A LITANY OF ABUSE

A re-reading of Professor Geoffrey Blainey' s famous address to the Warrnambool (Victoria) Rotary Club, an address that immediately triggered off a national discussion on immigration, raises the question of why such a moderate and balanced statement produced such a furore. The reason was, of course, that a man of Blainey's standing had dared even to question a policy whose proponents regard as sacrosanct. The alarm bells started to ring at this clear sign of danger.

John Howard also caused the red lights to come on with what was an extremely cautious criticism of Labor's immigration programme. It was in answering a question that John Howard let his guard slip sufficiently to indicate that he felt it might be necessary to cut back on the rate of Asian immigration in order to preserve social cohesion in Australia. Maverick Queensland National Party Senator John Stone simply said unequivocally what he - and others feel about the rate of Asian immigration. Irrespective of what the Coalition spokesmen now say, and assuming that they are genuine, they are now seen as a major threat to the whole multicultural programme.

Marxist tactics are openly spelt out in the Marxist press. For example, the latest issue of The Socialist, which described itself as "the Paper of the International Socialists", carries the front page headline: IT'S TIME TO PUT A STOP TO HOWARD'S RACIST FILTH." Much of this issue of The Socialist is devoted to the immigration question. But the vulgar tone of the Marxist press is matched by two articles in last weekend's Weekend Australian, the first by Phillip Adams and on the same page, the second by Max Harris.

Adams strives to reach a new low in his specialty, gutter journalism, naming Bruce Ruxton, Geoffrey Blainey, and Nancy Wake as people "who are entirely alien to our ethos, who are so remote that they can never hope to be part of the culture of the 'fair go'." John Howard is delivered a passing swipe, as Adams pours out his litany of pure abuse, and example of the intellectual thuggery of those who charge anyone with "racism" who dares to suggest that multiculturalism results in disintegration, not unity.

Max Harris has a different style to that of Adams - he is a poseur who likes to be taken seriously as a literary figure - but Harris is just as venomous as Adams. He directs his attack mainly against John Howard. John Howard is not cast in the mould of a great political leader, and is seriously blinkered by his financial orthodoxy. But he has dared to put his finger, however gently, on an issue, which is increasingly worrying the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. He has acted like a catalyst, and that is what has caused such alarm among the enemies of traditional Australia.
While Adams, Harris and similar self appointed elitists may demonstrate their ability to misuse the English language to pour their patronising scorn over John Howard, they cannot alter the Truth that 80% of the Australian people, including those of non-British backgrounds, relate to what they think, or hope, that John Howard stands for on the immigration issue.

Dr. Gerard Henderson of The Institute of Public Affairs, who would, we presume, disclaim any affinity with Phillip Adams or Max Harris, also felt that he must join in the litany of abuse against those who dare to take a stand against the current immigration policy. Henderson's main concern is that members of the "Lunar Right", mainly the League of Rights, are increasing their influence as a result of the opening up of the immigration debate. Henderson re-hashed much of the Senator Boswell material, presented in the Senate after being prepared by the Zionist machine. Henderson has always taken a pro-Zionist stance. He does, however, correctly quote Mr. Eric Butler from the special January issue of The Intelligence Survey: "Butler wrote that the main Bicentennial task was for the Australian people to regain power."

Presumably the learned Dr. Henderson is opposed to the Australian people having the power via a referendum to choose what type of immigration policy they want. If so, he is at one with Prime Minister Hawke, who in a sickening display of attempted preaching in his attack on John Howard in Parliament last week, said in essence that it was the duty of political leaders to espouse policies even though opposed by the majority of the people. Almost beating his breast with self-righteousness, Prime Minister Hawke even evoked "Christian morality" in his defence of his party's destructive immigration policy. Those who oppose that policy is immoral, which means, of course, that Hawke's Labor predecessors, the pioneers of the traditional Australian immigration policies, were immoral. Arthur Calwell was therefore immoral, as was Robert Menzies. They are also "racists".

It is time for someone in the Liberal or National parties to meet head on the type of thuggery being practised by Hawke and those who support him, to observe that so far from the act of discriminating being one to be ashamed about, it is one to be applauded. It needs someone to handle the immigration issue in the robust and competent manner displayed by Liberal Wilson Tuckey in his handling of the AIDS question. However, irrespective of what happens now, the immigration question is out in to the open, and the way has been cleared for the next phase in the battle to save Australia: the introduction of the Initiative Referendum so that the people can have a real say about their own destiny.

BRIEF COMMENTS

The only comment necessary concerning Mr. Paul Keating's budget is that the "surplus" is a manifestation of the over taxing of the Australian people. Middle Australians, particularly those with families, continue to be squeezed. And even while the "world's greatest Treasurer" was basking in the media adulation of his budget, the headlines burst on the scene: "CHAOS ON WORLD MARKETS", while the trade deficit soared. What Australia needs is a financial policy, which ensures that Australia is insulated against a coming new wave of international financial instability.

A New York report last weekend states, "Australia's trade officials are watching with concern negotiations between Moscow and Washington for a huge grain deal involving millions of tonnes of grain." While it is true that the negotiations are not unrelated to the coming American Presidential elections, they could also be part of the growing integration of the Soviet-USA economies as projected by the New International Economic Order strategists. So long as Australia is "hooked" on the export-or-perish dogma, its economic activities are governed by international influences over which it has no control.

The Australian Jewish News of August 26th reports that Mr. Mark Leibler, President of the Zionist Federation of Australia, has congratulated Governor General designate, Mr. Bill Hayden. On August 5th 1983, Mr. Hayden said in Tokyo that Australia as a European nation was "an anomaly" in a region "which is exclusively an Asian area of the world." Mr. Hayden went on to say that "we will end up a Eurasian country." Zionist spokesmen welcome multiculturalism, which they see as benefiting their own long-term strategies. The majority of Labor voters, if given the opportunity to vote at a referendum on the immigration issue, would endorse the views of W.A. backbench Labor member Graeme Campbell, of Kalgoorlie, who openly says that the Government should abandon multiculturalism and slow the rate of Asian immigration. Campbell says that he is "disgusted" with the "fascist" way the Government had manipulated the immigration debate. Claiming that Australia is overwhelmingly an Anglo-Celtic society", Campbell has said that "If people had a vote they would vote to remain more or less that way." Campbell also says what is common knowledge: "A lot of Asian migrants tell me they are frightened and want the Government to slow down." We wait with interest to see what happens to Graeme Campbell!

It can be predicted with certainty that the further substantial increase in Commonwealth funding for the Aboriginal welfare industry will not make one iota of difference to the condition of people of Aboriginal background. But it will provide more funds for the bureaucracy exploiting the Aboriginal issue. The Rev. Cedric Jacobs, an Aborigine of genuine tribal background, has consistently urged that the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs be closed down, and the money saved to be allocated to Municipal Councils to work out, in association with local Aborigines, constructive programmes.

With further reports of violence in India, all stemming from the attempt to impose multiculturalism throughout a unified India, we suggest that the Australian advocates of multiculturalism might list those nations where they believe that multiculturalism has been a success. During his anti-Howard speech at Canberra last week, Prime Minister Hawke said that a message from Malaysia claimed that the Australian debate on immigration was giving Australia a bad image. Is the Prime Minister not aware that Malaysia has a "racist" constitution designed to protect the indigenous Malays?
Electoral comment authorised by E.D. Butler, 145 Russell St., Melbourne.

FROM HANSARD

REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 18, Mr. Donald Cameron, (Lib.Qld):
Subject: Keating's Australian Bureau of Statistics (A.B.S.):
I turn my attention to the recent health surveys. Not for the life of me can I understand how an organisation that was originally put together as a people counter and a fact collector could have reached the stage where it is acting not only as Big Brother but also as a big doctor. It might well be explained by its staff levels. As I mentioned in this place yesterday, in the United States of America there is one statistician for every 18,178 persons. In the United Kingdom there is one for every 15,555 persons.... (sources given..). "When I say that there is one statistician in Australia for every 4,411 Australians and that that does not compare well with the position in the United States, Australian Statistician jumps up and down and says, "Oh, Cameron's figures do not include all the other agencies which exist in the United States'... 'my figures are correct.'
"So what do we have in this country? A great abundance of people more than 3,500 in fact - who work for the Australian Statistician's office. I am not suggesting for one moment that the vast majority of those people are motivated by anything other than goodwill. What I am suggesting is that the abundance of people in the Statisticians Office is allowing the Australian Statistician to have a work force, which probably sits there week in, week out, working out what survey it can do next. As a result, we have a statistician that is prying deeply into the lives of the people of this country.
"I referred yesterday to a matter that was received with some mirth and which has run through to May this year relating to the bowel and bladder problems of various individuals in Australia. There were some five questions to people on that subject. With all my heart, I cannot accept that that is the role of a statistician. I cannot accept that people out there should be faced with a fine of $100.00 a day until they answer - if they say, 'Get Nicked'! That is my business. I believe that there is an utter misuse of the powers, which were originally given to the Statistician's Office. What is more, the A.B.S. has not denied the recent claims that the Statistician was going to force people to have blood tests. The most it has come up with is to say that the examination would not in any circumstances be compulsory. I question its integrity and honesty in that response. Only on 31 March - I had written earlier about the bowel and bladder survey saying questions like these should be voluntary ones - the answer came back once again, because I have raised this concept many times: 'Oh no, we are not going to allow it to be voluntary'.
"I believe the A.B.S. has gone wild. I believe that the people of Australia are entitled to jack up on it. The people of Australia are entitled to say, 'I am not answering any questions until I have spoken to a Labor member of parliament on the telephone or been interviewed in his or her office.' "I call on fellow Australians not to break the law and say, 'No, I am not going to be part of your survey' - I would never encourage people to break the law - but I say to the Statistician's collector, 'Come back after I have talked to a Labor member of parliament because at this point I believe you are being too intrusive.' I know certain agreements have been made.
I conclude on another aspect of the willingness of the A.B.S. to get involved with Labor politics. Kate Legge, a journalist with the now defunct National Times on Sunday, wrote, on 21 September 1986: 'Treasurer Paul Keating is considering a proposal by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to expand its house hold expenditure survey to get more information on the distribution of income and wealth in Australia.... 'The Australian Bureau of Statistics' proposal to expand the household expenditure survey has been put forward as an alternative to a separate wealth inquiry.... 'The Statistician runs around this country saying 'Trust me' and knock, knock - a sweet looking lady at the door says, 'I am here to help you. I am from the Statistician's Office'. However, it is fast becoming, 'I am here from the Labor Party'. That is the way the Labor Party is manipulating the A.B.S. The A.B.S. is willingly being used socially to engineer this national socially.
It is an utter disgrace that the A.B.S. should have offered any government an opportunity to get off a political hook. The Australian Labor Party was torn by the wealth inquiry issue. There were those against it and those for it. But we learn that the Australian Bureau of Statistics went to the Treasurer and said, 'We will do it for you'."

Mr. Charles Blunt (National Party, Richmond, N.S.W.)
"The (Hawke) Government's approach of building a personal database within the bureaucracy on each citizen continues. We now have a direct exchange of data between the Department of Social Security and the Australian Taxation Office with respect to the payment of family allowances...." The other question that arises is what happened with the linkage of this data. The question has been raised in recent months concerning personal identification of the answers to census questions. I am still waiting for a definite answer from the Government in terms of the identifying number that the A.B.S. admits to applying to census returns. The (Hawke) Government has no commitment to the privacy or the rights of the individual. We have seen its position regarding the identity card. It probably does not bat an eyelid that somewhere in the A.B.S. there is an identifying number on every individual census return. I am still waiting for the Government to tell us exactly what has been done and what assurances can be given to the Australian people that there is no breach of personal confidentiality in census returns..."