'GLOBALISM' AND IMMIGRATION

by Eric D. Butler
One of the most significant features of the current Australian political, scene is that all the parties are openly united in condemning the Australian League of Rights as a "racist" organisation because it advocated the type of immigration policy, which all the major political parties supported not so many years ago.

Anyone searching for an explanation of why this has happened must examine the strategy behind the worldwide programme of internationalism, which, in essence, claims that the completely free movement of capital and goods will lead to a brave new world in which everyone will prosper. This type of programme logically also requires a completely free movement of people, with the elimination of restrictive immigration policies similar to that of Australia during the years when it was developing a most successful new nation. It was a nation in which there was a philosophy of the "fair go" for all with a maximum of tolerance.

Ever since the formation of the United Nations 50 years ago, the major architects being Marxists like the American traitor Alger Hiss, there has been a progressive development of the internationalist programme. A wide variety of international institutes has been developed, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations Cultural and Educational Organisation, staffed by tens of thousands of highly paid international bureaucrats.

The average person, struggling to survive in the face of finance economic policies, which have forced the real standard of living down, finds it extremely difficult to comprehend the enormity of what has been taking place. One of the key instruments being used by the internationalists is the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) which years of conferences resulted in what is described as the "Final Act Embodying the Results Of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations". This was signed by 125 nations, including Australia, on April 15th, 1994, in Morocco.

It has been estimated that the preparation of this Act, containing 26,000 pages, would have occupied 1,500 people full time for the seven years over which the Uruguay talks took place. A 500 page Summary of the Act has been prepared but is difficult to obtain. It would be instructive to know how many politicians now extolling the virtues of the GATT agreement have ever read the Act! But they pay their respects for the establishment to what has now emerged, the World Trade Organisation, which as a central trade authority is planned to be the most powerful economic and political body in the world.

The clear intention of what is proposed can be read in Article XVI -4 of the Act signed last year: "Each Member (nation) shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations, administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed agreements." The Act requires federal governments to "form, regulate and implement positive measures and mechanisms in support of the observance of the provision by other than central government bodies". It is vital that State and Local Governments are also bound by the Act.

There is little doubt that the drive to amalgamate Municipal Councils is part of the overall programme to fit Australia into the New World Order. The sovereignty of the Australian States has been undermined by the exploitation of the External Powers of the Federal Constitution. With all the major political parties firmly locked into supporting the GATT agreement, and the general fostering of the internationalising of the Australian economy, there is little prospect of any effective opposition to the programme from John Howard, Tim Fischer or Paul Keating. Their united zeal in insisting that Australia must join with Asia is clear evidence that they are prepared to have Australia sell its soul for a mess of pottage.

The programme requires an easing of Australia's immigration policies. A united opposition to the present immigration policy would be a major starting point to start reversing the internationalist threat. The irony of the situation as far as Asia is concerned, is that there is more resistance to the internationalist programme coming from those Asian nations who fear for the future of those aspects of their traditional cultures linked to agriculture. Australia is much more at risk from the internationalists than the Asians.

There is a growing ferment across Australia concerning what is happening, with a call by many groups for some type of a unified new organisation. Well-meaning people are using valuable resources in trying to achieve the politically impossible, overlooking that the answer will be found in elevating the Senate to its proper role.

All opponents of internationalism can be united by advocating that all major political parties be put last and that there be an exchange of preferences between all those united against the most dangerous form of internationalism: free movement of labour around the world without any immigration restrictions.

ALIEN NATION by Peter Brimelow, the startling result of America's demographic changes as a result of immigration, now available. Hard cover, $29.00 from all League book services. $33.00 posted.

N.S.W. COUNCILS IN REVOLT

by David Thompson
At the Local Government Association Conference in Wagga Wagga last week, N.S.W. Councils asked the N.S.W. Local Government Association (L.G.A.) to withdraw funding of the Australian Local Government Association (A.L.G.A.) to the tune of $340,000. The N.S.W. L.G.A. is required to withdraw the funding unless the A.L.G.A. dissociates itself from what the Kennett Government has done to local government in Victoria, where almost every elected representative has been sacked, and councils amalgamated.

The Mayor of Albury, Councillor Amanda Duncan-Strelec, addressed the Conference, in a powerful attack on Victorian commissioners, whom she described as undemocratic, calling for them to be replaced by elected representatives. A motion to this effect, which described the Victorian changes as "reprehensible" and called on the N.S.W. L.G.A. to stop its subscriptions to the A.L.G.A. was passed. The motion, supported by two-thirds of the 600 delegates, demanded that the A.L.G.A. deny membership of the association to Victorian Commissioners, and was supported by Broken Hill and Botany Councils.

There appears to be a long awaited awakening in local councils to Councillor Bevan O'Regan's warnings concerning the centralisation of local government in Canberra. The second General Assembly of Local Government in Canberra earlier this month was addressed by Professor Stuart Mcintyre, who was highly critical of the Kennett Government, whose council commissioners were allowed to dismantle established traditional provisions, and could force the adoption of corporate procedures without a state or local mandate.

Having seen what was done in Victoria, one North Queensland mayor said he was astonished and, to some extent, afraid. This awakening is also assisted by the discipline of reality. In both Queensland and Victoria, amalgamated councils have been increasing rates in some areas by astonishing amounts. In Gippsland, the LaTrobe super-council is increasing rural rates from an average of between 28 percent and 107 percent. Some ratepayers face increases of between 130 percent and 160 percent for 1995/96. In some of the metropolitan super-councils, like Stonnington, which encompasses the old Malvern and Prahran Councils, rates have dropped by around 30 percent. But this is balanced with large staff cuts, and the "privatisation" of services, such as the Home Help Service for the elderly. Ratepayers find that they pay less in rates, but get much less in service.

The Victorian Commissars remain unmoved. The reform process must take place. After all, the Commissioners cannot exactly be thrown out of office by angry ratepayers. They were never elected, but appointed by the Minister, Mr. Hallam. Hallam is reported as being content with the Victorian progress, and has extended until March 1997 the date for democratic council elections in Victoria.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT "ACCORD'

The formation of the Australian Local Government Association was a necessary prelude to a relationship between local government and the Commonwealth, but it seems unclear how the A.L.G.A. represents councils. It was the A.L.G.A. President, Cr. David Plumridge, who signed the new Accord with the Commonwealth on behalf of local government. The Commonwealth signatory was one Paul Keating. It is not clear how Cr. Plumridge derived his authority to sign on behalf of local government.

The Accord sets out that the A.L.G.A. will co-ordinate local government co-operation with the Commonwealth in micro-economic reform (the Hilmar reforms), urban reform (town planning, etc.), social justice (services for Aborigines, women, migrants, etc.), environmental management (sustainable development, greenhouse, landcare, etc.) and regional development (Regional Economic Development Organisations). The Commonwealth will continue to provide funding for such processes, as well as bureaucratic assistance, and support the recognition of Local Government in the Australian Constitution.

There are serious reservations in local government circles concerning this Accord. It was not negotiated with individual councils, nor with State Local Government Associations, but with the new Australian Local Government Association. It was drafted, and placed before delegates to the second General Assembly of Local Government in Canberra, who were expected to support it.

This reflects general suspicion of Commonwealth involvement in local government by voters, who have been asked twice before to agree to constitutional changes to recognise local government. The first attempt was during the regionalisation and amalgamation push by Whitlam and Tom Uren in 1974. The referendum was comfortably defeated. The second attempt was in September 1988, when the Hawke Government asked for local government recognition. This time the proposal was heavily defeated, becoming the third most unpopular question ever asked of the electorate.

Surely the Fabians get the message? No, they do not. The centralisation of power requires local government to be seduced by the Commonwealth, and this process is well under way. Will local Councillors wake up in time? One campaigner for the regionalisation and amalgamation of local government was Cr. Peter Woods, President of the N.S.W L.G.A. However, since the first General Assembly of Local Government in Canberra, Cr. Woods seems to have changed his position dramatically. At the Wagga Wagga conference, Cr. Woods spoke in strong support of the Mayor of Albury, and lashed out at the Victorian "reforms". Peter Woods claimed that if the N.S.W Government attempted a similar programme, ratepayers would march on Macquarrie Street in their droves.

HIGH COURT WRONG OVER FRANKLIN DAM

Australia's longest serving High Court Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, has revealed that he considers the Court's judgment on the Franklin River Dam case in Tasmania in 1983, to have been a mistake. In a paper to the Samuel Griffith Society in Melbourne, Barwick, who retired two years before the decision, said that for the Court to find in favour of the Commonwealth's use of the external affairs power, there needed to be "an affair of the Commonwealth ... a matter of concern to the Federation". This, says Sir Garfield, did not occur.

The High Court decision 12 years ago has proved to be vital in the Commonwealth's historical attempts to rob the States of sovereignty, and transfer power to Canberra. The long held dream of the Fabians was only possible with the creation of international organisations like the United Nations.

It is significant that the Tasmanian Dam case was decided in the Commonwealth's favour by a 4-3 ruling. Ex Senator Justice Lionel Murphy, a committed Fabian was one of the judges ruling in favour of the Commonwealth in that case.

Sir Garfield was critical of the use of the World Heritage listing to undermine State powers. "It was of no concern to the Federation, to the Commonwealth of Australia, to have this area listed by the U.N. committee, however much it was of consequence for the international community as of heritage value," he said. 'The idea of placing an item of Australian territory at the disposal of a committee of the U.N. is little better than fanciful. The treaty did not oblige the government to nominate the area; this act was "entirely voluntary, gratuitous".

Sir Garfield also referred to the 1975 dismissal of Whitlam by Governor General Sir John Kerr. He rejects the view that Kerr relied upon the reserve powers of the Crown. 'These powers are explicit and are the result of the direct enactment of the Westminster Parliament, and not in any sense derivative of the fact that the governor general is representative of the Queen in Australia."

The Australian (20/11/95) quotes Sir Garfield as saying, 'The notion of Reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion," Sir Garfield said.

DOUG COLLINS' VICTORY OF SORTS BEFORE THE PRESS COUNCIL

Supporters who had the opportunity to hear British Columbian journalist Doug Collins speak when he visited Australia in September/October, will be aware that he was awaiting the result of a B.C. Press Council hearing in which he defended himself against charges of misleading the public. A number of columns cited in the complaint were on Collins' position on Schindler's List and the question of the holocaust.

The newsletter for the Canadian Free Speech League reports that Collins was exonerated by the press Council except for three quotes, which he used, and then only criticised by the submission of material that he was never shown by the Press Council.

The Friends of Freedom newsletter: "The Press Council, actually a quasi-judicial tribunal, actually received evidence which it said was 'irrefutable' five weeks after the hearing closed (while Collins was in Australia). It said it received something from the Red Cross in Geneva, which refuted a document, which Mr. Collins had referred to in passing from the international Tracing Service in Arolsen, Germany. Of course, Arolsen is not a Red Cross originated institution and hence its documents are not 'authentic' Red Cross documents but this does not mean that they are not true.
"The decision maintains that although Collins 'misled' readers and 'misquoted' sources from his columns, there is no need for him or the newspaper to correct the so-called errors, or apologise, because Collins was engaging in 'the expression of opinion' when he supposedly breached the council's code of practice, which opposes 'publication of statements designed to mislead'.

The council wrote: 'The code's accuracy provision must not be narrowly applied here because Mr. Collins was engaging in ' the expression of opinion, not writing a news story, and enjoyed the widest possible latitude... Therein lies the most rigorous expression of this council's commitment to freedom of speech.... Unpopular or controversial voices must be challenged but never silenced...."

So the B.C. Press Council effectively has "two-bob each way". No-one appears to have asked about the justice of the Council receiving evidence which Mr. Collins never saw, or had the chance to answer, before it reached a decision on his case. Still, with the sort of pressure they were under....

FLUORIDE OUTRAGE

WHITLAM AND BANKS

from The Australian, November 20th
"You have printed so much recently on Mr. Whitlam, Mr. Fraser and Sir John Kerr - and mainly one side - that I write with some simple facts:
"1) The Commonwealth Constitution by law required a government to obtain a supply of money from both Houses of Parliament to carry on.
"2) This is a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy and the only way I know that the final power in our system remains in the hand of the people.
"3) The Senate had not passed the Supply Bill and the Governor General acted to resolve the situation by withdrawing the Prime Minister's commission.
"4) In the huge amount published as to various discussion and views, I have not seen any mention of the fact that the Whitlam Government sought to govern without Parliament. This was to be achieved by arranging for the banks to lend money to pay the public service - and agreeing to repay such loans when supply was obtained.
"5) No government has previously sought ways and means to govern without Parliament.

"I am aware of the approach to the banks as I was at the time Attorney General of Victoria and therefore very interested in what was going on in all ways, including, of course, constitutional practice. Naturally I was in contact with Mr. Fraser. A day or so before the Governor General acted, I was informed by two bankers, one a chief general manager, one a chairman of another bank, that the approach to the banks had been made.
"Fortunately, Sir John Kerr carried out his responsibility in the circumstances and gave the people the opportunity to vote at an election. The people spoke clearly through the ballot box so I simply conclude with the question: how can you be wrong if you give the people the opportunity to speak?"
(Vernon Wilcox, Q.C., Canterbury, Victoria)