"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
|
10 February 1989. Thought for the Week:
"The legal maxim that a man must be responsible for the legal
consequences of his actions is a method of saying that a man
who takes action without considering the consequences is a
danger to society, and is either a fool or a knave, both of
whom, and perhaps even more the former than the latter, are
conspicuously out of place in politics… To say that a man
who draws $l0,000 per annum, with extras, which is several
times his earning power in business or industry, does not
know that he has been allowed to attain that position in order
to do the dirty work which he is plainly doing, in the face,
or behind the face, of his 'constituents', is to be an accessory
before or after, or during, the crime."
C.H. Douglas (1946) |
SHADOWS FROM THE WESTEven if the W.A. Labor Government manages to survive last Saturday's elections (which is not certain at the time of writing) the Hawke-Keating Government can draw no comfort from what has happened. The result must increase the shadows, which have been falling since the South Australian by-elections early last year, followed by the N.S.W. wipe out. But, as in the South Australian by-elections and the N.S.W. elections, a major feature of voting patterns is that while there is a growing backlash against Labor, most of this is not going to the Liberals and Nationals, but to Independents and the smaller groups. The growing vote against all the mainline parties is worrying the Federal Opposition parties as much as it is worrying Prime Minister Hawke. In an attempt to further increase Australia's foreign debt, Senator Button has been visiting the U.S.A. and urging greater investments in Australia, his major selling point being that under the Hawke Government there was wage stability in Australia, and that in fact the Labor Government had managed to reduce the standard of living by 10 percent. Mr. John Halfpenny, who is projecting a very sophisticated image, along with other more militant Trade Unionists, are already making it clear that they are not going to tolerate indefinitely the policy of "restraint". Mr. Kelty and Mr. Crean of the A.C.T.U. are facing a crisis situation. Both clearly have political ambitions as Labor Parliamentarians, but they know that if the Hawke Government is to have any chance of surviving the next Federal Elections, it will have to continue to create the impression that only a Labor Government can have a wages accord with the Trade Unions. But how can they at the same time persuade the Trade Unionists they are supposed to represent, to continue a progressive lowering of their purchasing power when it is now clear that Treasurer Keating's reduction in the inflation rate has failed. Higher interest rates are not helping. Events are now making nonsense of the Keating strategy. Attempting to overcome Australia's internal problems by desperately seeking more overseas investments is like an alcoholic calling for more alcohol to solve his problem. The most disturbing feature of the situation is that there is little confidence that a Howard-Sinclair government, elected primarily by the default of the Hawke Government, would be much better. A Howard-Sinclair government which attempted to hold down real wages without implementing major tax cuts, much lower interest rates, and similar policies, would invite the John Halfpennys of the Trade Union movement to impose major industrial action, possibly leading to a near revolutionary situation. The best hope in the situation is that the growing non-party independent vote can be marshalled behind a constructive programme which will, for a start, put a group of Independents in to the Senate. |
WHAT IS THE REAL PURPOSE OF HAWKE'S ANTI-SOUTH AFRICAN STANCE?Red- blooded Australians are nauseated to see their Prime Minister apologizing to his Asian hosts, stressing that the "White Australia" had been buried and that, for example, South Koreans and others were free to immigrate to Australia. The term "White Australia" has, of course, always been a misnomer, although it was used by a Labor party long since hijacked by the Fabians, and also by the Country Party. Australia has enjoyed relative stability and a minimum of racial friction because of a policy designed to ensure the development of a homogeneous nation. It is not true that non-Europeans were completely excluded. Asian nations like Japan and China, which have strict immigration policies and make no secret of their intention to preserve homogeneous nations and cultures, are not likely to be impressed by the Hawke fawning. It is clear that the Hawke campaign to persuade the world that he is creating a multicultural nation also helps to explain his fanatical campaign against South Africa. Even the Sydney Morning Herald has recently observed that "In Australia … the treatment of South Africa is unique. There are other countries Australia has disagreements with, but it is only the relationship with South Africa that is marked by constant public confrontation and hostile rhetoric. Even diplomats from such countries as Chile have a relatively easy time in Canberra, particularly if they are good at tennis". Last December statistics provided by the Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister showed that South Africa is Australia's second biggest trading partner. Judged by orthodox standards, Australia enjoys a "favourable balance of trade" with South Africa, this assisted by the bigger profits QANTAS has been making on its Southern African flights following the ending of South African Airways flights into Australia. Even Prime Minister Hawke must be aware that Australia's sanctions policy against South Africa, extended to sport, is not going to have any real effect on the South African Government. The real purpose of the anti-South African campaign is to court favour with the Third World nations at the United Nations. Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser, both of whom see themselves as world statesmen, are motivated by a desire to project an Australian non-racist image, even if this means supporting States which are open dictatorships and corrupt. For this reason, it is the Frasers and Hawkes who are willing to sacrifice traditional Australia. In more robust times, what is being done would be described as a programme of treachery. |
BRIEF COMMENTSThere are potentially explosive developments on the global scene, which the media does not appear to have noticed. Or perhaps it is felt that the news about such developments should not be widely publicised. We have seen no references in the Australian media concerning the international conference held in Chicago, U.S.A., last year, at which 400 representatives from the food producing countries of the Free World presented the disturbing evidence that if the programme of destroying family and independent farms by financial policies continues, the world is faced with massive food shortages. The devastating North American drought of last year has contributed to the progressive rundown in reserve stocks. Financial pressures, including high interest rates, continue to destroy Australian farmers. Some good news from Canada, where The Globe and Mail, Toronto, of January 21st, reports that Zionists across Canada are angered because a New Brunswick judge has ruled that the Provincial Human Rights Commission may not hear a complaint against the school board that employs Mr. Malcolm Ross. The author of several best selling books, including The Spectre of Power, Ross has exercised his democratic rights to defend his Christian heritage. He has never taken his views into the classroom. The Judge ruled that there was little evidence that a Jewish parent had been discriminated against by the school board, which employs Ross, generally regarded as an excellent teacher. The Canadian Jewish Congress, of which the Jewish parent who laid the complaint was a former national secretary, has expressed "profound disappointment" at the decision. There has been an attempt to have Ross prosecuted over a period of ten years. Hopefully he will now gain some respite, although a spokesman for the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission says that the Court judgment is being reviewed. A further comment may be added with respect to Brother Hawke and his fawning upon certain Asian leaders. He said: "Australia has been immeasurably enriched by the contribution of millions of new citizens from around the world. . ." Has it indeed? Well, the Asian leaders don't want any part of such "enrichment", thank you very much. We repeat, that Asian nations like Japan, China, Korea are essentially homogeneous nations, and intend to keep it that way. It is virtually impossible for a foreigner to become a citizen of Japan, and it is impossible for a foreigner to become a citizen of China. They don't want foreigners, particularly Europeans. Australia is always the bunny with respect to immigrants: we get the lot. It IS a policy: that's definite. We have heard Mr. Bruce Ruxton, on several occasions, say - "Why, Australia/Why Australia all the time?" Well, WHY AUSTRALIA? Why do we have to cop the lot when the Asian Dynamos won't have a bar of any "multicultural" inanities? While mentioning Mr. Ruxton's name, we heard on A.B.C. news today the voice of Gough Whitlam, thundering against the Returned Services League. Once a great welfare body, now a divisive force in Australian society according to Mr. Whitlam. We safely predict that the R.S.L. will survive this latest outburst from Our Gough. |
PROMPT ACTION FROM A NEW ADELAIDE ACTIONISTA new supporter/ actionist writes to us: "I was most interested to read in the June-August Heritage' the article by Randall J. Dicks - 'Who Knows Who Is Australia's Head of State?' Coincidentally, within a few days, on Australia Day, 26.1.89, the headline on the front page of The Advertiser (Adelaide) reported Sir Ninian Stephen's speech, and described him as Head of State. I decided to put Randall J. Dicks to the test. "I telephoned the Department of Foreign Affairs and trade and asked to be put through to someone who could give an authoritative answer to who is Australia's Head of State, 'That's easy, came the reply, 'Bob Hawke.' I insisted that I be put through to someone with authority and was passed on to the Administration officer, the reply to my question 'Who is Head of State of Australia', was most definite - 'The Governor General.' "When I asked when H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth 2 relinquished the title, and when was the Constitution amended to accommodate this, the pregnant silence was punctuated with 'ums', 'ers', and finally degenerated into semi-diplomatic hostility. I then asked the question again, and received the same most definite answer. "A call to the Reference Section of the State Library provided me with the information that the Library was on holiday until 14th February. My informant however was quite sure that the G. -G. was Head of State."My next call was to the Attorney General' s Department and I was put through to 'one of our solicitors' Same question - same answers. Pursuing the matter, I managed to obtain a reluctant admission that 'depending on the interpretation of the Constitution', the Head of State was a sort of tripartite of the Queen, the Governor General, and the Government. I terminated our conversation with a promise to myself that if I were ever in trouble with the law, this blustering and inarticulate solicitor would be the last one whose help I would seek. "Next on my list was the State Governor's House. I felt that here was where I should get the answer I was seeking. The phone was answered by the Governor's Secretary. I put the question. 'G-G,' came the reply. Oh no, not again! I repeated the questions about the Queen and the Constitution, and these questions seemed to strike a sympathetic chord upon the gentleman. He agreed that I had raised some very pertinent questions. I was told by him that he had regular contact with the G-G's. Office, and that he would clarify the situation with that Office, and get back to me. He did so, on the following day, and informed me that, with bewilderment in his voice, that H.R.H. is Head of State, with the G.-G. acting as her representative in Australia, and with her authority. The gentleman expressed his pleasure that he was able to help, and I thanked him profusely. I now know first hand the experience of Randall J. Dicks. |
CANBERRA VERSUS AUSTRALIAThis letter (below) appeared in The Australian, January 31st, over the name of "T.C. St Baker" of Upper Brookfield, Qld.:"When the outgoing Governor General advocated the elimination of State governments just a few months after Australians overwhelmingly, and again, rejected referendums directed towards centralising power in Australia, it demonstrates the extent to which Canberra is isolated from real Australians. "Politicians, aides, bureaucrats, journalists, lobbyists and judges in Canberra participate in the most incestuous, self laudatory club, totally ignoring the clearly expressed views of Australians. "*Ministerial aides and bureaucrats continue to plan and implement real expansions of power from Canberra over matters which are the responsibility of the States. "*The Canberra Press Gallery disseminates the conventional 'wisdoms' of this club, through a consistently biased media, lacking any real diversity of views or direction, supposedly establishing 'consensus' out of sheer repetition of particular points of view. "Politicians, lacking basic philosophical direction, find that their only opportunity for media coverage is to support these 'conventional wisdoms', rather than be branded as another extreme right winger or be totally ignored by the media. "*Judges on the High Court of Australia provide the club with supposed legal means to change the balance of power between Canberra and the States, by most patently illogical interpretations of the Australian Constitution, especially conclusions that if Canberra does not have a power by Constitution or referendum, then it can sign an international treaty with collection of foreign countries, and claim responsibility to interfere in areas of government of Australia for which we elect State governments to administer. "*And now the Governor-General, speaking to the weekly formal meeting of this club, the National Press Club luncheon, indicates that he is persuaded by the unanimity of views, in Canberra, in favour of centralised power. "Rather than succumbing to the forces in Canberra seeking to alter the balance of power and Government responsibilities in Australia, contrary to the expressed wishes of the Australian people, in repeated referendums, we should be more unified in our resolve to retain the protections of the Constitution against such centralising power. "*High Court judges should not be seeking to re-interpret the clear intentions of the Constitution by backdoor means; and "*Governors General should be trying to reinforce the present good order, rather than becoming a mouthpiece for lobbies-for-change which have been expressly rejected by the Australian people. |
THIS IS REALLY INTERESTINGThis letter, raising a smashing point, was sent to us by a North Rocks (N.S.W.) actionist. We shall pursue this matter. Actionists themselves should raise this matter with Constitutional authorities an their own States:"Did you notice just how quietly and smoothly the A.C.T. became a self-governing State, although the word 'State" was carefully avoided? People questioned in the streets of Canberra seemed puzzled as to why it had happened at all. 'Nobody consulted me', and 'who needs all those extra politicians' were typical comments. I believe I know why - "For a referendum to pass, as we all know, a majority of 'Yes' votes is needed in a majority of States, the A.C.T. and N.T. being territories. The best that Hawke could hope for would be majorities in W.A., S.A. and Victoria, and 3 States out of 6 is not a majority. "But the A.C.T. is now a State which, depending for its welfare on the current Government could be coerced into voting 'Yes', and Hey Presto - 4 States out of 7 is a majority. Why else? "My prediction - When and if Hawke wins the next election, there will be another of those fraudulent referendums and he will be pushing hard for that 4 out of 7 majority." |
FROM HANSARDThe Senate (September 3Oth 1988): Senator
Chapman (Lib.-S.A.): Senator Chaney (Lib.-W.A.): |