KEEPING AN EYE ON THE POLITICAL BALL

Those who play or follow games of any kind in which a ball is used, either to be kicked or hit, are familiar with the fundamental requirement for success: keeping the eyes firmly fixed on the ball and avoiding all distractions. C.H. Douglas described modern elections as contests in bribery, with electors asked to vote themselves benefits, anonymously, at the expense of their fellows.

The original concept of taxation was a financial contribution by the individual to pay for, the necessary expenses of government. Parliaments were institutions in which the representatives of the people decided how much money a government should be granted and, to some extent, how it should be spent. But with governments using deficit budgets and other means of obtaining money, at the expense of the people, effective control of government spending has been virtually destroyed, while much of the taxation levied is used to service growing debt, and for various forms of what can only be termed social engineering, which means control of the individual. He is offered some of his own money back, but with conditions.

As we go to press, Mr. John Howard has not presented his long awaited taxation policy. But we can predict with absolute certainty that it will be little more than a variation of the type of taxation policy imposed by both Labor and non-Labor governments over a long period of time. And no party politician can dispute that over that same period all parties have consistently broken promises of reduced taxation made before elections.

Mr. John Howard's biggest problem in the current election is one of credibility. Mr. Howard was for seven years Federal Treasurer in the Fraser government, which first came to office in 1975 by promising a reduction in taxation. That promise was blatantly broken. How then can Mr. Howard be believed today? Although it would be something in the nature of a miracle, Mr. Howard and his colleagues could publicly repent for past broken promises and give a firm assurance that they never again would increase total taxation, both direct and in direct. And in order to demonstrate their integrity, could promise to have introduced the principle of the Swiss Electors' Veto, which would enable electors in the future to challenge at a referendum any taxation measures.

We have received some criticism for supporting a National Survival programme, which calls for an initial reduction in total taxation by 5 percent, critics suggesting that a much bigger reduction should be sought. We have demonstrated over many years how it would be easy to substantially reduce the burden of taxation, but this would require a major change of current financial policy, which, as yet, is not politically practical. The truth is that most of the current argument concerning taxation is either about how to juggle the present level between direct and indirect taxation, while the "flat tax" advocates argue that their policy would generate increased economic activity with the total amount of taxation being sustained. Generally overlooked is that continuing monetary inflation is a most insidious form of hidden taxation.

A reduction of total taxation, even if only 5%, would be a first step in the right direction. If traditional society can be held together sufficiently, events are going to force the fundamental changes required for national survival. Irrespective of who wins the Federal elections, the basic problems threatening Australia are going to remain. All the expensive gimmickry to which Australians are going to be submitted over coming weeks will not alter reality. The reality is that not only Australia, but also every country of the non-Communist world, is entering an unprecedented period of deepening crisis which, while threatening, also provides the opportunity to bring concerned people a programme of regeneration based on Truth.

Yes, by all means let all responsible electors contribute what they can to encourage responsible voting at the Federal elections on July 11th. But much more important, they should keep their eyes "on the ball."

SIR JOH CAN STILL SERVE

As we have consistently recommended that Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, should not leave his firm Queensland base to directly enter Federal politics, we are naturally pleased that that "Joh for Canberra" move has been abandoned. When the full story is told of what happened to one of the most astonishing episodes in Australian political history, it will be revealed that Sir Joh was badly advised and encouraged by people who saw him as merely a means to promoting their own ends.

Sir Joh's daughters have said that their father actually is a "softie". His openness and trusting nature have made him vulnerable to a weird assortment of people, some of whom sought to convince him that they had the capacity to provide him with what has proved to be without substance. Throughout this whole affair Sir Robert Sparkes, and those associated with him, have proved a disaster.

Businessmen who talked loosely about raising $25 million for the "Joh for Canberra" campaign subsequently proved to be men of straw. Some have speculated that perhaps the Premier was being deliberately drawn into the quicksands of Federal politics away from a secure base, thus destroying him. Whatever the truth about the matter, it is almost certain that, as revealed in a special professional survey commissioned by the Queensland National Party, a Federal National party led by Sir Joh would have increased the National Party vote by 10 percent, but this at the expense of the Liberal Party, leaving the Hawke government as the winner.

In what has been described as an "extraordinary speech", the recently retired Secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party, Mr. Chilla Porter, has said at a Perth dinner that "There can be no future for the Liberal Party until it purges itself of the socialist element." Mr. Porter went on to say that "...there is little encouragement for the future of Australia if the choice is between Labor socialists and wet Liberal socialist democrats." Large numbers of frustrated electors share Mr. Chilla Porter's perception. That is why, in spite of what the Hawke government has imposed upon them, they feel reluctant to put their trust in the Liberal Party.

Sir Joh's proposed assault on Canberra initially generated a new hope. The major barrier to the new initiative was the N.S.W. branch of the National Party, which in a vicious smear of the Australian League of Rights, votes Mr. K.D.Gott as an authority on the League. Gott is described merely as a "Melbourne journalist". There is no reference to Mr. Gott's Communist past, to the fact that he was engaged by the Hawke government for $55,000 to "monitor" the activities of the League of Rights, and to provide a report. Clearly both the Liberal Party and the National Party have been infiltrated by the Fabians. We are reminded of the frank admission by founding Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw, of how he and his colleagues infiltrated into all the political parties, including the Conservatives, and that members of all parties started advancing ideas which would never have come into their heads if the Fabians had not put them there.

Even if the Liberals, supported by Mr. Ian Sinclair's Nationals, win the Federal Elections, there is no legitimate reason for believing that Australia's basic problems will be tackled. The Queensland Premier can, if he will still play a major role in the regeneration of traditional Australia. He should with proper dignity withdraw as fast as possible from the current election campaign, supporting only those Queensland National Party candidates who stand with him, and stating that he prepare to serve Australia by putting himself at the head of a national survival movement after the elections. His stature is still sufficiently great to enable him to lead such a movement.

Our advice to all supporters is to treat all candidates for the coming elections on the same basis, irrespective of whether they proclaim themselves to be "Joh candidates" or any other type. Support should be given only to those candidates prepared to give a written undertaking that they support the principle of the Electors' Veto, and other points outlined in the National Survival programme.

BRIEF COMMENTS

In a letter to The Australian, one correspondent comments that the Liberal Party has just lost his vote by promising to increase immigration on a non-racial basis. Recent race violence at cricket matches in England demonstrates once again the madness of an immigration policy designed to create a multiracial society. All election candidates should be asked if they support the principle of electors having a say concerning Australia's immigration policy. John Howard could gain a lot of extra votes if he had the courage to announce that he is adopting the Japanese immigration policy, which keeps race friction out of Japan by declining to accept non-Japanese immigrants.

Mr. John Bennett, President of the Australian Civil Liberties union, asks whether the Bicentennial Authority is anti-white, anti-British and anti-European, pointing out that an ethnic Chinese, Annette Wah, has been chosen to appear in each of 12 one hour videos to provide Australian secondary schools with an "invaluable history of 20th century Australia." The director of the programme said that Annette Wah was chosen because she did not want an Anglo-Saxon but someone with "migrant" features. We have no doubt that Annette Wah is an admirable person, but her choice, because of her background means that the children of 75 percent of Australians of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic background have been discriminated against because of their racial features. Such are the double standards of our multiracial advocates.
All, election comment authorised by Eric D. Butler, 145 Russell Street, Melbourne.