MEDIA LOBBY EXPLOIT FITZGERALD REPORT

Much more revealing than the Fitzgerald report, issued in Brisbane early last week, is the manner in which the anti-Joh media has exploited the report. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was a party politician and far from perfect. But to suggest that he was an all-powerful dictator, presiding over a corrupt Queensland is not true. Time and time again some of Sir Joh's best intentions were thwarted by the President of the Queensland National Party Sir Robert Sparkes. It is common knowledge that Sir Robert Sparkes not only attempted to impose his will on Premier Sir Joh's political activities but has used his powerful position to control the selection of National Party candidates. Sir Robert is the main man responsible for the financing of the National Party. If the National Party of Queensland is to be held responsible for a corrupt Queensland society, then it is legitimate to ask why the most powerful man in that party, Sir Robert Sparkes, was not called at any stage to give evidence before the Fitzgerald Commission.

Typical of some of the more outrageous comments on the Fitzgerald report has been provided by The Age, which, generally speaking, with the one exception of weekly columnist Michael Barnard, is on the wrong side on most basic issues. It has been almost paranoid in its criticism of Sir Joh and Queensland. In its editorial of July 4th, The Age claimed that "With skill, care and courage, Mr. Tony Fitzgerald, Q.C., has exposed the insidious corruption of a whole community".
Columnist Lonza Vourmard, writing in the same issue of The Age, refers to "a society that has been sick with corruption for decades." Presumably Queenslanders are now expected to develop a deep guilt complex.

The truth is, of course, that Queenslanders generally are no worse than Australians in other States. Are there more murders, rape, crimes of violence and abductions in Queensland per head of the population than in other States? On the face of what has been revealed, or alleged, the most serious charge of corruption has concerned senior members of the Queensland police.

But while agreeing that corruption among a section of the Queensland police is deplorable and should, if possible, be eliminated, the impression is being created that police corruption is something special to Queensland. We have not the slightest doubt that an in depth investigation of corruption in New South Wales would make the charges of the Fitzgerald Commission look like a Sunday School picnic. Nothing comparable with the killing of the well intentioned but naive anti-drug campaigner, Donald Mackay, and subsequent developments, has happened in Queensland. And there is the case in South Australia of the man directing the police anti-drug squad being exposed as a major drug operator.

Are Australians seriously asked to believe that only Queensland politicians accept direct or indirect bribes? The impression being created by much of the sick media, reflecting the secular humanism of the times is that Queensland under Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was some type of a "police state" in which the individual had few or any rights. And what has been the basic cause of the general moral sickness, which allegedly has reduced Queenslanders to their present sorry state?

Much to the delight of the one-man-one-vote-one value advocates, Mr. Tony Fitzgerald states, "A root cause of the growth of corruption was an electoral system perceived to be unfair". The essence of a genuine democracy is not voting. Voting is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The traditional British system of representative government was conceived as one of representation of interests, not of numbers. Much of the talk about the Queensland "gerrymander" is part of media folklore. There is no State in Australia where, because of geographical and other circumstances, the number of electors in all electorates is even approximately the same. Little Tasmania has exactly the same number of representatives in the Senate, as does Victoria or New South Wales. Does this mean that there is a "gerrymander" for Senate elections?

By inference Mr. Fitzgerald is claiming that States other than Queensland have "fairer" electoral systems. He claims "In Queensland there are relatively few formal restraints upon the exercise of power by the government of the day". But if Mr. Fitzgerald would care to consult a number of eminent constitutional authorities, he will find that from the time when a former Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart, wrote his great classic, The New Despotism, down to the present day, there have been warnings that parliaments, irrespective of how elected, are no longer free deliberate assemblies, but rubber stamps for the permanent bureaucracy with Members beholden primarily to party dictators.

It is strange that if Mr. Fitzgerald feels that electoral "reform" is the answer to corruption, he did not draw attention to the corruption associated with the modern dictatorial party system. We can agree with Mr. Fitzgerald about the problems with governments where "there are relatively few formal restraints upon the exercise of power by the government of the day". Why then did he not recommend that at the very least, the Queensland Upper House be restored? The many critics of the Bjelke-Petersen government also ignore this proposal, and in doing so agree with Sir Joh himself, who failed to restore to Queenslanders what a Labor government took away from them. All politicians like power.

The "gerrymander" myth cannot mask the fact that a growing number of Queensland electors related to what they perceived to be the qualities of leadership and values of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. As we said at the time, Sir Joh was badly advised on the "Joh for P.M.", and his subsequent political demise started there. Sir Robert Sparkes primarily regarded Sir Joh as a vote getter who could be used to further his own power strategy. But in helping to undermine Sir Joh, he has fatally wounded the Queensland National Party, which will pay a heavy electoral price at the next State elections.

Unless some criminal charges are laid against Sir Joh, and proven, the worst that can be said against him is that in spite of his authoritarian style and his major "blind spot", on Japanese investments, he was extremely naive about some of his appointments. But he did stand up against trade union thuggery, tried to keep "progressive" education out of the schools and his family life reflected Christian values. It was for these reasons that he was anathema to the secular humanists.

In using the Fitzgerald report to attempt to smear the former Premier, what the media are really doing is to attack not only the great majority of Queenslanders but that majority of Australians, who are still basically decent people.

GREEN-HOAX UPDATE!

By David Thompson
The international 'green revolution' is rapidly being kicked into top gear in Australia (along with every other Western country) and it is now clear that our Fabian Prime Minister Hawke expects to play a key role in the manipulation of the 'environmental' debate to centralise power on a global scale. Hawke's major environmental statement on the 20th June will apparently commit Australia to taking the lead in developing a new international convention on the greenhouse effect, and in a United Nations convention on endangered species.

"The Australian" (5/7/89) reports that key Australian Ministers want States to be legally obliged to limit, and then reduce emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect under the convention. "The convention should also require countries to report to an international body, which would monitor compliance with the convention."

Meanwhile, the "Weekend Australian" (1/7/89) reported that Queensland has lost a High Court challenge to the Federal Government's power to use World Heritage Listing to lock up tropical rainforests: "All 7 judges rejected arguments by Queensland that the Commonwealth could be required to prove the listed areas were part of Australia's cultural heritage'' . . . . They said the power of the Commonwealth to control properties in the State was restricted to those areas "whose protection or conservation has become Australia's international duty". And who decides just what our 'international duty' is? The World Heritage Committee!
"The Committee's decision to include a property in the World Heritage list assured the international community the property had outstanding universal value as part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage. A decision by an Australian court that a property did not have that status could not prevail over an evaluation made by that committee. (Emphasis added)

So there we have it. The last two Federal governments have succeeded in weakening our sovereignty to the point where the decision of an international body - World Heritage Commission - can now make decisions that cannot be overturned by an Australian court! In both cases 'the environment' was used as the excuse for a transfer of power from Australia to foreign powers.

Hawke proposes to take the next step with the greenhouse convention. His green hit man, Senator Richardson, also believes that it could be possible to win a referendum to transfer environmental legislative power to the Commonwealth from the States. Only 2 newspapers reported that Richardson's remarks were made at a Fabian Society conference at Lorne, Victoria, on May 21st! All this, of course, is grist to the well-oiled Fabian mill. With Prime Minister Hawke also giving his tacit support to the proposal for a referendum on the environment, the stage is being set for another major constitutional battle.

KEATING DEFENDS THE A.B.S. 'HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE SURVEY'

In a letter published in The Australian, July 4th, Paul Keating, Treasurer, reveals that his Australian Bureau of Statistics is feeling the electoral heat over its outrageous "H.E.S.". He takes a swipe at Senator Shirley Walters and Mr. Don Cameron, and airily dismisses the threats, the intimidation, the fines (which have actually occurred!) as "untrue".

It has been an outstanding success, says Keating. He complains, "In the longer term, it is the trust of the community in the overall integrity of the A.B.S. which is being put at risk by the campaign of disruption being waged by a handful of politicians. All Australians have a stake in ensuring that the A.B.S. can continue to perform its vital role". Keating would believe this!

The "role" of the A.B.S. is what is uppermost: the integrity and sovereignty of the individual is regarded with contempt. No, the League of Rights does NOT have full trust in the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Its intimidations of ordinary citizens are outrageous. The "disruption" complained of by Paul Keating is the normal objection of individuals to unwarranted intrusions into their personal lives (with threats of fines, and other intimidations).

DAMAGING BLOW FOR GREENIES

NO CUSHION OF WEALTH