SIR ZELMAN COWEN'S DANGEROUS PROPOSALS

It is not surprising that The Age, Melbourne (21/8) should eulogise the recommendations of former Governor General, Sir Zelman Cowen, that the Senate should be stripped of its power to reject or defer Supply. The Age has long been in the forefront of a campaign to subvert the Federal Constitution. Generally forgotten is that Sir Zelman, while at the New England University, offered the view that constitutional changes were most unlikely if submitted to the Australian people at referendums. He suggested, rather prophetically, as the Franklin Dam case proved, that constitutional changes would only come through judicial decisions.

A study of the background of those appointed to the Constitutional Commission by the Hawke Government suggests that the overwhelming majority of the Commissions members could he relied upon to advance suggestions in keeping with the long-term Fabian programme to turn Australia into a Republic. Sir Zelman was appointed to chair the committee of the Constitutional Commission examining the role of the Senate and Governor General in dealing with what The Age describes as the "constitutional crisis" of 1975. There was, in fact, no "constitutional crisis" in 1975: the Senate of that time used the power clearly provided by the Constitution, to deny the Whitlam government the money required to continue in government.

Under the Federal Constitution, the Senate, along with the Crown' s representative, is clearly stated to be part of the constitutional government in Australia. That constitution reflects the traditional British system of government that it should be Trinitarian, with checks and balances. Following the outrageous campaign against Sir John Kerr, who used his position to ask the Australian electors to resolve the conflict between the Whitlam Government and the Senate, Sir Zelman Cowen was selected by the Fraser Government. This appointment was generally approved by the defeated Labor Party. Sir Zelman is a committed Political Zionist, which also commends him to The Age, which consistently promotes pro-Zionist policies. The Age commends Sir Zelman for his "sagacious advice".

Sir Zelman's committee recommends that the Senate be stripped of its powers, which "can threaten the social, economic and political fabric of the nation, as it arguably did in 1975." The controversy of 1975 was the result primarily of the Fabian Socialists resenting the fact that they were forced to the polls at a time when their electoral stocks were low. And they were able to exploit the widespread lack of understanding of the real meaning of the Federal Constitution. Fabian Socialist Prime Minister Hawke did not mind having his own early election at a time when he thought he had the best chance of winning. If the Senate is stripped of its powers to curb the financial demands of a government, then there is no effective check on a destructive government. Mr. Hawke's proposal for 4 year parliaments further invalidates the superficial argument that electors can have a say at election times.

The proposals by Sir Zelman Cowen's Constitutional Committee, which also include weakening the powers of the Crown, must be exposed and opposed in every possible way. The strategy of the Hawke Government is to use the recommendations of the various committees of the Constitutional Commission to condition the Australian people to support these at the referenda which, fortunately, the government must hold if they are to achieve their ultimate goal: a complete Monopoly Government at Canberra.
(Recommended reading: Constitutional Crisis? by Howard Carter. From all League addresses, $4 posted).

THE VIOLENT SOCIETY

In his classical work on the destructive effect of debt finance, The Monopoly of Credit, C.H.Douglas published a graph showing how suicide rates jumped dramatically during the Great Depression years. In what one writer aptly described as the "advance to barbarism", the Second World War, with its indiscriminate killing of civilians, further fractured the respect for human life, which was a basic feature of the development of Western Christian Civilisation.

But under the impact of the religion of secular humanism, and its dehumanising policies, respect for human life has further declined. The mass killing in Hoddle Street, Melbourne, followed by an even more murderous shooting spree in Hungerford, England, helps to confirm that in today's world one act of violence can trigger similar acts.

Deprived of a thorough understanding of the traditional values of their society, and fed a continuous diet of television violence, with a breakdown of respect for law and order, it is not surprising that increasing numbers of frustrated young people, many who believe there is no real future, are also increasingly resorting to acts of violence. The youth suicide rate is rising everywhere. The superficial reaction to mass shooting is that guns must be controlled. This is dealing with effects. Many violent crimes are now being committed with knives. Rapists are strangling women and children. There is a growing incidence of family violence. What is taking place is the breakdown of traditional society.

Some 40 farmers throughout Australia's wheat belt have committed suicide over the past two years, nearly all of these the result of desperate men finding that they cannot cope with the financial pressures, including high interest rates, under which they are attempting to survive. In times of military war, men can and do overcome fear and rise to tremendous heights of achievement because they have a sense of purpose. Only in a genuinely free society, in which power is decentralised, in which there is a sense of stability and a worthwhile future, can individuals develop and fulfill themselves. The most destructive force operating in society today is the centralisation of power over the individual. Finance is the main instrument through which power is centralised and continuing violence will continue to tear society apart until it is made the servant instead of being used to destroy.

BRIEF COMMENTS

If Rudolph Hess did in fact end his own pathetic life, it was because it had ceased to have any meaning for him. It is to the credit of many Western politicians, including ex-servicemen who fought against Nazi Germany, that they have for a long time acted in accordance with the Christian concept of charity and humanity. But along with Zionists, the Soviet leaders steadfastly refused to consider allowing an old man to die in the company of his own family. Other prominent figures associated with Germany's National Socialist government, men like the financier Schacht, were eventually freed from prison. But not Hess. What was special about Hess? It could not be claimed that he was in any way associated with the alleged "holocaust". Hess spent most of the war locked up in Britain. It is not true, as claimed in some stories on Hess, that he was personally responsible for a peace offer to Great Britain. As documented by British historian David Irving in his book Churchill's War, Hitler's peace proposals had already been placed before the British Cabinet. We understand that David Irving's coming book on Hess will be just as revealing as his previous writings. The truth about the Second World War is starting to emerge.

Informed American commentators have contended that the Irangate affair was designed by the Trilateralists to force Reagan out of office, before the end of his term, and have fellow Trilateralist, George Bush, take over. But the dramatic performance of Colonel North has changed the scene in one of those unrehearsed events of history. Reagan can now survive if he uses the opportunities available. But he is still crippled by Zionist influence. Just when North was starting to deal with some of the real "meat" in the situation, the Congressional hearing was phased out. Col. North repeatedly charged that secret Israel agent, Mamuchur Ghorbanifar, originated the scheme to divert profits from the Iranian arm sales to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Important Notice: Tapes of the Anglo-European Fellowship Seminar under the title - "The Struggle for the World"; held in Los Angeles (18.10.86) now available. There are 8 tapes in a set, the speakers being Arch Roberts, Ron Gostick, Ivor Benson, (read by Michael Hoffman), Lawrence Patterson, Eric Butler, David Irving (2 tapes), and one Panel discussion. Price: $20.00 the set, posted. Order from F. Bawden (State League Director for South Australia) Box 270, McLaren Vale, S.A., 5171. Do not order from Melbourne.

At a meeting of the Colac (Vic.) Shire Council a resolution was forwarded to all Local Government authorities in Victoria to the effect that Local Government belongs to the people and that the principles encompassed in the Swiss "Initiative" and "Referenda" be written into the Local Government Act in Victoria, to ensure the furtherance of democratic Local Government.

We are hearing great things from the Canberra Fabians that they have a "mandate" for this and that, and the other. It is true enough that the Hawke Government was returned, although the I.D. Card was "killed" during the campaigning up to the election. BUT the Australian people also returned a SENATE, which has the numbers to defeat the Australia Card. True again, the Hawke Government can constitutionally enforce a Joint Sitting of both Houses to ram legislation through, but surely this must turn many people "off", and engender suspicion. The Fabians haven't rounded us up into the cage yet. Professor Geoffrey Walker implies the I.D.Card legislation is unconstitutional. A High Court challenge would alert many more Australians.

THE AUSTRALIA CARD

(The Constitutional Balance) From "Information As Power" (Constitutional Implications of the Identity Numbering and I.D.Card Proposal), by Professor Geoffrey de Q. Walker, Professor of Law, the University of Queensland. Professor Walker has serious doubts that the Australia Card legislation is constitutional at all. Professor Walker writes:

"Has Parliament the Power to Number Us? A preliminary constitutional point to which none of the proponents of the scheme addressed themselves is the obvious question of whether the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to make a law requiring citizens to be numbered and identified in this way. The combined effect of the taxation power (s.51(ii)) and the incidental power (s.51(xxxix) would certainly empower Parliament to legislate so as to require citizens, say, to use their tax file number when opening a bank account, starting a new job and the like, and could also support legislation providing for the issuing of a card bearing that number. No doubt Parliament could also validly require persons lodging their first tax return to produce their birth certificate as identification. Similar considerations apply to social security (see s.51(xxiiiA)). Quite possibly Parliament could provide that the same number be used for both tax and social security purposes. "But it is drawing the long bow to proceed from there to saying that Parliament can also legislate to require that all persons should compulsorily be given a government number at birth and must use that number for any purposes Parliament chooses to specify. In doing so Parliament is going beyond what is incidental to its powers over tax, social security, immigration and the like; it is assembling something larger than the sum of the parts. By compelling the citizen to use the same number it is giving itself the option of using information collected for one purpose to be used for different purposes - in other words, of creating a dossier on each person. The Constitution grants the Commonwealth no specific power to do this and there must be serious doubts as to whether such a power is implied. "These questions would be apparent to any lawyer. The apparent intention of the Government, though, is to 'legislate and be damned', leaving to the citizen the burden, expense and risk of challenging the legislation in the High Court...."