THE REAL MESSAGE FROM THE REFERENDUM

The centralists suffered a major defeat on September 3rd. There is an encouraging message from the fact that in spite of what could be presented as relatively innocuous questions, that spokesmen for Local Government favoured a Yes vote on the Local Government issue; that sections of the Liberal Party either favoured some of the proposals or were lukewarm about the referendums; and that the self-opinionated media commentators generally favoured a YES vote, at least on one of the questions, the Australian electors recorded the lowest YES response to a group of referendum proposals in Australian history.

The Age, Melbourne, one of the major centres of secular humanism and liberalism in Australia, which boasts of its national intellectual influence, commented editorially on September 5th, that the defeat of the referendums was "A sad triumph for fear and doubt." While Prime Minister Hawke and other centralists blame the innate conservatism of the electors for rejecting what they keep referring to as "constitutional reforms", and the Federal Opposition, for the overwhelming rejection of their proposals, they studiously ignore any reference to the massive non-party campaign which was a decisive factor in alerting electors to the far reaching implications of these proposals.

Shadow Attorney General Reith conducted a magnificent campaign, but it was the constitutional expert, Dr. David Mitchell, whose in depth assessment, carried to millions of Australians, both directly and indirectly, via the print media, audio and video tapes, which alerted Church and other community leaders to the real dangers. The role of Professor Geoffrey Blainey should not be underestimated. His Perth meeting, the biggest public meeting seen in Perth since the end of the Second World War, was the biggest meeting on the referendums in any part of Australia.

We are pleased to say that an army of League actionists almost completely dominated the letters to the editor columns of the print media throughout Australia. It was the same grass roots movement, which defeated the ID Card threat, not the Federal Opposition parties. The official Federal Opposition campaign made no reference to the dangerous implications of international treaties. Silence on this vital question leaves a big question mark over the Federal Opposition's intentions about the External Powers.

One of the most significant features of the referendums was the massive vote against the proposals in traditional Labor electorates, especially in NSW. Prime Minister Bob Hawke could not even persuade the electors in his own blue ribbon Labor electorate to give him a YES vote. The grass roots anti-YES referendum campaign is heartening evidence that a new political mood continues to develop throughout Australia, preparing the way for one constitutional reform which the electors would welcome the introduction of the Electors' Initiative Referendum and Recall. If only John Howard and his colleagues could summon up the courage to adopt this type of constitutional reform, they would be certain to sweep the polls at the next Federal Elections.

THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE CANNOT BE SILENCED

While the revelations concerning Mr. Bill Hayden's views of some of Australia's Asian neighbours tended to overshadow the immigration debate last week, it is now clear that the immigration debate is going to continue, and that at long last a vital question about future can no longer be ignored. Labor's own ranks are starting to crack, with WA backbench Member Campbell receiving open support from some of his parliamentary colleagues. Campbell claims that a third of the Federal Labor caucus privately agree with him. We believe this to be correct.

In spite of the continuing anti-Howard campaign, with Australian columnist Greg Sheridan dramatically stating last weekend that John Howard had to resign "in the national interest", the Opposition leader has tenaciously held his ground and finished the week in a strong position. The referendum result has consolidated John Howard's position at least for the time being.

Professor Geoffrey Blainey returned to the immigration debate with a powerful and devastatingly logical article in The Weekend Australian, September 3-4, appropriately headed, MEDIA BULLIES THE BLIND PUPPETEERS ON IMMIGRATION. Blainey charges that over the previous two weeks there had been a rare event in modern Australian history, with media commentators trying to muzzle a debate. He points out that they are attempting to ridicule and silence a point of view held by the majority of Australians.

There is no doubt that a large number of people are becoming disgusted at the manner in which the commentators in the media are attempting to bully them into accepting their point of view. Professor Blainey selects Laurie Oakes as an example of how the media commentators operate, mentioning a recent article by Oakes in The Bulletin. Oakes charged John Howard with being "divisive, dangerous, opportunistic," by inference suggesting that the Australian community's attitudes are so precarious that a few comments from John Howard are sufficient to produce a great national division. The truth is that the Howard view reflects that of the great majority of the Australian people.

Professor Blainey writes, "We must cultivate good relations with the nearer Asian nations. But surely it is folly to argue that such relations will necessarily arise from taking in even larger numbers of Asian immigrants. Fiji's relations with India are far from harmonious even though Fiji was swamped with migrants from India. Nor is a big inflow of Asian migrants essential to promote foreign trade, to its great credit, is king of trade. Where are its new Asian migrants?"

A very telling point which the advocates of multiculturalism never face. It is the media bullies who are fostering anti-Asian sentiment. Most of these bullies were in favour of referendum proposals, which they thought could be won. But they are not in favour of a referendum on immigration, well aware that their views would be overwhelmingly rejected. The immigration question is going to be a major factor in the run up to the next Federal Elections. The tragedy is that the blinkered views of Mr. John Howard and his colleagues on economics, leaves them at a disadvantage as Labor positions itself to promise the taxpayers some of their own money back in the form of massive tax cuts just prior to the elections.

BRIEF COMMENTS

While it is true that Mr. Clyde Holding has not been an outstanding performer as Immigration Minister, it would appear that the real reason for Holding's demotion is that Prime Minister Hawke has a long standing commitment to ACTU President Simon Crean to bring him into the Federal parliament at the next Federal elections. But before Mr. Crean can be elected in Melbourne Ports, one of the safest Labor electorates in Australia, Mr. Holding must be persuaded to stand down. Hawke desperately needs to keep his promise to Crean in order to maintain the present close relationship between the Labor Government and the ACTU leadership. Melbourne Ports has a large ethnic vote and given the present standing of the Hawke Government as measured by public opinion polls, a by-election is not feared. The big question to be answered is: What will Holding require as his price for standing down? Keep tuned for further developments.

Back in 1983 when the first Hawke Government came to office, Australian families faced a marginal tax rate of 30 cents in the dollar. Now they face 40 cents in the dollar. The Hawke Government has eased the tax pressure on Big Business while Middle Australia is subjected to greater pressure. The Fabian Financier strategy is polarising Australia with progressive economic centralism.
Electoral comment authorised by E.D. Butler, 145 Russell St., Melbourne.

ANOTHER INTERNATIONAL 'MERGER'

Supporters are well aware of the coming "Debt for Equity Swaps" programmes, which are sedulously being advanced by the International Financial Establishment. Many have studied the No. 60 issue of Enterprise, viz. "World Heritage and the International Banks" which details the Plan for linking World Heritage areas to the equity base of World Bankers and the operation of a future world money system - under the guise of protecting the environment... We believe that the material in the following Business Opportunities Digest "Bulletin" (September '88) does fit in with the overall Plan to internationalise large tracts of land (on one pretext or another) in the drive towards World Government. Business Opportunities Digest is published from, "301 Plymouth Drive, N.E.-Dalton, GEORGIA, 30731-9983, U.S.A. The main material follows:

"We were waiting until we could verify this information before we brought you this urgent message ... A proposed 'merger' that will knock your socks off! Our 'representatives' in Congress are now contemplating giving away a 200 mile wide stretch of land, 2,000 miles long, along the Mexican-American border! A total of 256,000,000 acres of American soil is at stake. Please read this .. and then, if you think like we do, contact your Representative! "We now have in our hands copies of Congressional Bills H.R.3199 (99th Congress) and H.R.1006 (100th Congress). Congressman Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) has introduced H.R 1006, a bill only 5 pages long, which would establish a 200-mile wide 'free trade zone' between the United States and Mexico.
The DANGER of this bill is what it doesn't say! Unlike its predecessor, H.R.3199 (which failed during the previous Congress) this bill does not spell out the true adverse effect that the bill would produce. "H.R.3199 would have created a 'United States-Mexico Joint Development Bank'. The powers of this bank were to be vested in a Board of Directors whose number would be equally divided between appointees from the U.S.A. and Mexico (sec.303 (b)(8). And, this bank would have been authorised to extend financial aid to any State in the United States which shares a border with Mexico (sec.303 (b) (3) ... (States being California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas).
"This bank, which in effect would be 50% foreign owned, would then control the purse strings of this 200 mile wide stretch… and could thus exercise power over this land.
IN ADDITION ... the bill would have created a 'bilateral commission' composed of equal numbers of or representatives of the United States and Mexico (sec.210).
What the 'powers' of this commission would be is not indicated… Stated limitations are very important ... our Constitution not only enumerates certain limitations upon our national government, but also clearly states that the government only has those 'powers herein granted' by the people. The remaining powers not granted to the national government are reserved to the States and the people. (10th Amendment).
"This 'bilateral commission' had no expressed limitations upon its authority, and, in fact, the bill made reference to 'administrative actions' which can 'change or affect existing law' (sec.105 (a)(1)(C). In other words, Mexican Government appointees would be given a seat of authority in our country!
A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY JOINTLY ADMINISTERED BY U.S. & MEXICAN AUTHORITIES!
"This Bill and Bill H.R.1006 like it ... ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! BUT.. only if your voice is heard will it be stopped...H.R.1006 does not go into detail, as did H.R.3199, about the proposed 200 mile wide zone, but does state that a free trade zone would he created and 'would include, but not limited to, the United States - Mexico 'borderlands'
"Don't be fooled by H.R.1006. The door has been left open to continue the agenda laid down in the previous bill. The only difference in these two bills is that much of the alarming language has been left out (purposely?) of the current legislation.
"WRITE OR CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY! (Before you end up under Mexican rule tomorrow.)