THE COMING TWEEDLEDUM AND TWEEDLEDEE ELECTION

by Eric D. Butler
In a recent T.V. interview, West Australian M.P. Graeme Campbell expressed the view that the coming Federal Election would be little more than a contest between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The release of the Coalition Opposition's trade policy, by National Party leader Tim Fischer, provides further confirmation of the fact that there are no basic differences between the policies of the Keating Government and those of the Coalition Parties led by John Howard.

The Editorial in The Weekend Australian of January 13th-14th is revealing: "With the release of the Opposition's trade policy yesterday, and other recent speeches it is now possible to see how the Opposition sees Australia and the world....For the most part the Opposition sees the same things as the Government. Mr. Howard was at pains in his speeches to argue that the Coalition finally accepted the primacy of Asia in Australian foreign policy....The trade policy of the National Party Loader, Mr. Tim Fischer, with a few minor amendments, could just as easily serve as a government trade policy document." (emphasis added)

The Australian's foreign editor, Greg Sheridan, a vigorous supporter of internationalism and multiculturalism, also praises the Opposition's policies. Sheridan was loud in his praise for Keating's action in sacking Graeme Campbell. John Howard insists that he is "pragmatic" in his approach to policy issues, which means that he is prepared to keep changing his views if this will assist him to become Prime Minister. Like Paul Keating, John Howard has done everything possible to placate the Zionist Jewish lobby. While not prepared to go as far as the Labor Party and "proscribing" the League of Rights, he assured the Zionist Jewish lobby that no Liberal would be permitted to appear on a League of Rights platform, or be associated with the League in any way. John Howard has progressively shifted his position on every major issue.

It appeared at one stage that John Howard and the Liberals might at least take a firm stand on the misuse of the External Powers to increase the powers of the Federal Government. In 1982 John Howard was stating that a Coalition Government would not use the External Powers. Recently John Howard said, "If it is necessary to use a smidgeon of the external powers ... I will".

All those who vote uncritically for the Coalition Parties at the coming Federal Election are in effect endorsing the programme of the Keating Government. This point must be made throughout the nation. An effective revolt against both Tweedledum and Tweedledee can be best made in the Senate, where they can be put last. Both Labor and the Coalition dread the prospect of not controlling the Senate. Paul Keating's description of Senators as "unrepresentative swill" should be widely publicised.

The Independence movement being put together by Graeme Campbell provides Australian electors with the opportunity to make a massive protest vote against both Tweedledum and Tweedledee. If that vote is big enough it might well shatter the ranks of both Tweedledum and Tweedledee and shift Australia off the disaster course on which it has been proceeding for many years.

A BIG YEAR FOR THE LEAGUE OF RIGHTS

OUT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRYING PAN INTO THE FIRE

The Prime Minister has announced his intention of making the republic an election issue from which he expects to harvest considerable votes. He may, however, care to reflect upon the results of the recent referendum on the Crown in Bermuda. The Australian press was gleefully forecasting a strong swing away from the monarchy, which would have resulted in a Bermudan republic. However, as Bruce Ruxton pointed out in a letter to a Sydney weekend newspaper, the overwhelming vote for the retention of the monarchy virtually went unreported in the Australian press.
The Bermudan referendum was preceded by an intensive "educational" campaign by the then-leader, Sir John Swain, which was probably more like brainwashing. Following the result, Sir John Swain did at least have the decency to resign. We hope Mr. Keating has noted this.

The nation which is commonly held up to Australians as the world's most successful republic, and coming from the same British historical stream as ours - the United States of America - is presently rent by a 'constitutional crisis' with which Australians are not unfamiliar. For the last few weeks United States embassies and consulates have been closed, as have some federal government departments inside the United States. The reason for this is that the Congress has failed to "grant supply" which has led to nearly two months of bureaucratic stalemate inside the U.S. until funds to govern are eventually passed by Congress.

One of the major issues, which has led to the present pro-republican fervour in Australia, was the sacking of Prime Minister Whitlam in 1975, because he was unable to secure "supply" of government funds from the parliament. It has been vigorously argued by the A.L.P. and an outrageously partisan press, that a republic was essential to ensure that the Queen's lackey could never again sack a popularly elected Australian Prime Minister. But the historical record shows that Sir John Kerr solved a political problem here in Australia in a mere couple of days, which has defied solution in the United States for months.

The social dislocation and general inconvenience that the United States' political crisis has generated must be far worse than the inconvenience of holding a general election. Certainly during an election campaign the processes of government function normally, and someone who may be disinterested in politics is able to achieve a simple objective like having a passport renewed.

The general election in Australia that followed the dismissal of the Prime Minister in 1975 was unremarkable in terms of inconvenience, compared with what the United States is presently enduring. So perhaps the Australian republicans might care to tell us how a parliamentary stalemate of the present United States' proportions might best be resolved under an Australian republic?

Perhaps the Prime Minister, who has all the republican answers, and seems desperate to make his mark on the world stage, could offer some advice to Mr. Clinton? Or perhaps we might concede that there is some merit in Australia keeping its present constitutional structure, which seems to have served us very well, even to the extent of solving political dilemmas that appear to be confounding the world's most successful republic?

HOW RACISM IN REVERSE HAS BECOME INSTITUTIONALISED

Press reports at the end of 1995 concerning how "Father Christmas" was attacked and abused by a large group of children in a central N.S.W. town on Christmas Eve were greeted with scepticism if not outright disbelief. Surely children do not necessarily need to believe in Father Christmas to accept the largesse, which he distributes? Surely there must be more to such a report than meets the public eye, or have long periods of drought generated a new type of child in western N.S.W.?

The truth is that there is much more to that report than meets the casual eye. In fact, many press reports of crimes committed, riots in central western N.S.W. towns, and other human tragedies do not tell the full story because of a new type of political correctness that has now become institutionalised, at least by the press. The group of children who attacked Father Christmas were Aboriginal or part-Aboriginal children, but their racial or cultural background is censored, because this would be discriminating against Aboriginal people if it were mentioned.

It is apparently reasoned that it was not their Aboriginal background that was important if it happens to show Aborigines in a poor light. Any suggestion that the racial and cultural background of those involved in crimes or other human dramas should also be reported is to reinforce unfair stereotypes of the groups involved. As a result, the extent of the breakdown of the much-vaunted Australian multicultural society has been deliberately hidden.

The Australian public is unaware of the extent to which racial or cultural factors are involved in other events, such as, say, the riots in the housing estates at Villawood in Sydney's western suburbs. Reports of gang related incidents leading to the riots never mention the cultural background of gang members. Similarly, the public may be unaware that the perpetrators of the "home invasion" crimes in Sydney were mainly Asian gangs.

THE DEATHS-IN-CUSTODY DEBATE

However, the reporting of the racial or cultural background of the victims of crime or unfair treatment is a completely different matter. The fact that the victims of the Sydney home invasion crimes were also originally predominantly Asian was immediately reported. And perhaps the most strongly emphasised cases in which Aborigines are portrayed as "victims" is in the incidence of deaths in policy custody.

Following the Royal Commission of enquiry into black deaths in custody, much has been made of the quality of police attempts to observe the Commissions recommendations, designed to prevent future Aboriginal deaths in police cells. Little attention has been directed to the fact that the majority of deaths - of Aborigines or otherwise - has been voluntary: i.e. suicide. Every additional Aboriginal death in any prison cell almost generates its own public inquiry, with the attendant condemnation of the police, irrespective of the quality of their care. In addition to this, it is also claimed by Aboriginal lobbyists that the reason that young Aborigines are to be found in prisons in greater proportion to their numbers in general population, is because police are over zealous in charging Aboriginal youths. Any suggestion that more young Aborigines are imprisoned because more young Aborigines commit crimes is treated as the worst form of racism.

The facts in such cases are almost routinely suppressed. For example, it is known, and can be statistically demonstrated, that among the prison population, Aborigines do not commit suicide at any greater rate than non-Aborigines. But the non-Aboriginal deaths are not reported as having the same significance as Aboriginal deaths. In addition, the Bureau of Criminology has published figures that indicate that Aborigines actually receive sentences that on average are about a quarter less than non-Aborigines for the same or similar crimes.

A correspondent to the letters editor of The Australian, Mr. Paul Rathele, claims to have been told by traditional Aboriginal leaders from Australia's "Top End" that the justice system treats Aboriginal youths too leniently. Many youths are returning from prison as heroes among their peers after being sentenced for serious crimes like manslaughter, rape, etc., and serving only token jail sentences. Why are such voices as those of the traditional Aboriginal leaders never heard in the press, while the radical Aboriginal spokesmen complaining about racism and poor treatment of Aborigines seem to enjoy considerable attention?

THE UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

The release of recent unemployment figures showing an increase in employment opportunities were seized upon by the A.L.P. "spin doctors" as evidence that economic conditions are improving as a result of enlightened government policies. It was even suggested that the Prime Minister might call an election immediately on the basis that this may be the last piece of "good" economic news with which he can campaign in the near future.

However, the way the figures are compiled offers little comfort to those who are unemployed, or would prefer to change their occupations. What the statistics do not take into account are the following factors:
· only one hour of causal work per week may make you officially employed, and perhaps disqualify you from full unemployment benefits;
· many of the new jobs are in short-term labour market programmes on very low pay, after which many people return to the dole queue;
· many of those who are not primary breadwinners (like mothers) have given up looking for work, and are therefore not listed as unemployed;
· the large numbers of those who are forced into various "retraining" schemes are automatically no longer unemployed - they are now "students".

HIGH LIVING

P.M's. OFFICE WAS INCORRECT OVER ANTHEM

from The Australian, 20/12/95
"MELBA ended an item headed 'Howard's Boys In A Class Of Their Own' (7/12) by claiming that in 1984 the Federal Government had ruled that God Save The Queen should only be sung 'in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen, or a member of the royal family'.

"As the Government did no such thing, and as many other people will have been misled, as Melba obviously was, by an incorrect press statement issued by the Prime Minister's Press Office in 1984, please allow me to correct the record.

'On April 19, 1984 the Governor General issued a Proclamation, which proclaimed Advance Australia Fair as the National Anthem and God Save The Queen as the Royal Anthem. When it was first submitted to the Governor General, the Proclamation recommended that the Royal Anthem was to be used only in the presence of the Queen or a member of the Royal Family. However, after a conversation between the Governor General and the responsible Minister, the Proclamation was amended by the deletion of the word 'only'. The Proclamation was then approved and signed by the Governor General in Council, and gazetted in its amended form in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 142. "Later that day the Prime Minister issued a press statement announcing the matter, which was wrong, in that its reference to the Royal Anthem contained the word 'only' which had been deleted from the Proclamation. As the final authority on this matter is the Governor General's Proclamation, and not the incorrect statement issued by the Prime Minister's Press Office, Australians may play and sing the Royal Anthem whenever and wherever they choose."
(Sir David Smith, Mawson, A.C.T.)

WHY AUSTRALIA NEEDS ITS STATES

from The Age (Melbourne), 11/1/96
"Bruce Hyett (4/1) has, like so many other Australians, naively swallowed Keating's republican agenda whole without comprehending the dangers. The scrapping of state governments may produce 'efficiency and savings'; it would also mean the concentration of power in the hands of an all-powerful central government. To describe such a government as 'federal' is also a misnomer, since under such a system the present federation of states would be replaced by a unitary state. 'Regions' would therefore certainly not do what state governments do now, but would function merely as administrative agents of Canberra.

"The fact that Australia's entire population is equal to that of a single overseas metropolis is also meaningless, as a determinant of the number of tiers of government that we should retain. Australians are spread over a vast continent, whose size does not lend itself to a two-tiered system such as that of smaller countries, like Japan, or those whose populations are concentrated, such as Egypt. "The Australian states are, moreover, the historical legacy of progressive British colonisation during the 19th century, a fact for which we may be grateful, despite the constant denigration of all things British by the republican lobby. "Mr. Hyett might be content to live under an 'efficient' but centralised and ultimately, tyrannical Canberra dictatorship, but I am not. Long live the states, despite their imperfections, and long live Australian freedom." (Geoff Earl, Hoppers Crossing, Victoria)

"DISCRIMINATE OR BE DAMNED"

by John Fairbanks Kerr - reviewed at last!
Norman Abjorensen, writing for The Canberra Times (20/12/95) has provided the first review of the book by John Fairbanks Kerr, after Kerr began to think he has been a victim of censorship after his book failed to attract a single review. In the following extract from his review Abjorensen quotes Kerr:

"My publisher sent copies of the book to all newspapers, TV stations and radio stations in Sydney and Canberra, and I followed up this action with phone calls to check that someone in each organisation had seen the book. The result was a deafening silence," Kerr says. "Not one newspaper has mentioned this new book on a subject of great current interest." Two radio interviewers did speak to Kerr about the book - Ron Casey and Clive Robertson - but television stations, which have shown interest in previous books by him did not touch this one.
"In at least two cases I strongly suspect deliberate suppression, not just neglect. In one case a prerecorded interview with the ABC intended for a Sunday time slot never got to air, and I have no doubt that it was squashed by people higher up than the interviewer, Bob Hughes, who did a good objective job on it. "In another case, a journo for a Sydney newspaper displayed a vicious antagonism when interviewing me and a report of the interview never saw the light of day I have no doubt that he killed his own story..."

Kerr is no splenetic bigot. Rather, he is a man with a clear mind and the courage to pose uncomfortable questions about our freedoms and our rights, whose interests are being served, and who is pulling the bureaucratic strings. He fully accepts the underlying principles of the anti-discriminationists that it is wrong to refuse employment to a woman, to a black man because he is black, or to a homosexual because he is a homosexual.

"But it is also wrong to deprive people of the right to discriminate in that way if they choose... No greater deception has been perpetrated on the public in recent years than the allegation that we should not discriminate..."

"Discriminate or be Damned" by John Fairbanks Kerr available from all League Bookservices: $12.00 or $14.50 posted.