GOVERNMENT BY MORONS

The remarkable "jack up" of 36 percent of the electors in the recent by-election in Queensland was a striking indication of the generally low perception Australian electors have of contemporary politics and politicians. While it is unlikely that there will be an equivalent electors' "strike" at the coming Federal elections, there is little doubt that if it were not for the threat of fining those not attending a polling booth, a very big percentage of electors would not bother to vote.

Numbered among those who attend polling booths in order to avoid a possible fine, are not only those who do not believe that voting changes anything, but those whom former Democrat Senator Don Chipp has aptly described as morons. It is not often that we agree with Mr. Don Chipp, but we applaud his call for the abolition of compulsory voting, an essential first step towards more responsible voting. Don Chipp has pointed out that it is the "swinging" voters who decide elections and that "the moron component of those swinging votes..." is "frighteningly high".

In a recent face-to-face street survey the representative of Channel Seven network's Eleven AM programme, one of Mr. Chipp's morons referred to the recent election to the Italian parliament of a porn movie star, stating, "All we want to see is John Howard's tits. The Italian movie star's main political electioneering gimmick was to expose her breasts in public. Australian political campaigning has not yet sunk to this level, but it has become increasingly gimmickry, and insults those who do attempt to act in a responsible manner. If the election result is close, the marks put on ballot papers by the morons could decide which set of politicians will govern the nation. So much for the one-man-one-vote one value dogma of the collectivists.

The basic question to which electors should be directing their attention is how to re-generate their constitutional heritage to the stage where they have an effective veto over their elected representatives. The major parties are studiously ignoring this question, clearly indicating that they do not trust the electors with power. The only role of the electors, including the morons, is seen as merely marking their ballot papers in favour of which particular brand of gimmickry impresses them the most, and then leave the political winners to "manage the economy" and virtually do as they like for the next few years.

The traditional British form of constitutional government, out of which grew the constitutional system of all English speaking nations, including the U.S.A., was rooted in the concept that the Member of Parliament is the elected servant of his electors, and that his most important duty is to uphold the Rule of Law in all spheres, including that of financial policy, in order that individuals are left free to manage their own affairs.

THE SHOW BUSINESS ELECTION

The old saying has it that "There is no business like show business." With the use of television, the 1987 Federal election is big show business. The Bob Hawke official launch of his party's campaign was more like a Hollywood extravaganza than a political event. Mr. Hawke's arrival by barge at the Sydney Opera House sought to create a type of regal atmosphere, perhaps like Cleopatra arriving by barge to meet Mark Anthony. The whole programme was over done, was just a little too slick. But it is all part of one of the most remarkable, and disturbing, conditioning campaigns in Australian history.

A government that has imposed policies, which are hurting the majority of the Australian people, has managed to make a virtue out of what they have done. With the aid of the political minders, the mean and nasty side of the Prime Minister is hidden away. In its place the Australian people are presented with the greying elder statesman type leader who, however, has not lost the common touch - who tells his fellow Australians that because of factors beyond the control of the Government, such as lower export prices, it is his responsibility to govern in accordance with the reality. Peering out from the television screen he says to his "fellow" that he would be dishonest if he sought some short-term political advantage at the expense of the alleged long-term interests of the nation.

Bob Hawke and his fellow Fabian strategists have, to date, only been successful because Mr. John Howard and his fellow Liberals generally accept the same argument to which Mr. Hawke is appealing - viz, that Australia has "lived beyond its means". The central and decisive issue being skillfully presented by the Hawke strategists is that as both the main parties are in agreement that Australia is facing a difficult period, can they afford to replace at this time a "strong leader" like Mr. Hawke, backed by a united party, with a Howard led Coalition government, which would be disunited.

In terms of conventional politics, the Hawke strategists have embarked upon a dangerous gamble, which, at present, looks as if it could pay off. In fairness to John Howard and his strategists, it must be said the launch of his policy was much less gimmickry than that of the Hawke effort. As even some of his media critics conceded, John Howard at least did project a much better image. But improved style without substance does not meet the real challenge of the situation. Greater efficiency in industry is highly desirable. The concept of profit sharing in industry is excellent. But the essence of John Howard's message is that with greater incentive, there will be greater production. There is even the promised incentive that people can work at weekends if they so desire, without attracting higher taxation penalties. However, Mr. Howard has not explained what producers, both primary and secondary, will do with increased production when they are having the greatest difficulty in selling what they are producing at the present time.

Once again we point out that the Achilles Heel of the so-called conservative movements everywhere is that they blindly accept the financial orthodoxy, which the Fabians/Socialists are relying upon to create conditions, which make it appear "inevitable" to continue with increasing centralisation. The current election is, in the main, being conducted through the media like a circus. At the moment the general perception is that Bob Hawke is a better actor than John Howard.

We repeat what we have said before: The 1987 Federal Election will not solve Australia's basic problems, irrespective of whether Bob Hawke or John Howard is the next Prime Minister. But the pioneering work done by the League, now being taken up by other groups, is injecting a new realism into Australian politics. The basic campaigning to save Australia will be intensified AFTER July 11th. And this will become more pressing as it is realised that there could be another Federal Election within twelve months.

BRIEF COMMENTS

It is sad to see that the Rev. Fred Nile, a Member of the Legislative Council, has seen fit to attack the League of Rights once again. Mr. Nile has done some excellent work in the field of pornography and education, but has never attempted to give a lead on the constitutional and associated issues. In the June issue of his News Bulletin, Mr. Nile expresses concern about what he sees as the fragmenting effects of a number of organisations, some of which he falsely charges with being League of Rights "fronts". The truth is that Mr. Nile is losing support to groups who are dealing with the issues he has ignored. The Leagues view is that the greater the diversity of effort against all forms of totalitarianism the better.

We are not surprised to learn that the US congressional panel investigating secret arms to Iran has revealed that former CIA chief who died last month, Mr. William Casey, repeatedly lied. British historian, David Irving, has charged that Casey also lied about the US military attack on Libya. One top Reagan official resigned because of the lying. As David Irving says, it is unsafe to accept at face value any information coming from modern governments.

Reacting to intense Zionist pressure, the government of Ontario, Canada, has decided to retry Ernest Zundel, who won an appeal against a previous trial decision. It was significant that the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal by the Ontario Government against the Appeal Court's decision in favour of Zundel. Mr. Zundel welcomes the new trial, stating that he has new material, which he wants to place before the Court and the Canadian people. Reports indicate that large numbers of Jews, whom Zundel says are also victims of the Zionist terror machine, are opposed to the new trial. There has been an ominous warning from Zionist spokesman David Satak that he and his colleagues will be a "lot tougher" during the new trial, the implication being the Jewish Defence League squad will again be attempting more violence at the Court.

Mr. Rupert Murdoch is now an American citizen, but he is making his influence felt in the Australian Federal elections. The Hawke government's policies allowed Murdoch to amass an Australian media empire, which now includes 10 of the 19 daily papers, published in capital cities and 59 percent of their circulation. A study of the Murdoch papers leaves no doubt whom Murdoch wants to win - Mr. Bob Hawke.

A former Lutheran pastor writes to us in reply to ours on racial equality. He writes: "As with men and women, equality exists only through Christ, otherwise you have domination, control, and eventually violence both domestically and socially. There is a difference between men and women as there is a difference among races. For example, where are the black universities attended by whites? There is no solution to racial difference except to believe in Christ and then observe the differences without any form of superiority, inferiority, or bitterness.
All electoral comment authorised by Eric D. Butler, 145 Russell St., Melbourne.

ROLE OF THE UPPER HOUSE

From The Sun (Melbourne} June 24th; "SUN study of June 10 was quite reasonable, but I should like to correct one possibly misleading impression, and add a most important role of the Upper House not covered in the article. "The author states, 'Opponents (of the right of the Senate to defer or reject Supply) argue that a convention had arisen' which should prevent such action. "There never was such a convention. This was a propaganda argument used to try to pre-empt and then to discredit the Senate's action.
"Senator Lionel Murphy affirmed the Senate's power in 1967 (Hansard) when he stated: "There are no limitations on the Senate in the use of its Constitutional powers... if we considered it to be in the public interest that a measure be rejected, who gave us the right to refrain from doing so under some pretended notion that the Senate cannot reject a tax or money Bill?'"
"Indeed, the A.L.P. voted against financial Bills in the Senate on 40 occasions between 1969 and 1970. "Mr. Gough Whitlam, who had most to say on this supposed convention, speaking to the Appropriation Bill in 1970, stated: 'Our opposition to the Budget is no mere formality ... We will vote against the Bills here and in the Senate. Our purpose, is to destroy this Budget and to destroy the Government which has sponsored it.'

For a clear statement of the rights and powers of the Senate, see Australian Federal Government, by P.E. Joske, Q.C. "Space does not permit the development of one of the Senate's most vital roles, which was not canvassed in the article, The Upper House is one of the most important of the checks and balances built into a truly democratic parliamentary system. "That is the reason its members are elected for a double term, with one half retiring each alternate election. This was seen by our founding fathers as a vital protection; and it remains true today.
(H.M. Hamilton, former M.L.C., 18 St. Andrew St., BRIGHTON, Vic.)