LIMA DECLARATION AND DESTRUCTION OF AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY

From all parts of Australia come reports of Australian industries being swamped by a flood of imports. The Bendigo daily, The Advertiser, reports that local tomato growers are ploughing in their crops while Australian stores carry tomato products from overseas. Australian pig producers are concerned about pork imports, as are potato growers. The threat of losing the Wills by-election forced Prime Minister Paul Keating to attempt to do a little dialectical two stepping on the burning issue of a tariff policy which has already destroyed industries in Wills and threatens to destroy even more. Keating conveniently forgot that he has condemned the protection of Australian industries for years, claiming that protection was a type of "poison". Now he is suggesting that perhaps, after all, a little "poison" is a good thing.

As we have pointed out, the anti-protection programme is a central feature of the overall strategy to "internationalise" the Australian economy. That strategy has its roots in a number of international agreements and declarations, one of the original declarations being the Lima Declaration of 1975. Mr. Rick Farley, of the National Farmers' Federation, who remains silent while cheap imports destroy Australian primary producers, along with others have consistently sought to argue that the Lima Declaration has no relevance to what is taking place today. But in a letter dated January 28th, 1992, a letter from the New Zealand External Relations and Trade Department confirms the reality of an ongoing programme of internationalisation.

While endorsing what we have stated, that "Declarations of this kind have no formal binding legal status": but never the less are 'indications of goals and principles".
The letter continues, "the Government of the day deliberately chose to support the Lima Declaration because it was aimed at improving the capacity of the Third World nations to develop their industrial sector .... Developed countries like New Zealand were, and indeed still are, prepared to support that philosophy because it judged that in the long term our national and humanitarian interests are best served by allowing the developing world to participate on equal terms in seeking economic security and prosperity. A number of decisions taken by successive New Zealand Governments have indirectly supported the spirit and detail of the Lima Declaration. The process of economic reform begun in 1984 has, for example, advanced some of the objectives of the Lima Declaration by reducing tariff barriers and other impediments, which previously denied developing (and developed countries markets in New Zealand".

The New Zealand External Relations and Trade Department letter also states "New Zealand Governments have also taken specific action to support the principles embodied in the Lima Declaration".

As documented in our issue of March 20th, successive Australian Governments, including the Fraser Governments, have done exactly the same thing. Both in New Zealand and Australia, long established local industries have been already destroyed by the ongoing programme of internationalism. There is no argument that Asians working for coolie wages can, in financial terms, provide Australians with cheaper products than Australians can produce. Australians are, in essence, being offered a mess of economic pottage at the price of surrendering their economic and national independence. The spirit of the Lima Declaration is one of treachery, which undergirds the concept of a One World State.

MYTHS ABOUT ABORIGINAL ISSUES

No one will dispute that many Australians of Aboriginal backgrounds have problems. But it is certain that the allocation of more tens of millions of dollars will not solve those problems. There has been blatant exploitation of Aboriginal affairs by Australians who in some cases stretch the meaning of terms by describing themselves as having an Aboriginal background.

It is time for some dispelling of carefully fostered myths, the first being that present day Australians should have some guilt feeling about what happened, or allegedly happened, in Australia 200 years ago. Retrogressive collective guilt should be rejected as strongly as possible. If Australians of any background have any special problems, then they should be properly addressed without references to events of 200, or even 100 years ago.

The myths concerning aboriginal deaths in prisons are perhaps the most dangerous of all in what is a type of psycho-political warfare against white Australians. As usual, the ABC has been misleading the Australian people. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was established in 1987 in response to some highly emotional charges about "Genocide". Canberra criminologist David Biles was commissioned to assess the statistical information. But he came up with the astonishing information that in 1988 the rate of death of Aborigines in custody was below that of the non-Aborigines. This news was not highlighted by the Muirhead Royal Commission Report, the relevant figures being consigned to the interim report. This news was certainly not headlined by the media.

The Royal Commission continued on, now investigating why so many aboriginals were in custody. It is estimated that the total cost of the Commission was $40 million. Now $150 million is to be spent implementing the Commission's recommendations. There has been no suggestion that much more constructive activity is required from Aboriginal leaders concerning how the much abused police might be treated. Facts like the following need the widest publication: There has not been a single death of an Aborigine in a police cell in N.S.W. since 1987. Out of the 24 deaths by suicide in N.S.W. prisons over the past three years, only three were Aborigines.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was not able to indicate a single case out of 99 investigated where the police were guilty of any crime in connection with the death in custody of any Aborigines. Genuine issues concerning Aboriginal Australians can only be resolved by facing facts, not promoting myths.

BRIEF COMMENTS

New Zealanders will be interested to know that a Mr. Douglas Myers, described as a New Zealand "top business man", has told Australian businessmen that a "nascent economic revival" is underway in New Zealand as a result of New Zealand's new decentralised wage fixing system. Mr. Myers is chief executive of the Lion Nathan brewing. He is quoted as saying, "Although the economy was still very vulnerable, it was well placed to achieve its targets of sustained low inflation, single digit home mortgage rates and an annual growth rate of 3 percent." There is no doubt that with improved industrial relations, greater productivity is possible in those industries producing something that is readily saleable, such as beer. But New Zealanders generally do not see any signs of the "recovery" mentioned by Mr. Myers.

The latest information to hand reveals that John Demjanjuk, sentenced to death by an Israeli court, is still being held in spite of clear evidence that he could not be guilty. There is a fear that Demjanjuk might "die" in prison.

ARE YOU SUPPORTING ERIC BUTLER TESTIMONIAL DINNERS?

BASIC FUND TARGET IN SIGHT

INITIATIVE AND REFERENDA IN N.S.W. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

from David Thompson
Proposals to introduce initiative and referenda at local government level are being "honoured" by the N.S.W. Greiner Government with the introduction of "voters' veto" provisions to the Local Government Act. However, the new provisions are being opposed by most of the groups promoting the Swiss-style concept of initiative and referenda. The reason for the opposition only becomes clear as the draft of the voters' veto provision is examined. There are a number of serious shortcomings; such that the new provisions are farcical.
1) A proposed capital work could be vetoed if not less than 10% of eligible voters sign a petition within 28 days of the capital work being given public notice.
2) The petition calling for a referendum on the proposed capital work must be made available by the Council at its offices during ordinary office hours, for any elector or ratepayer who asks for it. The petition may only be signed at the Council's office.
3) No referendum can be conducted unless half the cost of conducting it, as estimated by the Electoral Commissioner, is paid to the Council by supporters of the petition within the time during, which signatures may be gathered. Proof of payment is required for refunds.

COUNCILS NO LONGER ACCOUNTABLE
The voters' veto 'provision is being offered only on new capital works. There is no opportunity for the ratepayers to discipline unsatisfactory councillors, to oppose rating methods or levels, or oppose council participation in more and more welfare schemes. Such are the provisions of the N.S.W. Local Government Act, that councils are far more accountable to the State Government than the ratepayer. The requirement that petitions only be signed at Council offices is ludicrous, and hamstrings any campaign to veto even the most insane capital works. It is clear from this, and the necessity for campaigners to raise half the cost of the referendum, that the N.S.W. Coalition Government is playing a double game. On the one hand, Mr. Greiner will be able to claim that the voters' veto is being offered to ratepayers, but on the other hand, every effort is being made to see that even such a limited provision is never used successfully. Clearly, the Coalition is opposed to initiative and referenda. They argue that it should first be tried at Local Government level, before being considered for State Government. Every effort is being made to see that the voters' veto fails at Local Government level. N.S.W. readers should consider lodging a vigorous objection to the draft legislation before it is passed. The independents, like Mr. John Hatton and Mr. Peter McDonald, should not be overlooked.

Solzhenitsyn, in his book "Rebuilding Russia" ($14.95 posted) recommends the Swiss concept of initiative and referenda, as an adjunct to improved methods for the decentralisation of power. It should be remembered that he lived in exile for a time in Switzerland. The television reporter, George Negus, recently described a tour of Russia, where although the people had insufficient to eat, they avidly read the works of Solzhenitsyn. Direct, participatory democracy of the Swiss kind is now essential to return decision-making processes to those who are most affected - the people. (See also: Switzerland's Political Institutions" by Oswald Sigg, $6.00 posted.)