SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ELECTION SHOCKWAVES

by David Thompson
The dramatic result of last weekend's South Australian election could act as a wake-up call for Prime Minister John Howard, whose landslide 1996 federal election victory no longer looks quite so impressive. It also sends a message to Queensland Premier Borbidge, who must face a State election next year. And the message, which was delivered in no uncertain terms to South Australian Premier John Olsen last weekend, was that electors have little patience for politicians or political parties who fail to deliver employment security or economic stability.

As we go to press, the final result of the South Australia election is unclear, with the Liberals expected to retain government by the skin of their teeth, but certainly failing to regain control of the South Australian upper house, the Legislative Council. The result simply confirms what League activists are finding all over Australia; that the difference between the major political parties is now so slight that the electorate is searching for alternative policies.

The important feature of the South Australian election is that the Olsen Liberals actually lost 13% of their first-preference support last Saturday, but this swing did not translate into support for the ALP. The S.A. ALP gained only 5.4% of this first-preference swing, with the rest of the first preference vote going to a number of smaller political groups. Chief of these was the Democrats, who were able to take second place in six of the 47 lower house seats. But the support for the United Australia Party should not go unnoticed; this new political party of the "right" polled impressively in some electorates, achieving 10.7% in Hammond, and 8.9% of the vote in Frome.

The fact that the ALP was able to win so many seats is accounted for by noting that the Democrat preferences flowed to the ALP. According to psephologist Malcolm Mackerras, the 9% swing away from the South Australian Liberals is the biggest against a one-term State government since NSW voters savaged Labor's Jack Lang with a 15% swing in 1932, showing the extraordinary volatility of the Australian electorate at present.

A careful analysis of the South Australian election shows that voters are fully prepared to savagely punish mainstream political parties, but are reluctant to mindlessly support their Opposition. This is a clear rejection of both mainstream party groups who have betrayed the interests of Australians for so long. This is borne out by polling in other States.

In Queensland for example, the latest Newspoll, which proved to be the most accurate in South Australia last weekend, showed that a massive 19% of those surveyed would vote for "other" parties in a Queensland election. This raises the question of the future of the Queensland National Party government. If a third political force was to appear in Queensland to offer voters a genuine choice, rather than the traditional "Hobson's choice" between National and Labor, there is every chance that such a third force could win a number of seats. Press reports of secret Liberal Party polling in Queensland indicates that Pauline Hanson's One Nation party is more popular than the Nationals in a number of key seats, such as the marginal Labor seats of Thuringowa, Hervey Bay and Caboolture. At the time the polling took place, One Nation was not registered in Queensland at State level.

The most credible emerging third force in Queensland politics is Australia First, which is now registered in Queensland as a political party. With solid grass-roots organisation and a hard core of most constructive policies, Australia First could provide a potent challenge to the National Party in a number of seats. That approximate 19% of disenchanted Queensland voters are searching for a constructive new home. The election of even one Australia First candidate in Queensland has the potential to electrify Australian politics. If One Nation was to register as a party in Queensland, and co-operate with Australia First in the exchange of preferences, the next Queensland State election could be a turning point in Australian politics.

Prime Minister Howard is now faced with a new political situation in which he has an extremely large and very edgy backbench that could be obliterated by a swing as little as 4% at the next federal election. Mr. Howard was elected with a swing of around 5% in 1996, but Labor require a swing of less than 4% to topple Mr. Howard in Canberra. After last weekend in South Australia, this looks to be a very slim margin of safety.

The pressure is on leaders like Howard and Borbidge to achieve results; particularly in the areas of economic management and employment. Under orthodox economic and financial rules, it is more likely that economic conditions continue to deteriorate, leaving Australia in its most volatile political state since World War II. If ever the emergence of a third force was to be successful, it is now. The question is whether Graeme Campbell's Australia First or Pauline Hanson's One Nation can be well enough organised and financed to force a change in political direction that is long overdue.

NATIONAL PARTY FLYING MONARCHIST COLOURS

Following a fierce internal campaign in favour of the existing Australian constitutional monarchy, the National Party has now affirmed that its official policy will be an uncompromising attack on the republican agenda. As a result, party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Fischer has been forced to change his position on the republic. Fischer had previously declared that if Australia was to become a republic, he would prefer a popularly elected president. Mr. Fischer now supports the Constitution as it is.

While the League has little in common with the National Party Senator Ron Boswell, it appears that Boswell has maintained his loyalty to the Crown, and should be supported for this. It may also have something to do with the fact that Boswell must face re-election to the Senate at the next federal election and, irrespective of trendy republican options it is crystal clear that the Queensland National Party grass roots are unashamedly monarchist.

As he sees his support base visibly disappearing beneath him because of some of the lunatic policies pursued by the Liberals, to which his own leader Mr. Fischer refuses to object, perhaps even Senator Boswell can feel the cold winds of political reality. The firearms issue is the most potent of these.

The National Party has become the first political party to formally support one of the teams fielding candidates to be elected as delegates to the Constitutional Convention next year, announcing that they will support the "No Republic" candidates throughout Australia. "No Republic" is the campaign title of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, which will be led by Sir James Killen in Queensland, Don Chipp in Victoria, Doug Sutherland in NSW, Reg Withers in WA, Kin Bonython and Bishop John Hepworth in S.A., Doone Kennedy in Tasmania, and Malcolm Mackerras in ACT.

The second major monarchist group to be fielding candidates in most States is the Monarchist League, which also has a number of extremely able candidates, such as former RSL President Alf Garland and Dr David Mitchell. In Queensland former Senator Glen Shiel and Lady Flo Bjelke-Petersen will lead a Constitutional Monarchist team. In Victoria RSL President Bruce Ruxton leads a "Safeguard the People" team with Vernon Wilcox.

The voting for candidates is by voluntary postal ballot, and closes on December 9th. The voting method will be similar to that of the Senate, under which each candidate must earn a quota of votes, and his preferences then flow on to nominated successors for those voting 'above the line'. We understand that the major monarchist groups will register to exchange their preferences for those who propose to vote 'above the line'.

The National Party should be congratulated for an unequivocal statement of support for the monarchy, and pushed to actively campaign for the "No Republic" candidates for the Convention. We doubt that this particular attack of sanity is sufficient to save the National Party in the longer term, but it is a useful start.

CENSORSHIP OF INFORMATION SUPER-HIGHWAY

The new information technology, originally developed by the United States military in order to communicate in emergencies, known as the 'Internet' offers a breakthrough for the 'underground press'. It is theoretically free of the restraints of censorship, because it is simply too difficult to censor. However, the one worlders seem to have discovered the vulnerable point of the new technology, and are testing an assault on it.

Bavarian prosecutors in Germany have indicted the managing director of a German service provider CompuServe, Felix Somm, for aiding the distribution of child pornography and banned Nazi symbols. Prosecutors believe that service providers should be held responsible for material that is illegal in Germany and made accessible to Germans, but is located abroad. CompuServe deny the charges, and claim they are no more responsible than telephone companies are for what people say to each other, and that it lacked the technical ability to block out just the German users. The case is being closely watched around the world.

HANSON ON NATIVE TITLE

The Independent Member for Oxley made a contribution to the debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill in Parliament on October 1st, in which Ms Hanson referred to the deadly United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She referred to the long-held suspicion that aboriginal land claims and native title rights were being used in an attempt to create a separate 'black state' in Australia."

"In conjunction with the Canadian government, the indigenous people of Canada have recently created Nunavut, a separate indigenous state within the nation of Canada. Originally Nunavut was to be a tract of semi-autonomous land of some two million square kilometres. However, a further deal was done, and the two million square kilometres of semi-autonomous land of this state-within-state became 350,000 square kilometres of freehold land. This will be formalised in 1999, and will in effect leave Canada with another country bigger than the State of Victoria within its borders.
"It is imperative that the Australian people know and understand the international forces driving the aboriginal industry and the flawed and divisive concept of native title. It is crucial to realise that the underlying blue print and inspiration behind the creation of a separate indigenous nation within Canada and the impending creation of an aboriginal nation within our own country is the United Nations Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
"There is an undeniable link between the events in Australia and Canada. The man who was the architect of Nunavut in Canada is now living in Brisbane, and planning a Nunavut for Australia..."

The text of Ms Hanson's speech will be published in the October edition of Intelligence Survey, and is almost compulsory reading for those concerned about the native title/Wik issue presently before the Parliament.

How is it that Ms Hanson's speech received almost no press cover whatever? Is this material unimportant, irrelevant, or simply too hot to handle? Perhaps the press have begun to apply the traditional sanctions to Pauline Hanson, which have been applied to others, like Graeme Campbell, who might have something constructive to say. That is, a media blackout that can only be penetrated by initiative and a grasp of grass-roots political action with an 'alternative' media network.

MAHATHIR'S ANTI-SEMITISM

Prime Minister of Malaysia. Mr. Mohamad Mahathir has been condemned for anti-Semitism because he has noted that a number of those who allegedly manipulated the Malaysian currency, leading to a financial crisis, were Jewish. Speaking to a 10,000 strong crowd of Muslims, Mahathir accused foreign speculators and currency traders of having an agenda to block the prosperity of Muslim nations, and noted that George Soros was Jewish.

Malaysia is a multicultural society that seems to have its problems. Of the 20 million population, about half are Muslims, with Islam as the official religion. Mahathir was speaking in a Malaysian state in which the leadership favour strict interpretation of Islamic law. There is no such thing as a Human Rights tribunal in Malaysia, which actively "discriminates" as a matter of state policy. For example, Malaysia has no diplomatic ties with Israel, and Israeli citizens are not permitted entry visas for Malaysia. Australians may find it strange that our Asian neighbours are apparently quite free to "discriminate", but we are not. Will becoming "a part of Asia" enable us to adopt similar "discriminatory" policies? Is the official Malaysian policy on Israel any worse or better than the old "white Australia policy"? Of course not.

QUOTING FROM THE SHOOTERS JOURNAL

Editorial
"There is good evidence that flawed information is being used to misrepresent facts relating to firearms not only in Australia but overseas, and our country is one of the leaders in that distribution.
"Large numbers of academics and career bureaucrats have been working behind the scenes, feeding each other in a closed information circuit, ultimately persuading an Australian Prime Minister with a ready-made package of 'research' conclusions that it would be a good idea to quash legitimate firearm ownership. As an Australian voter, are you happy about this?

What Politicians and Bureaucrats Tell Us
"With regard to Australia's obligations to the United Nations on gun laws. . . it comes in the preamble to the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which came into force in Australia in 1983. . It is clearly a reference to the reduction of armed forces maintained by nations, not firearms by individuals." - Terry Ryan, senior policy advisor to National Party Leader Tim Fischer, 12/3/1997.

"The United Nations, notoriously, has no teeth and is unable to enforce any resolutions unless individual governments decide to take action in their own territories. . . The UN resolution (to implement 'national measures in order to check the illicit circulation of small arms') is not aimed at you." - Barry Jones Member for Lalor, Victoria 26/2/96.

What U.N. Bureaucrats and Officials REALLY Say
"(There is a need to ensure) the control and monitoring of arms allowed to citizens by means of a computerised national register listing all persons holding a permit to own or carry arms, as well as all relevant information on the individual, the arm permitted and the use the individual intends to make of it." - General Assembly, Disarmament Commission Working Paper, 18 April -9 May, 1994, submitted by Luis Jamamillo, Colombia

"Creative ways of approaching the proliferation of light weapons, such as gun buy-back programs, could reduce the overall supply.... Unless there is a global norm which decries the consequences of light weapons, it will be difficult to control this class of weapons....Focusing on particularly harmful or indiscriminate weapons an also help mobilise public outcry.... "Domestic gun control efforts.... (would likely be improved by) the active role of media in increasing public awareness, especially through photographs. ...(and by) the ability and resources to compile essential information and make it available rapidly to activists." - British American Security Information Council. Project on Light Weapons, Controlling Global Light Weapons Transfers: Working Toward Policy Options, Susannah Dyer and Dr Natalie Goldring, San Diego, 16-20 April. 1996.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENT

On June 6th, 1997, the Office of the Attorney General issued a letter saying this
"In relation to your statement (about firearms control) that Australian politicians are following a 'higher agenda', please accept my assurance that no such agenda exists."

On the same day, in correspondence with a firearm owner in a different state, the same office sent another letter
"Finally I advise that Australia in fact co-sponsored the United Nations resolution at the Ninth Congress of the Prevention of Crime in Cairo in 1995 in relation to the international study of firearms regulation conducted by the United Nations...."

Which of these obviously contradictory statements is incorrect? How can statements such as these originate from the same person in the same office on the same day? (End of Sporting Shooters Journal material)

FROM THE PRESS

"Scrap migrant industry" - by John Masaauskas, Herald Sun, 11/10/97
An East European migrant who became one of Australia's biggest mining bosses has called for multiculturalism to be scrapped. Western Mining corporation chairman Sir Arvi Parbo said a migrant industry had developed to look after problems that often didn't exist. "To some extent it's deplorable because it sort of encourages people to be dependent on something other than themselves, and to look to somebody else to fix their problems for them," he said.
"My suggestion is that we should give up this word (multiculturalism). It has outlived its use-by date," he said. End of article.

In a Weekend Focus feature in the same publication titled "Our Baltic Invasion", Sir Arvi is also quoted as saying, of the migrant experience, "All in all, it was quite painless. I've never had any problems, then or later".

Meanwhile, however, the policy of multiculturalism continues its way of poisonous permeation of our society. The following passage darkly illustrates its essentially anti-Christian character
"Viewing the art of offence" from The Age (editorial, 10/10/97)
'Piss Christ' is a sacrilegious work in that it desecrates a symbol that many people consider deeply sacred. It is interesting to wonder whether the debate about its exhibition would be couched differently if the religious emblem in urine were a Star of David, a text from the Koran or an Aboriginal artifact. It might be that, in a pluralistic culture mindful of the sensitivities of minorities, such a perceived insult to a particular religious or ethnic group would not be countenanced. As a mainstream belief, Christianity has no such protection. (Emphasis added).