THE MYTHS OF 1975

by Eric D. Butler
The 20th anniversary of the tumultuous events of November, 1975, which resulted in the Australian Governor General, Sir John Kerr, withdrawing the commission of Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam to continue in government, and insisting that the Australian people be given the opportunity at a Federal Election to decide whether or not they wanted the Whitlam Government to continue in office, has resulted in a flood of articles and statements about the matter - a type of publishing growth industry concerning the events of November, 1975, highlighted by Gough Whitlam's call for those opposed to Sir John Kerr's action to "maintain their rage".

The sense of rage, which Whitlam and his supporters sought to promote has long since, passed, to be replayed with a type of mythology, which has been skillfully fostered through the mass media and by sections of academia. The essence of the mythology is that on November 11th, 1975 the "Democratically elected" Government of Gough Whitlam was "sacked" by Governor General Sir John Kerr. The mythology has been embellished by suggestions that the Whitlam Government was the victim of a plot by the American C.I.A., which disliked the alleged nationalist policies of the Whitlam Government. The type of completely unsubstantiated nonsense was endorsed by some American publications like Willis Carto's Spotlight.

The La Rouche movement, which operates in Australia under the Citizens Electoral Council, with its fanatical opposition to the Monarchy, suggested that Whitlam was the victim of the machinations of the Royal family, particularly Her Majesty the Queen, who according to one of the more bizarre claims of the La Rouche movement is the centre of the world drug business. One of the most significant features of the many different versions of what allegedly happened are the contradictory versions. It is not suggested that there is anything particularly sinister about these differing versions, but assuming that those making the contradictory allegations genuinely believe them to be true, merely demonstrates the notorious unreliability of the human memory after a period of time.
How then can the allegations relating to "war crimes" be reliably assessed after 50 or more years.

But there is little doubt that Prime Minister Whitlam completely misread the crisis he had produced in 1975, when he insisted that he was going to continue in office in spite of the fact that the Senate had constitutionally refused to grant him supply. It is legitimate to argue that the Coalition dominated Senate was motivated by a will to power when it refused to grant Supply to the Whitlam Government. But it is plain humbug to argue that this was "unconstitutional" and violated "convention".
Whitlam himself as leader of the Labor Opposition had once raised the possibility of the Opposition using the Senate to check financial measures advocated by a Liberal-National Party Government.

The Federal Constitution states quite clearly that the Government of the Australian Commonwealth shall consist of three Parts: The Governor General, representing the Crown, the Senate, originally conceived as a States' House in which all States are equally represented, and the House of Representatives. The Federal Constitution was conceived as a reflection of the traditional British Trinitarian form of government, with power divided. The founders of the Federal Constitution sought to have the power of the Central Government limited by checks and balances.

The philosophy of the Federal Constitution is anti-monopoly. Unable to argue against the fact that the Whitlam Government was decisively rejected by the electors following the events of 1975, some of those writing about the affair, argue that while it is certain that the Whitlam Government would have been defeated whenever it faced the electors the use of the Senate to force a premature election violated the "spirit" of the Constitution.

The hypocrisy of those Labor supporters advancing this type of reasoning can be judged by the manner in which Labor Governments have blatantly misused the External Powers to subvert the Constitution, and who are currently involved in attempting to subvert Municipal Government as part of a long-term strategy to emasculate the States and ultimately to create the completely centralised Planned State.

WHY THE CHURCHES PLAY POLITICS

Victoria's elected Dictator, Mr. Jeff Kennett, has recently denounced the right of Christian clergy to express any views on political issues, particularly when these conflict with his policies. The Age (Melbourne) columnist, Gerard Henderson, prominent League of Rights basher, has taken the same view.

In the following letter published in The Age (November 3rd) the Rev. Tim Costello, former Mayor of St. Kilda, fights back with some telling comments: "Question: Why do the churches involve themselves in matters of state? Answer: Because that is what their Founder, Jesus of Nazareth, did and that is mainly why he was executed by the state.
"Gerard Henderson (The Age, 31/10) asserts that the churches lecture about politics because it is easier than lecturing about religion. Nonsense. "Start at the beginning, Gerard, and you will notice that Jesus was frequently outspoken on political matters. He called King Herod a fox and told the Roman procurator, Pilate, that he had no authority over him. "He also dabbled in economics. Notice also how He tipped out the moneychangers in the temple, declaring that this was a house of prayer. In reality, it had become the stock exchange, controlling much of the Judean economy.
"Similarly, those curious church terms like predestination and trans-substantiation (that you mock) were religious concepts with a highly political dimension in the Middle Ages.
"The notion of divine election, divine right of kings and control of the sacraments were the political issues of their day. He who controlled the sacraments controlled salvation - the ultimate power question in the Holy Roman Empire, where citizenship was conferred with baptism.
"Thankfully the constitutional provisions to ensure a church-state separation finally occurred. When the church had too much temporal power, it was corrupted. Neither church leaders then nor today speak infallibly on political matters, but to suggest that they should, therefore, stick to private religion is breathtakingly naive.
"Henderson's philosophy of privatisation believes that the churches must stay out of politics and only speak of private beliefs that remain hidden in the heart. The big, public, political matters can be safely left to experts like Mr. Kennett and Mr. Keating. And this silence is demanded despite the churches remaining the biggest non-government provider of welfare.
"Perhaps Mr. Henderson could redirect his column to calling for new protocols to ensure a big business state separation.
"The recent history of Governments (State and Federal) being in thrall to powerful private business interests is potentially corrupting.
"Many of us in the church who work with the victims of gambling addiction are deeply disturbed by the mutual admiration between our Premier and Crown Casino....
"The Premier keeps reminding us that Crown Casino's profits are the way of financial salvation for our State. Is that a political or religious question, Mr. Henderson?"'
The Rev. Tim Costello is now Minister of the Collins Street (Melbourne) Baptist Church.

REPUBLICANS REVEAL TRUE COLOURS

by David Thompson
The Fifth Annual Dinner of the Australian Republican Movement (A.R.M.) in Sydney last week served to confirm the true colours of Australian Republicanism. The A.R.M. has been at pains in the last few months to stress that it is not an elitist cabal of the Sydney glitterati dinner set, or Chardonnay-swilling socialists bent on revolution, but a broadly based grassroots surge of Australian patriotism that demands expression in the form of a republic with an "Australian head of State". But the Annual Dinner merely highlighted the former, and the latter was conspicuous only in its absence. Even the dinner chairman quipped that on the night of the A.R.M. event, Sydney dinner tables would be bereft of the elite - they were all at the A.R.M. dinner.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the A.R.M. dinner was the Prime Minister's acid comment that it was time for the republican movement to go into high gear, and that from now on, should "take no prisoners". Keating's address confirmed his influence on the republican movement, and his very appearance underlined the perception that it is the 'Keating Republic' that is the subject of debate, and which is supported so enthusiastically by the Sydney dinner set elite.

But what does Keating's "take no prisoners" comment imply? It conjures images of the Red Army assault on eastern Europe in the latter part of the Second World War, in which city after city was plundered and pillaged by a bestial horde that more resembled the savages of Ghengis Khan than the ally of a Western (Christian?) force bent on freeing Europe from totalitarianism. The Red Army attitude was that prisoners were simply a menace, as they had to be cared for, fed and guarded.

Under the Communist philosophy; not only German troops, but civilians were only (enemy) matter in motion, and the Versailles Treaty a nuisance in the pursuit of their objective, which was conquest for communism. It is now clear that the messianic Keating holds a similar philosophy. The pursuit of his objectives: power and recognition - are far too important for the views of traditional, British oriented Australians to be permitted to stand in his way. Such objectives are so vital that the niceties of political debate, the views of perhaps a majority of Australians, the facts of history, and even the reality of modern politics all have to be swept aside in the service of glorifying Mr. P.J. Keating.

Take no prisoners. It is an attitude born of a totalitarian philosophy. No wonder other republicans, like the poet Les Murray, would prefer the monarchy to Keating's republic.

THE INFLUENCE OF HUMANISM

To complement Keating, the other major speaker was expatriate art critic and 'historian' Robert Hughes, who now lives in New York, and brother of Tom Hughes, the Sydney Q.C. Hughes implored Australians to "stop looking up", and instead "we should be looking sideways, first to our fellow citizens, who are the reason for the State" and to other nations....

To whom do we look up? Hughes was speaking of the Queen, but the attitude of "looking up" is something rejected by the revolutionary. Children "look up" to parents, teacher, and sporting and other role models. Socially we "look up" to genuine leaders, who set themselves apart by distinguishing qualities placed at the service of their fellows. Philosophically we "look up" to a higher Power - to God. The only alternative to "looking up" to leaders or the supernatural is not so much "looking sideways" at our fellow 'citizens', but looking at ourselves, and seeking our salvation in our own abilities.

Robert Hughes' plea to "look sideways" is, in reality, the age-old plea of the humanist to elevate man into his own God. The tenor of Hughes' address was precisely that: even to the use of the language of the French Revolution - "citizens", throw off the stifling influence of monarchy; liberty, equality, fraternity…

It would be puerile to claim that republicans are non-Christians, or anti-Christian, and that monarchists are Christians. This is obviously not so. But nevertheless, kingship is an ancient Christian institution, and the Australian monarchy is distinctly Christian in character, beginning with the coronation during a Christian service of Holy Communion. Conversely, the republican philosophy is distinctly humanitarian, as was well expressed by both Keating and Hughes at the A.R.M. annual dinner.

EUROPEAN UNION 'MUGGED BY REALITY'

by David Thompson
The dream of a united Europe, using a single currency governed by a European Central Bank by 1999 is becoming if anything, further away rather than closer. As Fred Benchley, writing in The Financial Review (21/11/95) puts it; the dream is being "mugged by reality". The reality is that at the political grassroots, the masses don't want a united Europe, where local identity gives way to internationalism.

In his article, Benchley reveals a development not noted in any other report; a concerted political attempt to capitalise on the grassroots discontent in Britain. This involves the larger-than-life former global businessman, Sir James Goldsmith, who is now floating another British political party to campaign for a referendum on Britain going into Europe. Goldsmith is reported to be prepared to fund the new party, probably to be known as the Referendum Party, to the tune of $40 million.

Since 'retiring' from his global business enterprises, Goldsmith has spent much time and money campaigning against internationalism. He has campaigned vigorously against the G.A.T.T. agreement and the World Trade Organisation that is designed to enforce G.A.T.T. He has campaigned heavily against the Maastricht Treaty - the "constitution" upon which European Union is based. Last year he founded (and funded) L'Autre Europe, a French political party that contested the elections for the European Parliament in which he and a number of others were elected with an astonishing 12 percent of the vote.

Goldsmith's strategy in Britain is simple and devastating. He proposes to attract high profile candidates (he will stand himself) to contest marginal Tory electorates. There are 14 Tory seats with a majority of less than 1.3 percent, and Referendum Party candidates would only have to win one percent of the vote in such electorates to consign Mr. John Major to the dustbin of history.

It appears that the Goldsmith strategy is to force the Tories to abandon their European policy, and declare that Britain would not enter European Monetary Union (E.M.U.) in the life of the next Parliament - if elected. This would keep Britain out of E.M.U. until at least 2002, and place vastly greater strains upon the pro-European German and French Governments.

Even in Germany the grassroots opposition to E.M.U. is becoming an election issue. Chancellor Kohl's Opposition, the Social Democrats, have discovered that there is strong electoral resistance to abandoning the German mark in favour of the "Euro-mark", the "Euro-franc", the "Euro-peso", or the "Euro-pound". The S.D.P. Shadow Finance Minister, Gerhard Schroder, touched a raw nerve in Germany by referring to E.M.U. as "monopoly money". In a nation with devastating inflation of hundreds of percent still within living memory, an anti-E.M.U. election campaign in the near future in Germany could be devastating.

Wherever referendums have taken place - France, Denmark, Switzerland - they have revealed an extremely strong anti-European unity vote. Prime Minister Major obviously fears that a British referendum would show the same - perhaps even a devastating defeat for Britain in Europe. The Goldsmith campaign could be decisive in the future of Britain and Europe, and may even be the weapon that ultimately smashes the nightmare of European Union and the destruction of European national sovereignty.

CANADA IN POLITICAL TURMOIL

The results of last week's referendum on the future of French speaking Quebec carry a lesson for Australia concerning multiculturalism. For many years Canada has been held up as one of the most benign multicultural societies in the world, with the French and the English speaking peoples agreeing to embrace each other's culture where possible, and respect the other's where not. Canada even has a bilingual policy, under legislation, which requires French as well as English to be provided on all official documents, and industrial or consumer products.

But the French multicultural dream has gradually turned into a nightmare, even though the two cultural groups are of basically the same racial origin, religious background, and Western European cultural stream. Contrary to the current drive towards internationalism - led mainly by the "elites" - and away from nationalism and self-determination, grassroots politics everywhere is tending in the opposite direction.

It is notable that there is little logical opposition to Quebec separatism. Quebec possesses the cultural attributes of nationhood, it is not threatened by outside forces, and it proposes, if independent, to apply for membership of "the international community" including such bodies as N.A.F.T.A. - the North American Free Trade zone.

But the principle factor opposing Quebec separatism was the financial markets. International finance is not better served by independent nations. This is why "the market", epitomised by the City of London (banking interests) has supported European Union and the creation of a European Central Bank.

Would an independent Quebec threaten international finance? All financial independence threatens financial monopoly. The international campaign of vilification against France for daring to express the ultimate in independence - nuclear military power - demonstrates this. All the monopoly press - dominated by financial interests - has condemned France. Perhaps Quebec may prove equally independent?

The reality is that cultural and even racial characteristics demand self-expression. We note that in the aftermath of the defeat of the Quebec Independence Referendum, Quebec Premier Mr. Jacques Parizeau resigned over condemnation of his comments in which he singled out Quebec's 1.3 million residents of non-French descent as having frustrated the Independence Referendum. Jews, Arabs, Haitians and other ethnic groups condemned Mr. Parizeau for "provoking racial violence and ethnic nationalism", while the French anti-immigration political leader Jean-Marie Le Pen supported Parizeau.

ELECTIONS FUTILE, LIBS CAN'T REDUCE DEBT

from The Courier (Ballarat), 6/10
'Will he or won't he? The Libs say he will ('Pre-Christmas poll say Libs' - The Courier, October 2), Labor says he won't. 'The Liberals have been highlighting debt with their 'debt truck', and rightly so, but what alternative do they offer? 'There is no indication of any attempt to reconsider the economic rules that ensure debt is a permanent feature of the economy. '
"If Mr. Howard becomes Prime Minister after the election, whenever it is, how will his administration reduce the total debt?

"An accurate figure of the total public debt is not readily available, but what is to hand is that the interest on the accumulated budget deficits set aside in the 1993-1994 Federal Budget was $6,650 million. "If the interest rate was as high as 10% it would make the total Federal Government debt $66,500 million. It would probably be much higher, and has risen since.
"How would the Liberals reduce this debt? Out of revenue'? Would this mean tax increases?
"Governments have been concealing some of the problem by selling their assets like railway rolling stock, power supplies, banks and airlines; but what happens when there are no more assets to sell?

"While one is tempted to call for an enquiry into the economic rules to develop a way to reverse our decline into debt, there have been so many enquiries and Royal Commissions in the past that the answers already exist. 'The reason these have not been implemented is that they challenge the power of the international banking fraternity. "Short of sending to Canberra individual candidates prepared to engage that challenge, elections are futile. "Forget the parties."
(Ron Fischer, Talbot, Victoria)