THE REAL ALEXANDER DOWNER EMERGES

by Eric D. Butler
Even though modern party politicians have notoriously poor memories when it suits them, I am sure that the new leader of the Federal Liberal Party, Mr. Alexander Downer, will recall when he appeared with me at a South Australian State Seminar of the League of Rights, in Adelaide. The subject being discussed at the Seminar was the Federal Constitution. Mr. Downer was a junior Shadow Minister in the Coalition Opposition. No doubt Mr. Alexander Downer will recall how the news came through on the day of the Seminar that he had been removed from his position as a Shadow Minister. There was some conjecture at the time that Alexander Downer had been demoted because of his appearance on a League of Rights platform. Whatever the truth about the matter, the reality is that from that time onwards Alexander Downer displayed a distinct coolness towards all issues raised by the League of Rights.

Anyone who believes that Alexander Downer is his own man, and is going to provide a new independent type of leadership for the Liberal Party, is fooling himself, as witnessed by a revealing full page article on Alexander Downer in the June 24th issue of The Australian Jewish News, which quotes the Liberal leader in an exclusive interview with Australian Jewish News Canberra correspondent, Bernard Freedman. A subheading of the report reads, "Mr. Downer appears to be supportive on almost every issue of special interest to the Jewish community".

Alexander Downer comes out in favour of the proposed anti-racial vilification legislation. He supports the concept of criminal sanctions, although protesting that he does believe in free speech. Alexander Downer finds the views of the Australian League of Rights on "anti-Semitism and attitudes on race abhorrent". Downer does not state what these views are. He says that he had some League of Rights groups in his electorate "at one stage". But since re-distribution he has not heard much from them.
Asked about British historian David Irving, and did he think that he should be refused entry into Australia, Alexander Downer is quoted as saying, "Yes, I do. People like that are only going to cause divisions and hatred in Australia. We can do without them. I mean, the propositions that he puts forward are deeply offensive." Alexander Downer does not specify what propositions David Irving is putting forward. I would be surprised if Alexander Downer has ever read anything written by Irving.

One gets the impression that he is saying what he feels the Zionist-Jewish lobby wants to hear. Alexander Downer has, according to one media report, stated that he is not concerned about the possibility of Australia becoming a "Eurasian" nation. In his interview with The Jewish News he stresses that he is all for multiculturalism, making the misleading comment that his late father, Sir Alexander Downer, was the Minister for Immigration in the Menzies Government. But the immigration policy of the Menzies Government was completely different from that which the multiculturalists are attempting to implement. Non-British migrants were encouraged to become part of mainstream Australia. British migration was strongly encouraged.

It may interest Alexander Downer that my relations with him were friendly, that he read and appreciated my book, The Red Pattern of World Conquest, and that when visiting the United Kingdom to campaign against the proposed British entry into the European Economic Community, I found Sir Alexander Downer as Australian High Commissioner helpful. Needless to say, Alexander Downer "professes a great admiration for Israel", and told Bernard Freedman that "Some of my best friends are Jewish".

Just what are the real views of the new Federal leader I would not attempt to judge. But it is clear that as a "pragmatic" politician he is convinced that if he wishes to become Prime Minister, he must kowtow to the Zionist-Jewish lobby, which has emerged as one of the most influential groups in Australia. Predictions are always dangerous, but the election of a Downer Government, and its failure to solve the nation's basic problems, will help to trigger a fragmentation of the present party political structures.

BIDDING FOR THE FAMILY VOTE

New Federal Liberal leader Alexander Downer, the "pragmatic" politician, is making a bid for the family vote. He says he is "examining" ways to improve the family payment system. But much more than this is required. Mr. Tony Abbott, the new Liberal Member for Warringah, N.S.W., in his maiden speech in the Federal Parliament, was much more positive. He advocated a family wage, with the principle carer of children being paid a "substantial amount that acknowledges the real cost of raising children. He suggests $100 a week for the first child, and $30 a week for every further child."

While agreeing with the principle of Mr. Abbott's suggestion, we believe that a family wage should be higher. The benefits of such a wage would be enormous, socially and economically. It would encourage large numbers of working mothers to leave the work force to concentrate full time on looking after their children, making way for large numbers of the present unemployed. One result would be a reduction in juvenile delinquency with a big saving to the community. But instead of financing a "family wage" out of taxation, this hurting other sections of the community, it should be financed out of new financial credits, issued debt free. Such a policy would benefit the whole community, with greater social harmony.

LIVING WITH 'THE MARKET'

by David Thompson
The frustration of the Prime Minister and his Treasurer with the volatility of the "financial markets" and their inability to influence these markets to provide the financial conditions favourable to Australian interests is understandable. It almost seems a foregone conclusion that when Mr. Keating declared that interest rates would not rise several weeks ago, that they certainly would rise. Since the "deregulation" of the financial and banking system, governments have surrendered most of the regulatory controls of the past.

Much has changed since Menzies and Fadden could determine the value of the currency, and directly influence interest rates in order to achieve political and economic initiatives. Once there was protracted debate concerning the value of the dollar, before an announcement was made that the Treasurer had revalued (or devalued) the currency by perhaps a fraction of a percentage point. Now, however, "the market" produces wild swings in currency values. It is not uncommon for the dollar to lose or gain one percent of its value overnight only for this to be reversed days later.

Those with longer political memories will recall that in 1982 the Shadow Treasurer, by the name of Keating, was adamant that the integrity of Australia's banking and financial industry should never be abandoned by surrendering national control of financial policy. Further, if elected, the A.L.P. would ensure that the "super-capitalists" in the shape of foreign banks, would never be permitted to lay waste the Australian economic landscape. This, however, was before the 1983 election, at which Mr. Fraser's Coalition was defeated. The new Treasurer Mr. Keating, soon embarked upon an international tour, to meet with Australia's financial creditors.

As Michelle Grattan reported at the time, upon his return only a matter of weeks later, Mr. Keating (and A.L.P. policy) had undergone one of the greatest "back-flips" in political history. Mr. Keating became an ardent 'de-regulator', and the following year he formally gave up sovereign control of the Australian economy to "the markets". It was not until several years later that Mr. Keating revealed the true purpose of his "back-flip". When addressing a Fabian Society meeting, he claimed that deregulation of the financial system has been essential in order to submit the Australian economy to the global market.

SUBSERVIENT GOVERNMENTS

The now familiar chaos with interest rates, fluctuating bond markets, currency speculation, exchange rate variations, foreign investment, etc., simply mark the fact that Australia has become fully integrated with "the global market" as Mr. Keating and his international financial creditors intended in 1983. The few controls left to national treasurers consist of little more than an influence on interest rates, and the buying and selling of currency in an attempt to influence its value.

Last week the United States Federal Reserve Bank acted in concert with other reserve banks in other countries to buy massive volumes of United States dollars in order to prop up the value of the currency. They failed, and the Federal Reserve now proposes to increase interest rates in order to make the dollar more attractive to speculators. The seasoned columnist B .A. Santamaria, aware of this situation, has repeatedly warned of the domination of "markets" over governments. In his newspaper column last weekend, Santamaria summed it up with the comment: "The last word obviously lies not with the elected government, but with 'the markets'." The truth is that the small group of investment banks, who lend to multinational corporations and governments alike, now have a great deal more control over financial and economic conditions than treasurers.

Mr. Keating has brought his present frustrations upon himself, and in the process, has jeopardised the economic sovereignty of the nation. The only available alternative is to re-regulate some aspects of the financial system so that Australians control policy to their own advantage. Without such controls, it is impossible to provide an environment where, for example, families can plan to own their own property. If housing mortgage rates are determined from New York, or London, what is the point of Parliament meeting in Canberra? If interest rates for small business depend upon the activities of the bond market in Tokyo, or an army of avaricious currency speculators in darkened trading rooms around the world, no amount of political posturing by the likes of Keating (or Downer) has any relevance upon Australia's economic future.

ULTIMATE CULTURAL CRINGE

MULTICULTURAL PRESSURES

UNITED NATIONS LAYS DOWN THE LAW

by David Thompson
The U.N. International Children's Fund has produced a report critical of children's rights in Australia, because there is no uniform legislation to prevent smacking of children. This stems from Australia's adoption of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. We warned at the time that this was a direct attack on the family. This view was derided as "some nutty conspiracy" by the social engineers. However, as time passes, what was once unthinkable is not only becoming possible, but even commonplace.

One journalist who is honest enough to admit the sinister nature of the U.N. conventions is Mr. Padraic McGuinness, who writes a column for The Australian. In the edition of June 24th, he writes: "The UN. report (condemning Australia) ... would be simply amusing if it did not reflect something more sinister ... At the time (of adopting the Convention) I like most people, saw nothing particularly wrong with this convention and assumed that it represented mainly good intentions. But of course, there is a U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, and that body, like the Human Rights Committee of the UN., is now setting itself up as an undemocratic supranational legislature ... the point of the international convention is really about substituting the authority of government for that of the parent..."

Exactly. But now that the damage is done, what is required for Australia to withdraw from such insanity? Where does the Opposition, likely to be forming the next government, stand on the matter?

A CONSTITUTION BY AUSTRALIANS FOR AUSTRALIANS

from The Australian, June 20th
There are facts and there are opinions. But, however, the Prime Minister wishes to conduct the republic/flag/Constitution' debate, he must not let himself be misled by his advisers. The question of 'who' framed the Australian Constitution is a matter of fact not opinion. "The answer to the question 'who' is plainly set out in a number of places. But I cannot recommend two more authoritative sources than the great work of Quick and Garran (pp.79-228), and the work of that distinguished scholar, Professor John La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution.

In La Nauze's study I specifically refer the Prime Minister to Chapter 3, Griffith's First Draft, and Chapter 17, The Framers of the Constitution. "In case his advisers prefer original authority to secondary sources, I can only recommend them to undertake the laborious task of reading the several volumes of the Official Records of the Convention Debates in the 1890s. "Were his advisers to consult these sources, then whatever else they may conclude, they could not possibly come to the view that 'Learning about the Constitution apprises people of the fact, that we've got a Constitution which was designed by the British Foreign Office to look over the Australian Government's shoulder'. "The simple fact is that the Australian Constitution was framed by Australians for Australians.

It is, of course, important to educate Australians about their Constitution. But it is profoundly important that those who would educate Australians must first educate themselves." (Rufus Davis, Emeritus Professor in Political Science, Monash University, Kew, Vie.)

From J.P. Parsons, Reid, A.C.T.
letter on Paul Keating's "Constitutional History". Source, The Australian, June 20th
The Prime Minister is reported as recommending his proposed course in constitutional studies for school children because, among other things, 'learning about the Constitution apprises people of the fact that we've got a constitution which was designed by the British Foreign Office to look over the Australian Government's shoulder .. I mean, that will become very obvious when anyone goes through it' (The Australian, 16/6). "Oh dear! Where does one start? "As every schoolboy knows (or ought to), the main body of the Commonwealth Constitution was drafted on the yacht in Broken Bay over the Easter weekend of 1891, the final all-night session concluding about sunrise on Easter morning.

"The principal drafter was Samuel Griffith, who had lived in Australia since the age of nine. The other three members of the group, Kingston, Clark and Edmund Barton, were all native-born Australians. "All four would have been bemused if Mr. Keating had appeared on the deck of the yacht later that morning and derided their work as 'designed by the British Foreign Office'.

The more controversial aspects of the Constitution were hammered out in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne in 1897 and 1898. "The British Colonial Office played no essential part in framing the Commonwealth Constitution, and the Foreign Office of course had nothing to do with the matter at all. "The document was drafted in Australia, by Australians, for Australians and on Australian initiative. It was voted for by Australians in referenda, and when the Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, did try to insist in 1900 that the document be subject to legal interpretation in London, rather than by the High Court in Australia, his wishes were firmly and successfully resisted by Barton and others.

"It is a pity that the Prime Minister's Anglophobia has led him, yet again, to display his resentment of so much of the real history of this country, and to exact his revenge through a sneering travesty of what actually happened."

POLITICAL PRESIDENTS

from The Australian, June 27th
The report in The Australian (16/6) of an address which I gave in Melbourne on June 15 is, unfortunately, not in all respects accurate. I did not say that 'a republican head of state could become a virtual dictator'. "My use of the words 'virtual dictator' was in quite a different context. The Republic Advisory Committee in its report has said that the experience of republics in, among other places, India, has demonstrated that the political neutrality of a head of state can be achieved under a republic. Material in the Committee's own report showed that in India there have been occasions when the president was far from politically neutral. In 1975 an improper use of power by the president enabled the prime minister to act as a virtual dictator.
"The point made in my address was, not that a president might be a dictator, but that the substitution of a political president for an impartial governor-general would remove an essential check on the abuse of power by the executive. "Since the debate on the future of the Constitution is an important one it should be accurately reported." (Sir Harry Gibbs, Cremorne, N.S.W.)

Note
Sir Harry Gibbs is a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

RESPECTING ASIAN VALUES