THE COURAGE OF FEDERAL M.P. GRAEME CAMPBELL

When it became public knowledge that Mr. Graeme Campbell, M.H.R., was to present a Paper at the Annual National Seminar of the Australian League of Rights, he was subjected to the type of standard pressure used by the anti-League lobby of totalitarians. It was the same lobby, which attempted to have British historian David Irving banned from Australia. We are not surprised to learn that Mr. Graeme Campbell wrote to Immigration Minister Hand opposing the ban, pointing out that the banning of people like David Irving was contrary to what used to be traditional Labor Party policy.

We have watched with interest over the years the attitude of Mr. Graeme Campbell on a number of issues, and while on occasions disagreeing with him, have come to the conclusion that he is a man who thinks for himself. His outstanding calibre was demonstrated in the Paper he delivered last Saturday to the League National Seminar. (The major part of this address will be published in the next issue of the League's monthly Intelligence Survey.)

He gave his large and appreciative audience some real meat. It was refreshing to hear him say that he had changed his views on a number of issues, such as centralism and the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum concept. Graeme Campbell had been a strong critic of C.I.R. The revolutionary High Court decision on Mabo had helped to modify his views. He made the constructive suggestion that there should be a higher percentage of signatures to a petition for a referendum.

Clearly Graeme Campbell is a big man in every way. He revealed that originally he had only received Labor Party endorsement for the vast electorate of Kalgoorlie, the biggest in Australia, because the Party did not believe it could win the electorate. But in 1990 Graeme Campbell, a man with enormous practical experience as a pastoralist and one involved in mining, managed to win the electorate with a very slim majority. That majority has increased at every subsequent election.

Reacting to the criticism he received because of his appearance on a League of Rights platform, Graeme Campbell said that he could stand the heat growing inside his own Party. According to A.L.P. rules, any member who appears on the platform of a proscribed organisation is automatically expelled from the Party. The League of Rights has been on the proscribed A.L.P. list for many years.

As there appears to be no suggestion as yet that Graeme Campbell should be expelled from the Labor Party, we can only speculate on whether the League has been removed from the proscribed list to avoid a major confrontation with Graeme Campbell. Apart from his outspoken views on MABO, immigration and multiculturalism, Graeme Campbell is critical of economic rationalism and the policies destroying Australia's industrial base. His independence of thinking has even extended to publicly disagreeing with Prime Minister Keating on the Olympic Games. Mr. Graeme Campbell does not see the Games leading Australia out of the recession.

In our assessment Graeme Campbell is injecting some hope into a demoralised Australian community. He could emerge as a major factor in the growing Australian crisis. His greatest attitude is courage, something desperately required at Canberra.

KEATING EMERGES AS REPUBLICAN ALBATROSS

by David Thompson
The republican claim that the creation of the Australian republic is "quite inevitable" - a claim that has psychologically intimidated even many monarchists - has been dealt a series of heavy blows over the last week. A number of polls have indicated that, as the League has anticipated - that divisions of opinion about the republic are much deeper and more passionately held than Mr. Keating and his republican colleagues encourage us to believe. Events have also dispensed with the politically motivated fiction that there is any such thing as "minimal" constitutional change.

The inescapable impression that the Prime Minister, Mr. Keating, personifies the republican proposal means that as the political fortunes of Mr. Keating decline, so does the popularity of 'his' republican nightmare. Keating further jeopardises the republican objective by confirming his view that it would be natural for the Australian flag to change following the establishment of a republic. Recent polls have shown a hardening attitude to the retention of the flag, with a recent result showing that 59% of voters' now say they never want the flag to be changed. By proposing such unpopular suggestions, Keating has become a strong republican liability.

OLYMPIAN MISCALCULATION

Perhaps the greatest Prime Ministerial disaster (as far as the republicans are concerned) has been Mr. Keating's calculated attempt to cynically exploit the awarding of the Olympics to Sydney for the year 2000. His suggestions that someone other than the Queen should open the Games, and that the republican agenda should be brought forward so that the Games are hosted by a republican Australia have met with extremely strong opposition.

A Herald-Sun poll last weekend indicated that 92% of those questioned opposed establishing a republic before the Games. And those wanting the Queen to open the Games outnumbered by almost seven to one those who wanted the head of a new republic to open the Games. Such indications are a magnificent shot in the arm to the monarchists, who have seen the major press organs declare for the republic, and the most outrageous misrepresentations of the historical record committed by Mr. Keating.

Even the selection of Sydney for the 2000 Games provides some indication that other countries regard Australia as a clearly identifiable nation in its own right, sure of its identity, and sufficiently confident in that identity to challenge and defeat the Chinese bid for the Games. The Herald-Sun poll, while only an indication, suggested that a massive majority of Australians would be proud for the Queen to open the 2000 Games under the Australian flag.

As we go to print, the recommendations of the Republican Advisory Committee are still unknown, but it is clear that even if Australia was manipulated into a republican future, there is no guarantee that the States can be forced to follow suit. There is every chance that a number of States could remain monarchies. If N.S.W. was one of these monarchist States, it is still possible that the Queen of N.S.W. could open the Sydney Games!

As we have often predicted, the support for a republic must wane as the real issues are debated. If the republican tide is now ebbing, monarchists, being heartily encouraged by the trend, must redouble efforts to demonstrate the weaknesses of the republican argument, and capitalise upon the complacency and arrogance of many of the key republican figures.

UNITED NATIONS PUSHES PRIVATISATION

With government budget deficits burgeoning round the world as the debt machine grinds on, a position of impasse has now been reached. Normal methods of revenue raising are now incapable of funding public debt-levels. The most ingenious methods of tax exhortation are attempted and discarded with monotonous regularity. Propaganda camouflage is unable to hide the true position.

President Clinton's much publicised 'deficit reduction' programme, pledged to reduce the United States deficit by $500 billion over the next five years, involves a massive hike in the debt ceiling. At the beginning of April 1993 the debt ceiling set by Congress was $4.145 TRILLION. It was then raised "temporarily" to $US4.37 TRILLION. In the most recent Clinton Budget, narrowly passed by Congress (218 votes to 216) the debt ceiling has been raised to $US4.9 TRILLION, which is supposed to prevail until September 30th, 1994. In other words, the debt ceiling has been raised by $489 billion in ONE year, to fund a "Deficit reduction" programme to extend over FIVE years!
The U.S. media is now claiming that the "Deficit-reduction" programme won't actually REDUCE the debt level, but will limit its INCREASE to a US l TRILLION level over the next five years. But simply projecting this year's increase to the same period shows a minimum debt increase of $2.5 trillion!

All industrial governments are struggling with unmanageable deficits. Australia's current $16 billion Federal deficit is a case in point, having its counterparts throughout the world. In a statement carried in the New Zealand Herald (September 19th, 1993) the United Nations has tacitly acknowledged the dilemma: "... Governments now find themselves on the horns of a dilemma," says the report by economists at the Geneva-based organisation (i.e. the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). An expansionary fiscal stance would reduce unemployment but raise government deficits and debt even further, whereas fiscal consolidation will lengthen the dole queues. Inaction would put more people out of work and boost government borrowing, it says.

The dilemma between deficits and the dole is sharpened because national policy making is taking place without international coordination," the report says. In order to reflate the global economy and counter global deflation, it proposes OECD countries together apply a fiscal stimulus. "The most promising way to deal with deficits, debt and deflation is a one time capital levy combined with privatisation to reduce debt, alongside one off spending increases to sustain private incomes," the report says…" This proposal is, in reality, quite devilish.

Translated into the commonsense English which seems beyond the capabilities of most economists, the report proposes that governments must join together in selling off all State assets; they must confiscate a proportion of all financial savings, a form of theft blandly described as a one-off capital levy, and additional government spending. Not dealt with is the fact that a small, rapacious number of multinationals, in many cases owned by the money lenders, are poised to take advantage of the privatisation programme by becoming the owners of what were once national assets. National Treasurers seem incapable of recognising or resisting this takeover. The price to be exacted on normal, unsuspecting people, if the programme goes ahead, is horrendous.

DAMAGING THE AUSTRALIAN MARKETS CLAP-TRAP

How often have we heard, and read, in the past few weeks that the "Green" Senator Christobel Chamarette, a devout Christian, and Senator Dee Margets, are "damaging Australia's foreign markets by refusing to pass John Dawkins' rip-off Budget. It is not an easy allegation to refute, especially for "new" politicians. However, this has been well done for us by Mr. Tim Colebatch, who is Economics Editor of The Age (Melbourne), in his article, "The Senate: Why the Worst is What Happens Next" (The Age, Melbourne, September 14th).

We quote: "…. That leaves the Greens. They were left out of the initial discussions in which the Government made concessions to the Democrats and the A.L.P. Caucus. Now they are in the picture, they, too, want some concessions. But they want the Government to tell them what it will offer; the Government wants them to say what they want. Result: deadlock.
"One should not get too alarmed at this stage. The Budget is never passed by September 14. One reason why neither side has budged is that it will be another month (from September 14th last) before the system notices whether it has been passed or not. "As for the foreign exchange markets, the more the speculators drive the dollar down, the more dollars the Reserve Bank will buy cheap and then resell at a profit. Those profits will end up going to the Government and reducing the Budget deficit. God works in wondrous ways."

A NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

A new Local Government Act, providing councils with greater flexibility and control over their own affairs, has been introduced to State Parliament (Tasmania). The Municipal Association of Tasmania said yesterday local councils were 'enthusiastically waiting' for the bill to come into effect, replacing outdated 1962 legislation What is interesting in The Examiner (Launceston) report, a snippet of which is given above, is that the new legislation allows citizen initiated polls on community issues. This is great reading for the advocates of C.I.R., BUT (wait for it) - as usual there is a sting in the tail: councils will not be bound by the outcome of C.I.R. polls!

What's the use of it then? Well, maybe, just maybe, some councils will implement a C.I.R. issue - if not over-ridden by the Minister of Local Government. It's a step in the right direction, that's all.

IN SEARCH OF DEBT SOLUTION

from The Australian, September 27th
The American press recently reported global indebtedness at (U.S.) $28 trillion and increasing rapidly. Good grief. "In round terms, the sovereign nations of this planet are in debt to the tune of (U.S.) $28,000 billion and rising. Australia's debt of $120 billion or so in comparison is small potatoes.

"At the last count I understand the population of Earth was approaching five billion people. "On a per capita basis each person now owes (U.S.) $5,600 that they haven't borrowed, and this includes the pygmy tribes of Africa and the igloo dwellers of the Arctic Circle. "But if you leave out Third World Countries and isolate (say) the United States which is (U.S.) 4.5 trillion in the red, each American household of four people owes (U.S.) $64,000 that they haven't borrowed.

"Successive American governments have borrowed it from the banks. Which bank? All the banks. No discrimination here. "And this isn't bank notes: 28 trillion bank notes would require the paper provided by a pine forest the size of Belgium. "Now I ask you, who creates this mountain of money and where is it and how long before spontaneous combustion sets in and the whole mountain collapses under its own weight? "It must be the banks who create this money and seemingly right out of thin air. "But hang on, isn't it the role of governments to create money? "Why then cannot Paul Keating simply write a cheque for $120 billion, hand it over to the banks and say: 'There you go fellas, we're all square. That's Australia out of the red.' "Come to think of it, why don't all governments just write a cheque and repay all of the banks in one hit? "There must be a good reason why they don't (or won't) do this, but for the life of me I can't think of one. "Unless, of course, it's the banks who are running things and not elected governments." (Jim Vidler, Cooks Hill, N.S.W.)