THE COMING PHONY FEDERAL ELECTION

by Eric D. Butler
All the signs clearly indicate that 1990 is going to be a year of high drama in Australian politics. The countdown to the first major event, the coming Federal Election, is already under way. While the election contest itself will be phony, it will make a decisive contribution to deciding whether traditional Australia can be saved. Objective students of modern politics have observed that elections in those countries which describe themselves as democratic, have increasingly become contests, not about basic differences concerning principle or policies, but about which set of politicians are best qualified to "manage" the country, particularly its economy. In essence, all major party contestants accept the same basic philosophy and policies.

The role of the mass media, especially television, makes it imperative that the competing political leaders have what is described as "style". A good television image is worth thousands of votes. If the incredible Mr. John Frederick, of the Victorian National Safety Council, had devoted his tremendous abilities to politics instead of attempting to build up what he obviously envisaged as his own private empire, he would have been a "winner". A man who could persuade top bankers to make available over a hundred million dollars for an operation lacking in real substance, must have plenty of "style"!

Making dogmatic predictions about coming events, like election results, can be a hazardous exercise: if one is proved right, few will remember, but if proved wrong, one will never be permitted to forget it. All the conventional methods of assessing election prospects, including public opinion polls, have suggested over recent months that the coming Federal Elections would be a close contest with the odds slightly favouring the return of the Hawke Government as a result of the preferences of the "green vote".

Prime Minister Hawke's greatest asset has been the inability of the recycled Andrew Peacock to convince electors that he would pursue policies basically different from those of the Hawke Government. It is no secret that many of those who supported the Peacock coup against John Howard now believe they made a major mistake. Such is the shallowness of today's professional politicians. However, events in recent weeks, primarily in West Australia and Victoria, have made it possible for Andrew Peacock to become Prime Minister by default.

The scandalous handling of public finances by both the West Australian and Victorian Labor Governments has badly damaged the image of the Fabian academics as competent planners, acting only in the public interest, untainted by the greed which allegedly only afflicts private business men, being capable of ensuring that there is "balanced growth". The spectacle of Melbourne's transport chaos must be a disturbing one for Prime Minister Hawke and his strategists. It will take more than minimal reductions in interest rates to offset the political damage being inflicted by the West Australian and Victorian Governments.

What, then, if a Peacock Government comes to office primarily because sufficient electors have decided that they have had enough of Labor generally, even though they regard a Peacock Government with little enthusiasm? My own considered view is that the disasters suffered under the Hawke Government would be intensified under a Peacock Government. This assessment is made against the background of a lifetime of experience in the ways of politics, observing how one of the great constants in human affairs, the will-to-power, affects modern party politicians. As power of all kinds, financial, economic and political, becomes increasingly centralised, its deadly effect on the individual becomes progressively greater.

Generally speaking, the calibre of the present day politicians does not match that of their predecessors. The late Sir Robert Menzies had many faults, including that of removing men of equally outstanding ability whom he saw as a threat to his own position, but he towered above any leader the Liberal Party has produced since. The Liberal Party of Menzies had a reasonably coherent philosophy with loyalty to the traditional Australian value system. I am reliably informed that in his latter years Sir Robert Menzies became so disillusioned with the erosion of Liberal Party support for the principles and values upon which he and his colleagues had built the Liberal Party, that he felt he could no longer vote for it.

Enormous damage was done during the disastrous Fraser years. The evil that men do lives after them, and Malcolm Fraser was symptomatic of the rot inside the Liberal Party. I had dinner with Malcolm Fraser shortly after he returned from Oxford and first contested the Wannon Electorate. I did not like what I saw and my original impressions were confirmed with the passing of time. By mutual consent I met with Malcolm Fraser for much of a day just prior to his winning the Liberal Party leadership from Sir Billy Snedden. At the end of the discussions I wrote down my impressions, concluding by observing that Fraser had nothing to offer Australia.

When an outraged electorate seized the opportunity to dismiss the Whitlam Government, I was not one of those who accepted the view that things must now get better. Malcolm Fraser had only been in office a few months when I felt it important to warn Australians that the Fraser Government was already on the road to disaster. A long article, issued in brochure form, was widely distributed. Even some of my best friends were alarmed. Some readers of League of Rights journals cancelled their subscriptions in protest. Many renewed them later as they saw the Fraser Government move from one disaster to the next, both in domestic and foreign policies. The way was prepared for the Hawke Government.

Australians who wish to defend traditional Australia must face the reality that such a defence is not possible with today's Liberal Party and its present leaders. The rot is too deep for realistic action. My own view is that the best result at the coming Federal Election would be the return of the Hawke Government with a majority of one, and a Senate with a non-Labor majority. Another electoral defeat for the Liberal Party could prepare the way for a new type of political grouping with a coherent philosophy, rooted in the traditional value system which I believe still has the support of the majority of the Australian people. Out of this could come the necessary policies for national survival. The election of a Peacock Government would merely delay what ultimately has to take place.

If, as now appears possible, Australians have to endure the ordeal of a Peacock Government, one can only hope that experience is not too long and that there will be a Senate which can act as a moderating influence on the government. The best, and only advice, which the League of Rights can offer electors is that they use their votes and influence to support basic principles. Every effort must be made to ensure that the concept of The Electors' Veto is made an issue, along with immigration, the massive foreign debt, and the treacherous policy to Asianise Australia via the semi-secret Multi Function Polis programme.

The League's contribution will be to make available sufficient information in quantity for those who grasp the necessity of forcing a different note into what otherwise will be a completely phony contest. Every candidate must be challenged to stand to be counted on the basic issues.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Mr. B.A. Santamaria of the National Civic Council remains as one of the relatively few political and social commentators in Australia worth reading. He is beyond doubt the most outstanding exponent of traditional Christian philosophy with access to the media. Probably because of his background and temperament, Mr. Santamaria has never ventured deeply into the finance economic field. But in recent times he has started to raise the credit and debt issue. He has now moved to the position, as, of course, have a growing number of Australians, to where he bluntly states that the present money system has failed. As we have observed for over half a century, it is elementary that the debt system cannot be expanded indefinitely without economic and social disaster. While Mr. Santamaria does not offer any detailed solutions, he is right "on target" when he proposes, as a first major step towards national survival is that all foreign borrowing ceases. We congratulate Mr. Santamaria for at least pointing his relatively wide audience in the right direction to start looking if a major national disaster is to be avoided.

In the numerous articles concerning the late Sir Henry Bolte, former Liberal Premier of Victoria, we have seen no reference to how Sir Henry resisted all proposals to subject Victorians to the totalitarian policy of mass medication known as fluoridation. It was left to a different type of Liberal, Rupert Hamer, to attempt to deny people the right to have a say about what type of medication they were prepared to accept. Another new breed Liberal, N.S.W. Premier Greiner, has recently amended the State Fluoridation Act to prevent Local Councils and their ratepayers from having a say on the issue.

The continuing chaos throughout "liberated" Africa, with Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, also sliding towards the abyss, is a striking commentary on the liberal dogma that a Western type political voting system can be imposed upon tribal peoples of different cultures. Papua-New Guinea is going the same way as Africa. More financial aid from Australia will not halt the collapse. Eventually it may become necessary for Australia to be invited to send in the armed forces to maintain law and order. If Australia is not capable of doing this, or is afraid of reactions at the United Nations, then Indonesia is almost certain to do in Papua-New Guinea what it did in East Timor.