LABOR PLAYS THE MULTICULTURAL CARD

by Eric D. Butler
Greg Sheridan, foreign editor for The Australian, is a zealous supporter of multiculturalism. His article on immigration in The Weekend Australian of January 20th-21st must therefore be regarded as an accurate picture of how Labor proposes to try to manipulate the ethnic vote at the coming Federal Elections. Labor strategists are well aware how sensitive John Howard is on the issue of immigration and multiculturalism, ever since a massive media campaign forced him to apologise for what he had said on the subject a few years ago. Sheridan claims that Minister for Immigration Nick Bolkus "has sold a dramatic rise in immigration so effectively that this often contentious issue is likely to be an election winner".

During his forays into South East Asia, to advance his Asian strategy, Prime Minister Paul Keating has assured his Asian listeners that under his Government all vestiges of "racism" have been eliminated in Australia. There is no doubt that if re-elected Keating will seek to have the detestable Anti-Racial Vilification legislation resurrected, with criminal sanctions included. His Zionist backers will be pressing hard on this issue. While in Singapore recently, Keating assured his hosts that "There is very little tension or adverse comment on the make up of the immigration programme".

Paul Keating appears to have conveniently forgotten that not so many years ago there were violent race riots in Malaysia between the indigenous Malays and the Chinese, and that race tensions were the reason the predominantly Chinese Singaporeans insisted on breaking away from the Malaysian Federation rather than be dominated by the Malays. The relative success and stability of Singapore has been the result of it being basically a homogeneous nation.

Karl Marx said that the British would never make their own revolution and that foreigners would have to make it for them. Consider the state of the United Kingdom today, with the unfortunate British police not only trying to control inter-ethnic violence in some centres, but are operating in a society where the traditional respect for law and order has broken down. If Nick Bolkus has his way, the core culture of Australia, which is an extension of British culture, will be progressively eroded.

Bolkus has progressively revealed his revolutionary character. He brutally deprived Mayor Peter Davis of Port Lincoln of the right to conduct naturalisation ceremonies, the Mayor's "crime" being that he had chaired a League of Rights meeting and publicly said he had been a supporter of the League for over 30 years. Backed by the Zionist Jewish lobby, Bolkus was one of the driving forces behind the Keating sacking of Graeme Campbell from the Labor Party, an act which could yet badly haunt Keating, Bolkus and their backers. Bolkus also strongly supported the continued banning of British historian David Irving from Australia.

The son of Greek refugees to Australia, Nick Bolkus has absorbed nothing of the traditional British-Australian cultures with its stress on a sense of fair play and genuine freedom. According to Greg Sheridan, Bolkus believes that his major achievements as Minister of Immigration have been to substantially increase the migration rate and to change the culture of the Immigration Department. He also believes that Labor will benefit from a five percent swing from the ethnic community at the coming Federal elections.
As witnessed by Paul Keating's statement on multiculturalism last weekend, the Prime Minister also believes this.

As the Coalition basically supports the Bolkus programme, what might be considered as a sordid attempt to obtain the votes of the ethnic minority, is not true. There is no contest concerning the most vital aspect of whether traditional Australia can survive indefinitely. History has demonstrated that an indigenous culture can survive providing it is not threatened with an influx of alien cultures at a rate, which makes absorption impossible. With both the Government and the Opposition basically supporting the same deadly multicultural programme, responsible electors have no alternative but to reject both of them, particularly in the Senate, at the Federal election.

BOB CARR SHOWS CONTEMPT FOR PEOPLE OF N.S.W.

by David Thompson
The Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Carr, has shown a pettiness of character and an unhealthy contempt for the process of representative government by the appointment of the new Governor of N.S.W. There is no reason to believe that Justice Gordon Samuels will not serve with distinction as the next Governor, but Mr. Carr places Justice Samuels in a difficult position before he is even sworn into office by the conditions under which he is required to serve. Essentially, Mr. Carr has down graded the office of Governor by proposing to do away with Government House as the official residence, and begin to reduce the ceremonial and social functions, and perhaps limit opportunities for vice-regal patronage.

What are Carr's reasons? His stated reasons are that the new role of Governor will save something like $2 million per year, and that the traditional role of Governor is no longer compatible with 21st century Australia. Carr also wants to make Government House more accessible to the public as "their" historic building, and incorporate the grounds into the Botanic Gardens. None of these reasons bear much scrutiny.

If Carr is in earnest about cutting costs, there are many other grandiose projects that are a much lower priority than the role of Governor, such as the massive expenditure required to host the Olympics. To cut back the Governor's patronage of community organisations or social functions is to further isolate the Governor from the community itself, and appears the very reverse of Carr's requirement that the Governor offer a more egalitarian face. There are already open days at Government House, and the interested public have made use of them, far more so than at Yarralumla or Admiralty House, where open days are much fewer.

The suggestion that the Governor of N.S.W. is a stuffy 18th-Century figure, removed from the people he rules, is not only an insult to the new Governor, but to the very able Governor he is replacing, Rear Admiral Sinclair. The people of N.S.W. have been excluded from this decision, which reflects an autocratic and pre-emptory nature on the part of the Premier.

GOVERNOR SINCLAIR NOT IMPRESSED

The outgoing Governor Sinclair, like his predecessor Sir David Martin, has served N.S.W. with great distinction. Although protocol prevents him from saying so, there is every indication that he is appalled by Mr. Carr's actions. He identifies Carr's motives as moving towards a republic by stealth, and claimed in a newspaper interview that many Australians were now confused, angry and alienated by the speed of the pro-republican push.

Interviewed for The Australian, he said: "It worries me that people think you can simply take our constitutional monarchy, tear out the safeguards in the exercise of power - namely the Crown - then paper over the incision and say 'Aren't we clever, we've just produced the world's greatest republic.' "I find that difficult to accept, and I believe that if we are to move to a different form of government like a republic, then there can be no short cuts… "I do not have a problem as such with a republic but I am terrified at the prospect of a 'she'll be right republic'. It's the idea that the republic is really a very simple thing. That attitude worries the pants off me... and it is an attitude I'm afraid we are seeing too much of."

There is no doubt that Premier Carr is involved in a petulant and underhanded attempt to pre-empt any reasonable debate concerning the constitutional future of N.S.W. He treats the people of N.S.W. with utter contempt by demanding that we fall in with his own vision of the future with no consultation. The opinion polls in Sydney are running solidly against the Carr decision, and much of the resentment is clearly about the way he has gone about it.

GOVERNOR'S ROLE GREATER THAN ASSUMED

Bob Carr reflects some of Prime Minister Keating's arrogance concerning the Crown in his attack on the role of Governor. It is almost as if Carr is resentful of the powers of the Governor. His announcement appears to be a demonstration that the Premier is more powerful and of greater consequence than the Governor, but the truth is that the Governor's role is much greater than is immediately apparent. As Carr knows, the constitutional powers still exist, and not even Bob Carr can sweep them away with a New Year's announcement.

In the last week, it has been revealed that, as a matter of routine, the State Governors do use their reserve powers. Premier Kennett confirms that Governor Richard McGarvie personally scrutinises all legislation before giving the Royal Assent. Although bound by an oath of secrecy about Executive Council matters, N.S.W. Deputy Opposition Leader, Mr. Armstrong, revealed that Admiral Sinclair frequently exercised his powers, sometimes withholding vice-regal assent pending legal advice, or suggesting improvements to legislation. This also was the case with Sir David Martin, who, like Admiral Sinclair, delayed assent until offered an explanation on some aspects of legislation. Admiral Sinclair is also known to have refused former Premier Fahey a snap election on the euphoria of having won the right to the 2000 Olympics.
As Professor George Winterton - a republican - has confirmed, State Governors can exercise reserve powers independently of Premiers' advice.

Mr. Carr's decision on the role of Governor is a disgrace to the Head of State. It may well infuriate voters to Mr. Keating's disadvantage in the coming Federal election. It displays the same type of arrogance, as does the Prime Minister. And it is quite possible that it makes it even more difficult for the republicans to rob the Governor of his constitutional and legal powers. The role of the Governor restricting the power of arrogant politicians becomes more relevant as those same politicians demonstrate their arrogance.

NO RACIAL MOTIVATION FOR DESECRATION OF ADELAIDE GRAVES

The news in July last year that a large number of Jewish graves had been desecrated in Adelaide led to calls for racial hatred legislation in South Australia. Charges of "anti-Semitism" and "racism" being prevalent in South Australia were based on the assumption that this was what motivated the desecration of the cemetery. At the time, no attention was paid to the fact that not all the desecrated graves were of Jewish people; a number of Catholic graves were also desecrated.

Last week a South Australian Magistrate demonstrated that the law was quite adequate to deal with such vandalism, when two young men were convicted of wanton desecration of the cemetery while under the influence of L.S.D. and marijuana. Far from being an argument for racial hatred legislation, it is perhaps more of an argument for further action on the abuse of drugs. It is clear that drug abuse is a far more dangerous and socially disruptive phenomenon than "racial hatred".

As in Western Australia, isolated acts of violence, attributed to "racism" are to be used in South Australia for the introduction of new legislation that, by its very nature, restricts freedom of speech and other liberties taken for granted in the free society. As Magistrate David Swain demonstrated in Adelaide, racial hatred legislation is not necessary.

ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

A long forgotten incident concerning Zionist Israel's nuclear weapons programme has surfaced as the result of the young Israeli who told the world about the programme, appealing against a decision to continue keeping him in solitary confinement. Mordechai Vanunu who had become a Christian, felt that the world should know of the double standards of Israel concerning nuclear weapons. Israel arrogantly decided that no Arab nation should have nuclear weapons, taking military action to destroy Iraq's programme. A law unto itself, Israel declines to subject itself to any form of international inspection. It has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Vanunu had fled Israel and, for a period, was in Australia supported by an Anglican Priest. But eventually he was illegally abducted by the Israeli Mossad and taken to Israel and sentenced to 18 years in prison. That was in 1988. An obscure press report recently stated that Vanunu had lost an appeal against his continued solitary confinement. He had asked for the right to make telephone calls without being monitored. The appeal court ruled that his request could not be granted as there was a danger that he might transmit information endangering State security. Israelis determined to maintain the greatest secrecy concerning its nuclear programme.

THREAT TO RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA FROM STORED-VALUE CARDS

This is the title given to an article published in the Financial Review (December 19th, '95) from the pen of Professor Ian Harper, of Melbourne University. We are unable to republish the whole article, but shall cull out the more relevant extracts, from our own point of view.

"The Reserve Bank generates profit from its trading activity like any other bank….
"The Reserve Bank makes most of its profit from 'seigniorage'. This is the technical term to describe the profits, which accrue to the Reserve Bank by virtue of its status as the monopoly issuer of currency and the sole repository of mandatory bank reserves in this country….
"It costs the Reserve Bank a few cents at most to print the average currency note. And yet the notes 'sell' for their face value, as much as $100. The difference is seigniorage, or at least part of it.
"So every time the Reserve Bank increases the number of currency notes on issue, it increases its profit.
"The Reserve Bank does not pay interest on currency notes and yet it earns interest on the proceeds of the sale of currency notes….
"The law requires that seigniorage earned by the Reserve Bank be passed through to the Commonwealth Treasury, after the Governor of the Bank deducts an amount to cover the Bank's operating expenses and keeps a little aside for a rainy day.
"So it seems that seigniorage, after all, is just another form of taxation (our emphasis.. O.T) albeit a subtle one and perhaps little understood by the public….
"In 1994, seigniorage earned by the Reserve Bank contributed some $2.8 billion (or 2.8%) towards the Commonwealth's total revenue….
"The Australian Payments System Council cites concern expressed by the Reserve Bank and the Commonwealth Treasury over the potential for stored-value cards to displace currency notes and thereby erode revenue from seigniorage….
"The Bank also earns seigniorage by obliging banks to hold compulsory reserves with it and paying them low rates of interest or none at all….
"The real worry for the Reserve Bank and the Treasury is the prospect of multiple issuers which have no connection with the banking system at all and no reason to pay seigniorage to the Reserve Bank."
(An example would be Telstra, with the issue of its phonecards…O.T.)

FEWER ELECTIONS NOT THE ANSWER

WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION

CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDA

A spokesman for the Leader of the (Federal) Opposition (Mr. John Howard) comments in a letter to a South Australian supporter thus:
"Mr. Howard recognises that there are valid arguments both for and against the introduction of C.I.R. The main point in their favour is that they would provide a mechanism for citizens, outside the electoral process, to make the Government of the day aware of their views on specific issues. On the other hand they might enable well organised pressure groups to force policy changes that may not be in the total community interest...."

We still feel that C.I.R. will ultimately have to be forced on parliamentarians (maybe by a referendum). Politicians "don't like" C.I.R. in general. They feel that they are elected to do a job, and that the voters should trust them to get on with the job. We do not share this opinion.