BEHIND THE CRUCIFIXION OF JOHN HOWARD

As regular readers are aware, we are not numbered amongst devotees of John Howard, a basically earnest man, dedicated to the wrong policies. But last week saw John Howard crucified by his colleagues who believed that he lacked the charisma to make certain that they won the next elections. Judging by media comments of last week, John Howard signed his political death warrant when, late last year, he said that in the interests of social cohesion the rate of Asian immigration had to be reduced. This statement and the abandonment of a bi-partisan policy on immigration resulted in a torrent of abuse in the media. But the change in policy by the Liberal Party was approved by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people.

The Howard change of policy was the result of electoral research by Liberal Party pollsters. John Howard's media critics charge that he was "unprincipled" because back on August 23rd, 1984, when Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, he made a major address in which he said that the Liberal Party would never campaign on the basis of race in immigration. He went on to boast that it was the Liberal Party that had abolished the "White Australia" policy. It is important to recall that when John Howard gave this address he became the immediate darling of the mass media. But a lot has happened since John Howard gave this speech and he and some of his more realistic colleagues became aware that the Australian people were becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of growing non-European immigration.
Genuine representatives of electors should try to reflect the concerns of the electors.

We made it clear time and time again that the prospect of John Howard winning government by default was a frightening one, as John Howard has given no indication that he could grapple constructively with the finance economic problems undermining the nation. But the prospect of Andrew Peacock winning government is even more frightening. It is important to note that in his first statement as the new Liberal Leader, Mr. Andrew Peacock said that the Liberal Party would now be returning to a bi-partisan immigration policy, one abandoned by John Howard. This means that Andrew Peacock has joined with Prime Minister Bob Hawke to take the basic immigration issue off the political agenda, a blatant attempt to deny the Australian electors any say on the issue.

As we said last week, John Howard's biggest mistake, having raised the immigration issue, was then to have sought to back away from it. But the supporters of a multiracial Australia have never forgiven him for raising the issue. They feared the direction in which a Howard government might start to move. And Howard was much more sensible about South Africa than Andrew Peacock, the man who played an active role in helping to destroy Rhodesia. John Howard suffers from the limitations of his political party background, and is no intellectual giant. But as a man he stands head and shoulders over the shallow media star Andrew Peacock.

There is no evidence to suggest that John Howard is other than a loyal and dedicated family man. He displays some old fashioned virtues and there is no record of him engaging in the type of foul mouthed abuse used by Peacock and Jeff Kennett in their famous telephone conversation concerning Howard. Peacock's snub of Howard in forming his front bench is not only a serious reflection on the character of Andrew Peacock, but of the type of Liberal Party now offered as an alternative government. The prospect of a resuscitated Ian Macphee as Minister for Foreign Affairs is chilling in the extreme.
We notice that Macphee makes much of the name of Sir Alfred Deakin, whose name is given to the electorate in which Ian Macphee will now stand - this decision having been made without consulting Liberal Party members in the electorate. Ian Macphee might be asked why he mentions Sir Alfred Deakin when that statesman's views on immigration were rather different than those of Macphee.

While the events of last week have been relished by the media with its army of twittering commentators, the more perceptive observers will have noted that once again the sickness of party politics has been clearly manifested. The deep sickness inside the Liberal Party was blatantly demonstrated by the behaviour of new Deputy Leader, Senator Fred Chaney. The better elements in the West Australian Liberal Party have kept Chaney out of the House of Representatives until now. Chaney was supposed to have been one of John Howard's loyal deputies, a friend. It was legitimate for him to have reached the conclusion that the Party could not win under Howard, but he lacked the basic decency to even warn Howard of the moves against him, preferring at the last minute to join the putsch. Chaney is another darling of the media, who describe him as a great "communicator".

Can Australians trust any party in which dishonesty, vulgarity, and lack of loyalty are the hallmarks? The answer is NO. That is why it is long overdue for a regeneration of the political system with the introduction of the Swiss principle of the Initiative Referendum and Recall, to bring Members of Parliament under the direct control of electors. If the crucifixion of John Howard helps to highlight this question, his political death may serve a useful purpose.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Labor strategists have long anticipated a return of Andrew Peacock as Liberal leader, but feared that it might come closer at the next election, as did Hawke's replacement of Mr. Bill Hayden. They are pleased that the change has come early, with time for the inevitable "honeymoon" to wear off, and for Peacock's weaknesses to be exposed. Baring unforeseen circumstances, it is hard to visualise the next election this side of Christmas. This will give time for the further development of the growing grassroots movement.

The refusal by Mr. Nasayoshi Ito, untarnished by the political corruption so rampant in Japan, to accept the Prime Ministership of Japan, has shocked the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Mr. Ito's major cause for refusal is his belief that the L.D.P., is not prepared to tackle the problem of political corruption. Corruption is the inevitable result of the type of corporate society existing in Japan. The influence of corruption on stability must be carefully considered in assessing the role of Japan in a rapidly changing world.

Mr. Philip Ruddock, N.S.W. Liberal M.P. and Peacock appointment as Shadow Minister on Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, joined Ian Macphee last year in crossing the floor of Parliament to vote with the Hawke Government on the immigration issue. The Ruddock appointment confirms the basic shift on immigration by Andrew Peacock, who appears to be a much more dedicated internationalist than John Howard.

The Jewish community is a relatively small part of the Australian nation. And inside that community there are many anti-Zionists, while the Australian Jewish Democratic Society has supported the call by the Hawke Government for Israel to begin talks with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. Some 350 Australian Jews have signed an advertisement placed by The Australian Jewish News by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society, supporting Israeli talks with the P.L.O. Mr. Mark Leibler, President of the Zionist Federation of Australia, charges that the signatories had been "duped". Mr. Mark Leibler and father, Mr. Isi Leibler, will be calling on Prime Minister Hawke next week to stress that they do not want any more addresses such as that given recently by the Australian Ambassador at the U.N. on the Middle East situation. Mr. Hawke has assured the Zionist leaders that there will be no more such addresses at the U.N., while Foreign Minister Gareth Evans has reinforced that assurance by letter. No other minority group exercises such influence in Australian affairs. This is a dangerous development.

We do not entirely agree that the "green" vote at the recent Tasmanian elections was proof that such was the major factor in the eventual result (still not confirmed at the time of going to press). Rather is the voting pattern a definite indicator of the ongoing disillusionment of many voters with the major political parties. This pattern will be repeated at future elections and by-elections, we are sure. The Methyr (Qld.) by-election was a vote of no confidence in the Queensland National Party: a protest vote against the corrupt practices of the former incumbent, Mr. Don Lane. Whilst talking of Queensland we make the comment that a significant amount of "blame" for Queensland corruption in politics can be sheeted home to the abolition of the Queensland Legislative Council (Upper House) in 1922, thus giving the Lower House in Queensland too much power - and power corrupts! The Legislative Councillors in Queensland, in 1922, voted themselves out of office, but the price was payment of their salaries for life. This was a Labor Government, and the move was in line with Communist policies of political centralism. This influence was introduced into Queensland (and Australian) politics by a person named Jock Garden, a union and political figure at the time, who had studied Communist philosophy and tactics in Moscow prior to that time. Queenslanders would do very well indeed to set about the restoration of the Legislative Council - to decentralise political power, and thus lessen the opportunities for political corruption.

TRIBAL BOUNDARIES

OUR DEBT BURDEN

THE MULTICULTURAL MESS