ELECTION REALITIES

by Eric D. Butler
John Howard should make the most of the warm glow of political success he has received as a result of the electoral victory of last Saturday, because the glow is not going to last very long. It only seems like yesterday that Federal Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser was swept into office with a massive majority, the result of an emotional, electoral backlash against the Whitlam Government. That was in 1975. A type of euphoria swept through the ranks of anti-Labor electors.

The writer can claim to have been one of the few political commentators who pointed out that governments are generally voted OUT, not IN, predicting within the first few months of the Fraser Government's term in office that it was already on a disaster course. This view was based on a close study of the character of Malcolm Fraser, his background, and his clear determination not to challenge financial orthodoxy.

Malcolm Fraser played a major role in the imposition of the Communist terrorist, Robert Mugabe, on the unfortunate people of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). He revealed early in his first Government that he was an internationalist, favouring the establishment of a multicultural Australia. Treasurer John Howard was responsible for progressively increasing taxation, even attempting to impose a tax on books and magazines. Acting on the advice of a former official of The International Monetary Fund, John Hewson, Treasurer Howard pressed for the deregulation of the Australian banking system.

The type of policies imposed by Treasurer Howard paved the way for the defeat of the Fraser Government in 1983. It was left to Bob Hawke's Treasurer Paul Keating, following a visit to the Mecca of International Finance, Wall Street, to return to Australia to impose bank deregulation, something he had previously warned would allow foreign banks into Australia with the loss of Australian economic sovereignty. John Howard complained that Paul Keating had stolen his policy!
Paul Keating has correctly pointed out that the Howard-led Coalition has generally embraced the very economic rationalism and internationalism, which the Keating and Hawke Governments had advanced.

It can be predicted with absolute certainty that a John Howard Government will be no more successful in solving Australia's basic problems of mounting debt, unemployment, and loss of national sovereignty, than was Paul Keating. One of his major Achilles Heels is his large backbench majority, whose Members will be the first to feel the coming electoral winds of discontent. It is no secret that a number of National Party members are opposed to the whole philosophy of economic rationalism. And the problems associated with multiculturalism are going to mount.

In his desperate attempt to avoid the charge of being a "racist", John Howard disowned the Liberal Party's candidate for the safe Labor electorate of Oxley, Queensland. The candidate, Mrs. Pauline Hanson, had made the perfectly true statement that the favouring of Aborigines through the welfare system had produced growing community resentment. Following the disendorsement by the Liberal Party, Pauline Hanson continued as an Independent candidate and was overwhelmed with public support. Her election with a swing of over 20 percent against Labor was a major sensation of the Federal elections.

John Howard and his Liberal multiculturalists will have the greatest difficulty in explaining away what happened in Oxley. And they also have to face the fact that expelled Labor M.P. Graeme Campbell was re-elected as an Independent with a big majority. Campbell will certainly be the catalyst for a growing criticism of the Howard Government as it fails to improve the national situation, confirming Graeme Campbell's observation that the size of the Howard electoral victory is but a measure of the deep anti-Keating resentment of the Australian people.

The Howard Government will not only have Graeme Campbell to contend with, but a Senate in which the Democrats have increased their strength, this a reflection of the Australian electors not to give the Howard Government a complete monopoly of political power. Those anti-immigration candidates who campaigned in both the House of Representatives and the Senate elections made a much bigger contribution to the future of Australia than they realise. A nationwide survey provides convincing evidence that these candidates were well received everywhere. But electors made it clear that they were not going to be diverted in any way from making certain that the Keating Government was demolished. They have made a vital contribution to the growing resentment throughout Australia against the present immigration policy and multiculturalism.

The writer is confident that the 1996 Federal Election has laid the groundwork for a movement, which will shift Australia off its present disaster course. John Howard will be lucky to survive one full term in office.

THE 'BIG PICTURE' ISSUES REJECTED

by David Thompson
When former Prime Minister Hawke was interviewed the morning after the A.L.P. election debacle, he told the A.B.C. that in his view the result has been delayed for three years by the attempt by John Hewson to introduce a goods and services tax. Keating made 'leadership' an issue, Mr. Hawke said, and now he has his answer. There is clearly more to the election result than this, but Hawke has a point.

The opinion polls had consistently shown that Mr. Keating was a "strong leader" in comparison with Mr. Howard. But there is a great deal in how a question is asked in opinion polling. Keating may have been a "strong" leader, but he was also an abrasive leader, and in the end, the electorate said that yes, strong leader he may be, but we don't like where he is leading us.
It now seems evident that a large proportion of the electorate wants relief from the continuous public tensions and divisions generated by Keating's "big picture" issues, like the republic, being a part of Asia, etc.

The A.B.C. also interviewed A.L.P. President, Mr. Barry Jones, who rather forlornly conceded that "big picture" issues were relegated to a distant second place in favour of more immediate problems like jobs, education, the health system and poverty. Jones, however, made the quite significant comment that "Australia will never be the same as it was in 1983". This the ideologues of the A.L.P. wear as a badge of pride, but it is in fact a measure of the destruction wrought by centralised power.

MAHATHIR ALSO REJECTS 'BIG PICTURE'

Perhaps the comment was lost in the focus on the election result, but the Prime Minister of Malaysia has also rejected Mr. Keating's "big picture" where it concerns Australia being an integral part of Asia - particularly East Asia. In a rather scathing comment Mr. Mahathir rejected any attempt by an Australian politician to assist the Asians in redesigning their own identities to include a foreign, mainly European, country with pretensions of grandeur. Mr. Mahathir was serving notice that the Malaysians would not countenance the inclusion of Australia in the "Asian" trading blocs now developing.

Mr. Mahathir's analogy of Australia as part of Asia was that of Europe. He said that Australia was as much part of Asia as the Arab nations were a part of Western Europe. The comparison is very apt, and is clearly accurate. As a matter of culture, history, language, religion, and even geography, Australia is not a part of Asia. And on the same basis, the Arab states are not "European". The only difference is that the Arabs are not foolish enough to claim that they are European, but the decadent Western Europeans are probably foolish enough to accept that they are.

ALBERT LANGER AND THE QUESTION OF VOTING

The case of Albert Langer, again imprisoned for daring to suggest that freedom of choice extended to the right not to vote for those whom we oppose, has become something of a celebrated case. For all civil libertarians, the Langer case is very important. Imprisoned originally for contempt of court, having refused to desist from showing voters how they can avoid distributing preferences, Langer has managed to make his case one of principle: the question of compulsory voting.

Langer originally reacted against the Electoral Commission's arrogance in attempting to intimidate voters to do what the Commission regarded as proper, irrespective of the validity of a "Langer" vote. Langer was urging that voters avoid distributing their preferences to candidates of whom they don't approve by voting 1,2,3,3,3, etc. When it came to the courts, Justice Beach ruled that the law "imposes a duty on an elector to express a preference even though he may not have a preference for any of the candidates".

The Electoral Commission had obtained an injunction from Justice Beach to prevent Langer and others from encouraging electors to vote by "writing any particular number more than once". It is most interesting that the Electoral Commission had given, as one of its reasons for seeking the injunction, that it would prevent "the result that no candidates for election will be returned with an absolute majority of votes as required by the Act, and that a supplementary election will need to be held".

What sort of "vibes" was the Commission picking up from the electorate? That there was little enthusiasm for the paucity of choice concerning the major parties? That in sheer frustration, the electorate might simply vote against them all by failing to give any candidate an absolute majority?

Langer highlights another important matter of principle. It is that by his ruling, Justice Beach proposes that the law imposes a duty for the voter to express a preference in favour of a candidate that he would never agree to accept as his representative. That is, we are forced to vote for that which we may consciously reject.

If ever there was a case against compulsory voting, this must be it. Even if he is an anarchist, or a Maoist, perhaps Albert Langer has performed a great service for freedom of choice. Mao Tse-tung would be horrified.

THE PURSUIT OF NEVILLE GRUZMAN

ANOTHER VOGEL AUTHOR 'OUTED'

DEFEATED PRIME MINISTER PAUL KEATING OUT OF TOUCH

Defeated Prime Minister Paul Keating has expressed astonishment that two disendorsed Party candidates, Graeme Campbell in Western Australia and Pauline Hanson in Queensland, both charged with holding "racist" views, had been elected. Keating's comments merely demonstrate how far out of touch he and his fellow arrogant colleagues are with mainstream Australia. Clearly Australian electors are not impressed with his "big picture" show.

Ironically, Paul Keating's best contribution to the future of traditional Australia will in retrospect be seen as his sacking of Graeme Campbell, at the instigation of Isi Leibler and his fellow Zionist Jews. By sacking Graeme Campbell, Keating freed the West Australian M.P. from the shackles of the totalitarian Labor Party and paved the way for him to pioneer a new political movement.

In his first comments following the election Graeme Campbell said he had a message for all the Parties. Highly significant is the fact that Campbell polled heavily among the large Aboriginal communities of Kalgoorlie, in spite of his strong opposition to the Mabo legislation. Australian politics are now in a state of flux and Campbell has correctly forecast the big changes coming.

MACKERRAS WARNING TO JOHN HOWARD

Malcolm Mackerras is senior lecturer in politics at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra and his predictions concerning voting trends are taken seriously by all students of Australian politics. In his first comment on the 1996 election results, Mackerras says, "This Liberal win is not everything it is cracked up to be". He says, "The Howard victory is weaker than either the 1975 or 1977 Fraser victories". He also points out that while the Fraser Government had a Senate majority, the Howard Government "has no prospect ever to have a majority in the Upper House". The increased Senate vote for the Democrats puts them in the situation where they can legitimately claim to have a mandate to prevent the proposed sale of Telecom in order to finance John Howard's proposed environmental programme.

The divisions of power provided by the Senate continues to provide Australians with some protection against totalitarian governments.