BEHIND THE KEATING STRATEGY

In a relatively short period Prime Minister Paul Keating has dramatically demonstrated the well-known truth that people's memories are notoriously short. Paul Keating managed to seize control of the Labor Party from Bob Hawke, by a small majority, because desperate Labor Members had come to the conclusion that a change of leadership offered that the threat of what was perceived to be an inevitable electorate defeat, would be limited. There was little prospect of a Labor survival. But today the latest Bulletin poll, generally regarded as one of the most reliable of public opinion polls, shows that the Labor Government leads the Opposition parties. Paul Keating's approval rating has continued to rise while that of Dr. John Hewson has fallen.

A Labor victory at the Wills by-election would demonstrate that Keating has managed to turn the Australian political scene around. What does this mean? First, and foremost, it means that a big section of the Australian people has no real confidence that a Hewson Government would solve the nation's basic problems. All that Hewson can offer is a General Services Tax policy, which has been a failure in every country it has been tried. Canada followed New Zealand in implementing this type of tax, with disastrous results.

Such are people's memories that relatively few Australians recall that early in the history of the first Hawke Government Treasurer Paul Keating was campaigning vigorously for the adoption of a consumption tax. Now he is going to make political capital out of Dr. Hewson's similar proposal. Keating's sheer effrontery is breathtaking, as witnessed by his latest about turn concerning the destructive tariff policies he helped to impose on the Australian people.
Having destroyed hundreds of Australian industries and thrown tens of thousands of Australians on to the economic scrap heap, Paul Keating, in his bid for votes in the Wills by-election, tells us what we have been saying for years. The electors of Wills are now told that some tariff protection is necessary, but that the big threat comes from a Hewson Government, which is pledged to abolish all protection by the year 2000.

In the absence of a constructive national economic policy, Dr. Hewson and his colleagues find themselves in a most difficult situation. One of Keating's cleverest tactics was to get people's minds off economic issues by raising the Republican issue. Bob Hawke has given Keating his support, making the shrewd suggestion that a referendum should be held on the Republican issue as soon as possible, but conducted in such a way that there is no personal affront to the Queen. The suggestion is that the referendum would be for the purpose of indicating whether at the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, Australia should then become a Republic.

As we have warned over the years, the steady erosion of any understanding of the nation's traditional constitutional institutions would, unless countered, ultimately pave the way for the destruction of traditional Australia. We are not surprised therefore to read that the public opinion polls show that the Republican feeling is gathering momentum throughout Australia, and that every age group except people over 55 years of age now supports a move to Republicanism. Voters between 18-39 are the strongest Republican supporters.

Keating and his advisers obviously felt that an open anti-Monarchy stand would gain widespread support among ethnic groups and the young. And they are also aware that the Opposition is not capable of mounting a positive campaign on the question. The responsibility of the League of Rights to conduct an in-depth campaign in support of the traditional Constitution was never greater. Some hard campaigning is ahead.

UN DRIVE TOWARDS WORLD GOVERNMENT

from David Thompson
The Victorian Equal Opportunity Commissioner, Ms. Moira Rayner, claims that Australia risks "international embarrassment" for breaching several articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed in 1990. As the convener of the new Coalition for Children's Rights, she has called on the Attorney General, Mr. Duffy, to appoint an independent children 's commissioner to monitor Australia's compliance with the Convention. Ms. Rayner (as has Mr. Brian Burdekin, Human Rights Commissioner) condemns the W.A. Juvenile Justice legislation, claiming that it targeted young Aboriginal offenders because it aimed at stopping motor vehicle theft and misuse, resisting arrest and breaking and entering. (Does she mean that we should not have such laws, in case Aboriginal youths might want to steal your car, or rob your house?) Both she and Mr. Burdekin want the W.A. legislation amended or repealed, to comply with our international obligations.

UNITED NATIONS SOVEREIGNTY
By obstinately insisting upon our own Parliaments determining Australian laws, we could eventually suffer more than merely "embarrassment" from the U.N. It is already being argued that the U.N. should be able to force compliance upon treaty signatories. The following is an illuminating extract from the United Nations Association Victorian Newsletter of April 1990, and is written by Stanley W. Johnston, reader in Criminology at Melbourne University, and federal Vice-President of the U.N. Association of Australia, under the heading "Realising the Sovereignty of the United Nations"

"The United Nations is unquestionably sovereign on matters of peace and security (chapters 5-8 of the U.N. Charter) and on other matters of global significance such as health, cultural and educational cooperation and human rights (chapters 9-11). Population, the environment and development can, of course, only be handled at global level. The U.N. will enforce law thirteen articles of the U.N. Charter refer to preventive and enforcement action. ... National sovereignty refers to
(1) territorial integrity and political independence (from other nations but not from the U.N.), and
(2) the agreed scope of domestic jurisdiction.

"In the declaration on the inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the protection of their Independence and Sovereignty 1965, the Law on Friendly Relations between States 1970 and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States 1974, nation states list their duties, specifically acknowledging their submission to the United Nations. By the U.N. charter, nations surrendered the finality of their authority on certain major matters of global concern. In this way, we share in the larger sovereignty of the United Nations…

"Read Article 13. Under it the General Assembly is legislating apace, and its Resolutions are a triumph of law making. ... Recommendations of a global forum possess the great, inherent authority of natural law. ... The United Nations is not a foreign affair; and national policies now increasingly derive their legitimacy from the United Nations.
"Some people still cannot accept the United Nations as the world government - perhaps because big government seems frighteningly powerful ... U.N. structure and authority are democratic and responsive; the world government structure is not perfect, but it is adequate and we are improving it. It is worth our loyalty. Anarchy is worse than big government, and those who are not committed to the rule of the U.N. law are anarchists. . . ." (All emphasis ours .. O.T.)

This is right from the horse's mouth. It is a clear exposition of the proposed role of the U.N., and the most chilling aspect of such utter insanity is that the author obviously believes it completely. How many others such as Stanley Johnston are teaching university students, or even schoolchildren? If there are still Australians who regard the U.N. Conventions as harmless, or the prospect of a world government as remote, they should be shown Mr. Johnston's remarks. The need for referendums initiated by the voters has never been more urgent.

BRIEF COMMENTS

The initial estimate of $30 million being the cost to taxpayers for the War Crimes prosecutions were scorned as outrageous. Now new projections put the costs as high as $50 million. By June 30th, this farce will have already cost $15.7 million, according to Mr. Graham Blewett, head of the Special Investigations Unit, and a steeply mounting array of running costs are not included in that estimate. Other costs include hotel accommodation, airfares and living allowances for up to 30 overseas witnesses. Did the supporters of the War Crimes legislation realise that it involved free holidays for elderly foreigners, sponging off the Australian taxpayers?

While former Australian of the Year Professor Hollows is being condemned for his comments on the influence of the "gay" lobby in the fight against AIDS, it is revealed that in the United States, the latest figures show that one in every 100 men has tested HIV positive. The disease has reached epidemic proportions, and is sweeping through the heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals. The Centre for Disease Control estimates that 40,000 Americans will test HIV positive this year. Why is the AIDS epidemic being treated as such in Australia? Have the homosexuals captured the decision making process? When we had a tuberculosis epidemic, we took the necessary steps. Professor Hollows may well be vindicated.

BLACKS AGREE TO SEIZE FARMS FROM WHITES

The following articles of interest have been sent to us from an actionist in W.A. All below from Sunday Times, Perth, W.A. (21/3)
HARARE: South Africans neighbour Zimbabwe is to seize white owned farms for black peasants. "The Parliament voted for the move on Thursday night. But opponents, who call the drastic measure the Land Grab Act, could not deny the need for land reform. "President Robert Mugabe is expected to sign the Bill into law this month. It is assured of passage because his Patriotic Front holds the majority in Parliament. "The move is viewed as an attempt by Mr. Mugabe to revive his support among Zimbabwe's 10 million blacks as the country faces economic ills and drought.
"Mr. Mugabe led white ruled Rhodesia to independence as black-ruled Zimbabwe in 1980 after a 7 year war. At independence, he promised resettlement of blacks on farmland. But by the end of last year, only 160,000 blacks had been moved to land sold willingly by white farmers. "Mr. Mugabe says his aim is to settle blacks on five million hectares, about half the white owned farmland. Farmers have no right of appeal.

"Black lawmakers burst into applause and began ululating after the measure was approved unanimously. 'This is the most historic legislation in our history', said Simon Moyo of the Patriotic Front. "But white politician Peter Hewlett, who was not present for the vote, said the law would destroy Zimbabwe's agriculture based economy. "About 4,500 white farmers, who own one third of the nation's land, produce the most food, earn the bulk of export income, and collectively employ the highest labour force. "White farmers fear peasants resettled on the targeted land will reduce it to subsistence farming and transform Zimbabwe from one of Africa's few food exporters to an importer.

"The Government admits that few of the former white farms resettled by blacks in the past remained productive. But it said new settlers would be trained and supported by experts. "The Bill has soured the normally good relations between Mr. Mugabe and Zimbabwe's whites who make up one percent of the population but own more than 30% or the land."

WAR CRIME CASE BACKFIRES: OTTAWA

THE ODD BEDFELLOWS SHAPING TOMORROW

Who saw this article in The Australian (20/3) by R.W. Johnson, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford? We can't republish the entire article, of course. However, a few snippets will give readers a more penetrating insight into the wheeling and dealing now going on inside, and yes, outside, South Africa

Since 1948 South African life has been composed of three warring forces: the Afrikaner Nationalist State, English speaking big business and African nationalism. "The struggle between Afrikaner nationalism and big business raged for decades, never achieving more than an uneasy truce, and both these two contenders warred in turn against the third force, African nationalism. But the white Right cannot be written off yet. Treurnicht and his men have been run off the field by a quite brutal media blitz, a unanimously hostile press, a heavily biased broadcast media and a yes' campaign that outspent them at least twenty fold.
"The South African cricket team campaigned openly for a yes vote on primetime television every night, sports lovers were threatened with an immediate pull out from the cricket World Cup in the event of a 'no' victory, employers warned that a no vote would lose them their jobs and home owners were warned that property values would plunge.
"In a last minute campaign, the Right was depicted on posters as hooded terrorists and bogeymen wearing swastikas. "Such were the somewhat dubious means employed to achieve a result unique in Africa - a massive vote by whites to surrender white supremacy…"