesburg) reports that at least R200 million, and possibly as much as R300 million is coming into South Africa annually from the United States 'to move the country from apartheid'. This was stated by Professor Carl Noffke head of the Rand Afrikaans University's Institute for American Studies. The American Administration itself, he said, is spending at least R100 million a year on 160 projects in South Africa, 150 of which are described as human rights projects. "The purpose of these funds, said Professor Noffke, is to assist in the termination of the present political system in South Africa and to create what is called a non-racial democracy. The bulk of this foreign funding, including that from the U.S.A., is reaching organisations on the Left of the political spectrum, including trade unions, and church organisations.

Those supporters who are well aware of the New Age Movement will know of the near cult known as EST. The Guru of the EST cult is one, "Werner Erhard", who has developed his own type of "occult speak", which means nothing, but sways impressionable people, who shell out something like $50 to listen to him for 3-4 hours. From what we can decipher from the confusion, he helps people "find themselves", "become aware", find "positive action", and all the rest of the New Age codswallop. No, his audiences aren't made up of the unemployed; the dropouts, or those of the various counter cultures. They are made up mainly of the "yuppies" (young, urban, professionals). The young doctors, solicitors, architects, management men, and their wives and de factos. Did you know that there are several New Age management consultant organisations in Australia (their names are in heavy type in the big city telephone directories) which are running all types of courses for sales and management staff of very many of Australia's largest companies? Well there you are! EST is now called "Forum".