ATTORNEY GENERAL LAVARCH SHOWS HIS TEETH

In what now seem like "the good old days", the days before multiculturalism, anti-discrimination legislation, and United Nations conventions, Australians generally managed to get along reasonably well together. The great majority rarely came in contact with genuine Aborigines and those who did accepted them for what they were. The Christian missionaries attempted to serve the best interests of the Aboriginal people, believing that an introduction to Christianity would help them to better themselves. On cattle stations and in shearing sheds whites and Aborigines worked together. Every attempt was made to deny the Aborigines access to alcohol.

Generally speaking Australians of Aboriginal or part Aboriginal background were treated on their merits. This was demonstrated during both the First and Second World Wars. Outstanding Aborigines in the field of sport were respected and if affectionately described as "darky" took no offence. Neither did Australians of non-British backgrounds take offence when described by nicknames such as "Dutchie", etc.

While there was a tendency for Roman Catholics and other Christians to segregate themselves in different ways, and a degree of sectarianism, this was never too serious and did not prevent a growing national social cohesion. While there was a feeling that Jews were a little "different", which is why Jews tended to be excluded from some clubs, like the Melbourne Club, which still does not accept Jews as members, Jews like Australia's first Australian born Governor General, Sir Isaac Isaacs, and General Monash, were widely respected. Women were certainly much safer than since they became "liberated", and much safer than since they became "liberated", and much more respected.

Anglo Saxons normally are the most tolerant of people and the principle of the "fair go" was generally respected throughout Australia. But all this has changed and there has been growing friction with anyone critical of Australia's present immigration policy, or what has become a major growth industry; multiculturalism, is now described as a racist", some type of a moral leper. The same terms of abuse are applied to those who refuse to have a guilt complex about what allegedly happened in Australia 200 years ago.

The give and take of a normal healthy society is being destroyed and our new masters are determined that everyone shall use the politically correct language. And so Australia's Attorney General, Michael Lavarch's Department, has announced that people charged with inciting racial hatred under the coming Racial Discrimination Bill face up to two years in jail. The Bill, to be introduced in the spring session of the Federal Parliament, will provide for fines up to $5,000 for causing contempt or ridicule concerning race.

The Victorian State Government has put on hold its plans to introduce its own racial vilification laws and says that the coming Federal legislation will cover what was intended. Once this legislation is in place, anyone daring to point out that the Zionist movement has been prominent in the drive to have this type of legislation introduced could find himself being prosecuted.

It can be predicted now that the overall result will be greater social friction. The way will be opened for all kinds of people, including those with very large "chips on their shoulders", to lay charges against others. As we have said, in the past Australians never felt it necessary to introduce such totalitarian legislation in an attempt to make people have proper respect one for the other. The legislation should be resisted in every possible way by those Australians who reject the whole concept of attempting to restrict genuine free speech.

MORE KEATING POLITICAL DISHONESTY

In his recent appearance before the Canberra Press Club, Prime Minister Paul Keating attempted to justify why he would not be fulfilling his pre-election promises concerning taxation cuts. This was classic Keating double speak. The first part of his tax reduction programme would now be brought forward, allegedly to help stimulate an economy, which was still "sluggish". But the major promised tax reduction, outlined in his much-publicised One Nation, and to be provided during this present parliament, by 1996, has now been postponed, "probably" until 1998. But, of course, there is no certainty about this.

The reality is, of course, that Paul Keating has blatantly dishonored an election promise, which helped him to win the last Federal elections. If Paul Keating and his minders have been reading letters to the print media, and listening to the torrent of comments on radio talkback programmes around Australia, they would know that Paul Keating has made a major contribution towards reducing still further the low esteem in which Australian politicians are held. Harsh cynical comments about politicians are now commonplace.

Like all governments, the Keating Government is obsessed with the problem of deficits. In July Federal Treasurer Dawkins announced that the deficit target for this year's August Federal Budget would be $16 billion, the same as last year. But it is clear that Dawkins and Keating had already secretly agreed to bring the first tax cuts forward into the coming financial year. This would mean a deficit of probably $15 billion.

But the Prime Minister, who says the tax cuts were brought forward to stimulate the economy, still insists that the budget deficit will remain at $16 billion. In order to achieve this result, Paul Keating will have to find some new taxation revenue, this from increased indirect taxation. Already there are hints of what might be attempted, including the taxing of hotels. And there could be some attempted spending cuts.

Whatever is attempted will only contribute to the problems of the great majority of the Australian people. However, the Keating strategists have a major political problem that of the Senate "swill" as the Prime Minister has termed the Senators. That "swill" may now decide the fate of the Keating Government. As of July 1st Labor holds only 30 of the 76 seats in the Senate. The balance of power is in the hands of the seven Australian Democrats and the three Independents. The support of the Democrats is vital. But can the Democrats support broken tax promises and a cut in Government spending and at the same time prevent a further decline in their electoral support?

Our own view is that Keating's grand strategy for the future, including his Republic, is now at serious risk and that it is extremely unlikely that the Keating Government will last a full term. The Senate could prove to be a political time bomb. The Senate's provision of a division of political power is one of the few safeguards against unbridled power in Australia. For this reason the Keatings dislike the Senate. It will be an interesting exercise to see how Paul Keating manages to swallow the Senate "swill" which he can hardly avoid!

BRIEF COMMENTS

The mounting international Zionist campaign against British historian David Irving has forced the German Government to deny Irving access to German archives to pursue his research activities. Our understanding is that Irving has not yet concluded his researches concerning his coming book on the Goebbels Diaries. Are the Zionists afraid of what next Irving will discover? Or is this merely a ploy to keep him out of Germany? Last week in Perth the Federal Court heard another appeal by David Irving against the Federal Government's refusal to grant him a visitor's visa. Legal opinion suggests that once again it will be ruled that the Minister has acted in accordance with the Migration Act. Our own view is that Irving would be well advised to use whatever finances he can obtain to pursue several of the writs his Australian legal representatives have already served on several prominent Zionists, and not attempt to defeat the Federal Government in the Courts. All profits from the sale of the Irving video, "The Search For Truth In History", and the audio will be used to help finance his growing legal expenses. We urge all readers to publicise the Irving video and audio tapes as widely as possible.

British Prime Minister John Major has scored a short-term victory in his feverish attempt to cement the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community. But in doing so, he has almost certainly dug his own political grave. Faced with almost certain defeat on the Maastricht Treaty in the House of Commons, Major resorted to threatening the anti-common Market Members of the Tory Party with a general election unless they were prepared to give him a vote of confidence in the Commons. There is no doubt that at a general election the Conservative Government would be decimated. While correctly warning that British independence was threatened by the Maastricht Treaty, the anti-Common Market rebels also felt that their own futures were threatened by a general election. Put bluntly, John Major used naked political blackmail and in doing so, eroded still further his declining credibility. In the meantime, conflicts inside the Common Market nations demonstrate that it is doomed to ultimate failure.

The attempt to establish some type of an Asian Common Market is running into problems. Taiwan has demanded that its leaders be invited to attend the coming November Asia-Pacific Forum in Seattle, U.S.A. The Taiwanese President, Mr. Lee Teng-hui, points out that Taiwan is a major Asian economic power, which cannot be ignored. But Communist China objects to Taiwan being invited as a sovereign State. The Taiwanese demand has resulted in strong opposition from Communist China, which resents the Taiwanese Government's claim to be the legitimate government of China.

REPUBLICAN TURNBULL USES Q.C. CLOUT

from The Australian, July 21st
I enjoyed Sandra Hall's article on Tom Hughes, Q.C. (The Australian Magazine, 10-11/7) and found it exceedingly amusing. "Like his son-in-law, Malcolm Turnbull, Tom's a republican. Tom finds other people's continuing devotion to the monarchy somewhat puzzling', he says. "Yet, in the wake of N.S.W's. abolition of the traditional rank and title of Queen's Counsel, Tom's continuing devotion to that monarchial title is somewhat puzzling, absurd, and, also, terribly funny. "One would have thought that Tom Hughes, Q.C., an avowed Republican, would have been immensely cheered at the possible prospect of becoming an R.C. (Republican's Counsel). I guess it must be the lrish in you, Tom?

"Funnily enough, Tom, the Irish in me wholeheartedly supports our nation retaining the English royal family for our symbolic Heads of State, thus guaranteeing to all Australians the continuance of the democratic freedoms we have enjoyed for almost 100 years under the protection of our present Constitution and systems of government. "It is out of my patriotic devotion to Australia that I am now convinced we are all better off retaining the English royal family for our Australian Heads of State.

You could call me an M.M. (Minimalist Monarchist) if you like. In other words, my continued devotion is to Australia and not to the monarchy at all. "Indeed, like many other Australians, I have been deeply disappointed, distressed and disgusted at some of the reported royal shenanigans in recent times, and while I do have a sincere sympathy for our dignified and gracious monarch, H.M. Queen Elizabeth, the antics of her family are her own sad affair.

"In case you remain 'somewhat puzzled' Tom, let me speak plainly. "The fact is that our present Queen does not rule Australia, nor does H.M. attempt to autocratically intervene in Australia's internal political shenanigans though we ordinary Australians could invite her to do so, through our Governor General, or our State Governors, if sufficient numbers of us chose to lobby them to do so on our behalf. "However, the quintessential value to all Australians of retaining the royal family for our supply of apolitical Heads of State lies not in H.M's. exercise of power, but in H.M's. constitutional Head of State status, and her non-exercise of power.

"It is, specifically, this non-exercise of power on the part of Australia's royal and apolitical Head of State (both past and present) that - alone - has so effectively prevented any abuse of political power from arising in Australia over the past 100 years. "No politicians, or group of politicians, have ever yet dared to seize or to test the powers that our present Constitution denies them. "One way such power could, legally, be wrested from the unsuspecting Australian electorate, would be to cajole and persuade it of the dire necessity for not only a brand new constitution, but a republic. "Of course, if enough of us chose to, we can get up petitions to lobby State Governors (forget Blinky Bill, he's a republican) requiring them to inform HM. Queen Elizabeth of our wish for a referendum.

"God save our gracious Queen (and bless her troublesome family), and long may our Constitution reign over us all, including politicians in general, and republicans in particular." (Tony Marie Westwood, Box Hill, Vic.)

RACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL EVERYWHERE

from Townsville Bulletin (Qld.), 16/7
Sometimes I am appalled at the stupidity, ignorance and gold-plated parochialism of some members of the mass media. "This morning a female voice on A.B.C. radio said, 'Racism is alive and well in Australia'. Of course racism is alive and well here - it is alive and very healthy in every single country on this planet. "We in Australia see very little of the kind of racism that controls life and death in most other countries. In Ireland, in Bosnia, in the Middle East and such places racism and inter-racial hatred is very high profile, but in every other country, without exception, racial distrust and prejudice is a part of life.

"In Britain, the country which gave us our particular brand of democracy, racism is against the law, and the law is enforced in a sensible and orderly manner in all directions. "In Australia, racism is very definitely a one way street, and the law is enforced only when caucasians discriminate against or vilify blacks. They can say anything about Asians, other whites or other cultures, and blacks can say and do anything against whites - they even have coined a word for the really extreme cases - reverse racism'. "That's how silly this whole thing has become. How can there be 'reverse racism' - racism is racism? To even use the term 'reverse racism' is itself implying that ordinary racism is white man coming down on black man, and therefore using such a term is itself racism. The whole system is completely out of hand.

In today's paper (T.B. 15/7) a report of a couple of thieves smashing people's cars to steal whatever is inside resulted in a chase and the unfortunate death of one. "In this case, the criminal happened to be a Murri, so it immediately becomes racism and words like Ku Klux Klan are used. Had he been white, he would have been pursued just as vigorously by the club bouncers - but the racism charges would not have been made. "Wake up Australia. If he has pale hair you can say 'Blond B' or if it's red you can say 'Red-Headed B' but try 'Black B' and you are breaking the law. It just doesn't make sense.
"Oh well, stupidity is alive and well in Australia." (Vic Hall, Robert Towns Cres., Condon, 4825)