WHY DEBATE OUR FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS?

by Eric D. Butler
A press headline reads, "Let The Debate (about Republicanism) Begin", which reminds one of Communist leader Krushchev's famous claims that, Communism being "historically inevitable" we will "bury you". But the Communist leader, having pronounced that the death of Western civilisation was inevitable, went on to say, in effect, that he was prepared to discuss the funeral arrangements under the guise of "peaceful co-existence". This, in essence, is what Prime Minister Keating and his Republican colleagues are saying. It reminds one of the old sales confidence trick where in order to close a quick sale, the salesman simply asks, "Now can we discuss what colour it will be?"

Aided by sections of the media and the deep rot inside the Liberal Party, Paul Keating is skillfully advancing the view that an Australian Republic is "historically inevitable" (shades of Marxist-Leninism). The sensible thing to do now is to have a friendly discussion about how best to start implementing his policy: so runs the Keating "line"!
But while Paul Keating is stressing that he is concerned primarily about Australia's future, he is helping to focus attention on Australia's past. The future is rooted in the past and, as Prince Charles has pointed out, any people who wish to extend themselves into the future must go back to their roots.

Whoever controls the writing of history controls the future, commented George Orwell. But in attempting to re-write history, Keating has activated a growing number of Australians who dispute his version of history, one of these being Australia's most eminent and respected historian, Professor Geoffrey Blainey. Blainey has bluntly attacked the Keating view that Australia has an Asian destiny. Not surprisingly, there was a shocked reaction from the Republican ranks last weekend when it was suggested that Victorian Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett was proposing to nominate Geoffrey Blainey to join the group of "eminent" people he has invited to discuss the best ways to start implementing a Republic.

Paul Keating has set in motion developments, which are going to change the nature of Australian politics. Traditional Australians have been shocked to realise how deep the rot is inside the Liberal Party. With former Liberal Premiers along with existing present Liberal leaders openly claiming that they support the Republican cause, and with Dr. John Hewson demonstrating with every day that passes that he has no stomach for the real fight ahead, and is prepared to surrender to the Republican assault, a major split in the Liberal ranks is now certain.

John Howard and those who support him are the only senior Federal Liberals taking a stand. But we should not be surprised if out of the ranks of the remaining traditional Liberals a new leadership does not emerge. To his credit National Party leader Tim Fischer is standing firm, making it impossible for any realistic alliance between the Nationals and a Hewson-led Liberal Party.

I am of the opinion that Australians are on the eve of some most unexpected and unrehearsed political developments. Generally overlooked is the role, which West Australian Labor Parliamentarian Graeme Campbell might play. Campbell openly defied Hawke on the immigration issue and in radio and television interviews has openly challenged Keating's Republican drive.
Keating may take the view that with his majority in the House of Representatives he can ignore Campbell and any other Labor Members who think like him. But he has now set in motion political developments, which eventually will destroy him. His enlisting of the support of the Japanese Prime Minister to endorse his Republican cause can only result in a wider grouping of anti-Republic support.

Australia is now entering the most decisive period in its history and the future will be decided by relatively few people who know what to do and how to do it. Only in the ranks of the League of Rights will that minority be found, who have had the long training necessary to equip them to provide the answer to an enemy marching behind the banner of Republicanism.

DAVID IRVING DECISION MAY 11th

Documents presented in the Federal Court in Perth last Friday, concerning the Government's banning of British historian David Irving from visiting Australia on a lecture tour promoting his books, revealed that the nation's security agency, ASIO, had no objection to the issuing of a visa. Reports also revealed that former Immigration Minister Gerry Hand's own Department had recommended that the proposed visit go ahead.

In spite of the view of ASIO and the Immigration Department that there was no reason why David Irving should not visit, it was Prime Minister Keating's Department and the Cabinet, which wanted Irving banned. This is most revealing, indicating that a Prime Minister desperate about his electoral prospects was willing to do the bidding of the Zionist lobby, as were members of his Cabinet.

Mr. Justice French, who heard the Irivng appeal last Friday, has reserved his decision on the matter until May 11th, although the judge indicated that because of his heavy workload, the finding might be a little later than the 11th. Irrespective of the Federal Court's decision, it is certain that the Irving affair is not going to go away. With ASIO's assessment, along with that of the Department of Immigration, favouring the visa being issued, where does this leave the Opposition and the Democrats, who supported the ban? Who briefed them? If just one Opposition Federal Member of courage can be found, some explosive questions can be asked in the next Federal Parliament.

BRIEF COMMENTS

ON THE EDGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION

by D. Thompson
The legal can of worms opened up by the 'republican' push has not received the attention that it warrants. The truth is that even the proposed "minimalist" republican constitutional changes are massive changes, and strong legal divisions are appearing over whether it can be done at all without completely dissolving the Australian Federation.
The opening paragraph of the Constitution clearly states that ) the colonies had "agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown..."

If a referendum for massive constitutional change is proposed, some legal authorities argue that simply a majority of Australians in a majority of states is insufficient to effectively dissolve this partnership of Crown and colonies (States). It is argued that for such serious changes, a majority of people in every State should be required. Victorian Premier Kennett obviously has constitutional advice to this effect.

Further constitutional changes are being urged by the more revolutionary "Aboriginal" spokesmen, in order to acknowledge, and attempt to redress past injustices. Even Mr. Keating proposes that Constitutional changes should include Aboriginal 'reconciliation', and appointed Ms. Lois O'Donoghue to his Republican Advisory Committee. But what "Aboriginal rights" will be recognised? Prior "ownership" of Australia? Will it take the form of a Treaty? Is the Mabo case a forerunner of what is to come, with potential native title to be extended throughout Australia, including private property?

Professor Henry Reynolds claims that recognition of Aborigines as Australia's indigenous people is the least that might be expected from a republican constitution. He argues that native title, based on prior occupation, should be constitutionally protected. Thus, the issue of 'land claims' is removed from the control of the States, and effectively nationalised.

THE FUTURE OF THE STATES

As with the Aboriginal issue, talk of radical Constitutional change brings every aggrieved opportunist out of the woodwork. The question of Western Australia even seceding from the Federation has also been raised, with Wilson Tuckey, MP, canvassing the option of WA remaining a Crown State, and separating from Australia. In a 1933 referendum, West Australians voted in favour of secession by a majority of more than two to one, and the issue is periodically revived. Any possible legislation for a referendum on a republic could also face challenges from the High Court.

The legal and constitutional argument could go on for years, without any suggestion that the republic could provide better government, or improved economic circumstances. Any suggestion that it will do so is simply deceitful. It is also deceitful for the issue of republican constitutional change to be debated in a vacuum. It will impact on every part of Australian national life, and supporters of the Australian flag must be aware that the flag is threatened by republicans.

MABO CASE MAY BE A SHAKY PRECEDENT

from Herald-Sun (Melbourne), 28/4
Christopher Bantick, the head of history at Trinity Grammar School (Melbourne. OT), in his article 'Mabo and History' (Herald-Sun, April 20) said, 'to be blunt, Mabo lacks the legitimacy of reliably verifiable history….' "That view is supported by the findings of the Supreme Court of Queensland constituted by Mr. Justice Moynihan. "The High Court had sent the case to the Supreme Court of Queensland for the purpose of establishing the factual basis of the Murray Islanders' claim.

"Mr. Justice Moynihan sat for some 66 days. On November 16, 1990, His Honour published 116 findings of fact together with his reasons for so finding - these findings do not appear to have been referred to in the public debate concerning Mabo's case. "After the hearing before the Supreme Court of Queensland the case returned to the High Court for determination of the questions of law. It should be noted that the Supreme Court of Queensland
* Found that Eddie Mabo had not lived on Murray Island since 1956 and since about 1958 had been a resident of Townsville and said that the reliability of his claims of visits to the island came under somewhat of a cloud in the course of cross examination.
* Found that Eddie Mabo was quite capable of tailoring his story to whatever shape he perceived would advance his cause in the particular forum.
* Was not impressed with Eddie Mabo's credibility.
* Was not inclined to act on Mabo's evidence in a matter bearing on his self interest (and found that most of his evidence was of this character one way or another) unless it was supported by other creditable evidence.
* Found that certain of Eddie Mabo's claims were a curious concoction of fact and fantasy designed to advance Mr. Mabo's cause both in those proceedings and outside them.

"Furthermore, Mr. Justice Moynihan described the limited nature of the hearing before him in the following terms: 'The proceedings are not, for example, a free ranging enquiry into Murray Island and its people. Much less were they such an enquiry with respect to the people of the Torres Strait and issues such as land rights in general.'

"Before the Full Court of the High Court judgment on May 31, 1991, Eddie Mabo died. "His estate did not pursue his claim while other parties continued with their claim. "It is clear that the factual basis for Mabo's case deserves close examination, especially given the conclusions of the Supreme Court of Queensland. (Jack D. Hammond, Owen Dixon Chambers West', Melbourne)

SACRED COW OF PRODUCTIVITY IS LOST

from The Australian, April 27
Several years ago, some friends and I were dissecting our troubled economy - trying to dismember those parts still operating, from those disused and defunct in an attempt to isolate the cause of our society malaise. Much protracted, energetic and vociferous analytical discussion followed, but as this was BER (Before Economic Rationalism) very little progress towards any logical or simple solution was made. This may also have been because we were mostly of yeoman stock whose economic theories lent more towards toil than talk.

To simplify matters and expedite our discussion to some logical conclusions, I offered up the Modern Parable of the Wool Producer. "There was once a, Wool Producer growing fine and fashionable wool for a seemingly satisfied market. Although his position was secure and, most importantly, his Bank Manager happy - he remained a frustrated man. His fences had the occasional sag and his buildings were in some slight state of disrepair. Although aware of the small economic importance of these matters - the occasional taunts of his neighbours and his own frustrations finally wore him down. So he retrenched most of his shepherds who had been primarily responsible for the quality of his flock and the abundances of his wool clip - and replaced them with a host of handymen and fencers. Oblivious to the mountains of dag and the invasions of the pestilent fly and worm, he blazoned down the road of cosmetic perfection. Eventually all was done and he stood and proudly surveyed his glistening outbuildings and strong, sturdy fences.
"Reality, however, was soon to reappear with the onset of the annual shearing. To his horror and dismay he found not only had his flock been halved by the ravages of disease and neglect, but that the flagging remnants had no shepherds to muster them to the shed.

"The moral of this story was so obvious at the time we felt confident that the then recently elected administration could not possibly fall into the same abyss. "Not so! Within one decade we now see the complete demise of the once proud primary producer, a proliferation of fencers with no fences left to fix, and the once Sacred Cow of Productivity so beleaguered by those at the back and reaching into the bucket, that there is physically no room for those anxiously waiting to feed her, to get to the front.

"What will future civilisations make of our time? In the millennia that follow, the fossilised remains of what was once 'Homo-Sapiens Antipodean Australis' (circa 2000) will be unearthed by some disbelieving culture. They then can wildly speculate on the pervasive madness within a society. "What epitaph will these disbelieving historians apply to this rediscovered age? Maybe, the words of the greatest manipulator of the 'Long Arm Syndrome' - 'Well may we say God save the Queen - but who will save Australia?'" (John Burbury, Antill Ponds, Tasmania)

AGE TURNING DICTATORIAL

THE REPORTING OF TOLERANCE

from The Age (Melbourne), May 1
I write in response to Pamela Bone's A Test of Our Tolerance (The Age, 14/4) and her coverage of the Attorney General Department's public meetings on the proposed racial vilification legislation. "For a more objective record of events, the Attorney General's Department audio-taped the meeting, as did others present. The President of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, Joe Gersh, after expressing desire for stronger legislation, said that if it 'curtailed' anti-immigration organisations 'then that would be to the public good'. "The 'Australian Jewish News" (5/3) said: '….parties of concern to Jewish community readers include Australians Against Further Immigration and some green groups which support a total ban or partial ban on immigration'.

"In the winter edition of 'Australian Jewish Democrat', editorial committee member Miriam Paine said: 'The strengthening of multiculturalism or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General, I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian'.

"Apart from unemployment, environmental concerns and the crippling billions for infrastructure costs, it is statements from 'ethnic leaders' and their press, such as the above, which contribute to the well founded majority Australian fears about continued mass immigration and multiculturalism." (Denis McCormack, Spokesman, Australians Against Further Immigration)