WONDERS WILL NEVER CEASE

by Jeremy Lee
The decision by Treasurer Peter Costello to prevent Shell's takeover bid for Australia's North-West Gas project goes against everything the Howard Government - and the Keating Government before it - has pursued since coming to office. The record of the Foreign Investment Review Board bears testimony. With an executive of 23 Treasury economists and an annual budget of $2.1 million, last year the FIRB approved 3,907 foreign applications worth $78 billion, rejecting only 96. In the previous financial year the board rejected 112 applications and approved 4,754. (The Australian Financial Review, 26/4/01)

The FIRB is chaired by Sydney businessman Mr. John Phillips, and also includes former federal Liberal Chris Miles, and NSW Lotteries Corp director Ms. Lynn Wood. With such a handsome budget and research facilities the FIRB should be a shining light. But it is stymied by the lack of any definition of what is the "national interest" it is supposed to be reviewing.

Trevor Sykes, in The Australian Financial Review (24/4/01) commented: "FIRB has been a rubber stamp to foreign marauders for nearly a decade because there are no clear rules on what represents that foggy entity called "the national interest". Paul Cleary, writing in the same issue, said: "... the most damning assessment of the regime comes from a 1994 Senate inquiry chaired by the Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, at the time an Opposition frontbencher. In the report, 'Percentage Players', the inquiry concluded that the system was opaque and open to corruption. "The committee believes that this system is fundamentally flawed. The problem is not that wrong decisions are made, but that the system detached itself from scrutiny .... "The possibility of corruption, deal-making, or political favouritism will always exist in such an environment. A general election is an inadequate redress for parties adversely affected by apparently unsound foreign investment decisions ...."

To say the least, it would be surprising if, with annual applications worth $78 billion, there were not a few lavish luncheons and other inducements involved. It has been obvious until now that foreign multinationals and investors regard Australia as their own tramping ground. So there is much "weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth" at Costello's decision. "Acting in the 'national interest' means never having to say 'sorry'. By blocking Shell's takeover of Woodside Petroleum on Monday, the Treasurer, Peter Costello, has made a shocking anti-market decision. Xenophobia and capital snobbery are unaffordable luxuries that Australians have long indulged ..." (Sinclair Davidson, AFR, 26/4/01)

COSTELLO 'SHOOTS INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS IN THE BACK'

Fund managers, stockbrokers and currency traders based in the US said the decision had made Australia less attractive for multinational companies ...." (Aaron Patrick and Lenore Taylor, AFR, 26/4/01) Mike Nathan, executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, (which receives funding from both Shell and Woodside Petroleum) said:
"... The fact is, Australia can't afford to shut out foreign investment, particularly in capital-intensive and technologically advanced industries such as petroleum ...."

The Chanticleer column (AFR, 24/4/01) made a realistic point: "... The fact is, if Costello has any intellectual credibility he would admit that, had he been faced with the decision at this time last year, he would have imposed tight conditions on Shell and allowed it to table its bid to get control of Woodside ...."

Of course, Chanticleer is right; and the Editorial in the same issue explained why: ".... No matter how the Government attempts to justify its decision, the truth is that it has buckled under populist pressure ..... The Government must do more to confront the fears that fuel opposition to foreign investment. People who vote for politicians such as Pauline Hanson fear the country is being taken out of their control by the forces of globalisation ...." Which raises the question - isn't it the duty of government to represent the pressure and will of the people, rather than multinationals? The corporations may have funded the parties to the score of millions of dollars; but the people voted for the politicians and must come first when it comes to representation. And the people are speaking!

The letter-columns of The Australian (26/4/01) following the decision were a true reflection of what ordinary Australians feel: "All sides of the political fence should applaud the Government's decision to keep Woodside in Australian hands ....It is about time we not only kept some of the paddocks but tried to buy back the farm" wrote a Brisbane writer. " .... Only a series of wimpish Australian governments has allowed one industry after another to be taken over by overseas interests. Every time this happens, Australians are thrown out of work and our balance of payments gets worse because profits which had previously stayed in Australia are sent overseas ...." wrote a South Australian correspondent.
".... To the world: We aren't as stupid as our past conduct has implied. To Lib backbenchers: Their wishes do count when they stand up for their constituents. To Labor: Don't count your chickens for October ...." wrote a third from NSW.

While the feelings of ordinary Australians is increasingly obvious to politicians, very few journalists have supported national sovereignty as opposed to global control. One of the few was Ivor Ries, writing in The Australian Financial Review (24/4/01): "In rejecting the Shell bid, Mr. Costello clearly refused to be held hostage by speculators - many of whom had hired public relations spruikers to threaten the collapse of the $A - and to take a long-term view of the national interest. While Mr. Costello's decision may be brave, he is certainly not blazing a new path. The US and many European countries regularly block or impose severe conditions on foreign takeovers on the grounds of national interest....." All of which goes to show that the will of Australians CAN prevail once it is given focus.

The annual survey by Quantum Market Research - quoted last week - is very significant in an election year. The full report costs $20,000, and is studied by bankers, insurers, food and drink companies, car makers, media groups and government agencies. To be sure, with a federal election looming, many a politician in a marginal seat will be looking anxiously at the findings. The Quantum Market Research's annual AustraliaScan social values study states that Australians are angry and emotional at what has been happening to their country.

A review of the report (The Australian, Media section, 19-25/4/01) said: "'Companies should expect more volatility. Sixty per-cent of the 2000 annual respondents believe globalisation is dangerous and a threat to our way of life ..... Australians have decided in the past two years they don't like the reform and change agenda of the 90s .... AustraliaScan expects people to lash out at governments, big business and in their shopping styles ....' says Quantum's social researcher David Chalke: 'Those pressures have been building up and because they happen gradually, nobody really notices them and nobody really responds to them until something comes along externally. Another recession or downturn has knocked the top off the pressure cooker. It's not a nice picture at the moment. There's a sense of division and polarisation ....'"

Normally, arrogant politicians respond to such views by saying they have not explained the benefits of their programmes adequately to the people. They add that they are prepared to listen. Such tripe is now running out for globalisation-driven-and-funded parties. This applies as much to the ALP as to the Lib/Nats. Only a new direction will earn merit points for future representatives. It is a combination of all these factors that have forced the Howard government to make a decision over Woodside and Shell that it wouldn't have even considered a year or two ago.

This is a very good time for On Target readers to drop a line to their federal members saying that, for once, Treasurer Costello has made the right decision. Who knows? He might even make a second one!

PEOPLE SICK OF SLEAZE

Another finding by Quantum Research's AustraliaScan: "....There has also been a steady rise in the number who say sexually-explicit language on television is not acceptable. Of some concern for advertisers with a raunchy bent is the 20 percent increase in those who find sex themes in advertising on the nose (65 percent)....." So if you're sick of sleazy advertising material, drop a line to the company concerned, mentioning the AustraliaScan findings, also saying that you have been put off their products by the advertisement.

Yes, YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. As we've pointed out before, the letter that is NOT written affects no-one. Federal Members and Senators can be reached by simply writing to Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, 2600. We'd be interested in any startling replies.

THE 'PRIORITIES' OF WA's LABOR GOVERNMENT

by Betty Luks
It is not that long since government in WA changed from Liberal to Labor hands. The voters threw the Liberals out with the help of the minor parties and Independents. But is the new Labor Government eager to tackle the issues that are causing such stress and break-up of families and destroying the social fabric of communities, towns and cities? Not likely! One would have thought issues such as growing drug abuse, home invasions, more and more international control over our affairs, even the push by Shell to take over Woodside Petroleum might have been of priority concern to them. But no.

You know what is of pressing concern for the Gallop Labor government? Lowering the age of consent for homosexual activity to the ripe old age of 16 years! And they intend to push ahead with plans to lower the age of consent despite community opposition! This further debauching of our young in the West (along with the North, South and East) is going to be pushed through 'anti-discrimination' legislation.

THE METAMORPHOSIS OF CHILD INTO ADULT

DECADENCE DISPLAYED IN 'ART'

The decadence of culture in all aspects of Australian life is now so obvious. Andrew Bolt uses the announcement of the National Gallery Australia that it must purchase Lucian Freud's painting After Cezanne, to bring home this truth to his readership, Herald Sun, April 28th - "A crude, cold $8m." "How galling this will be to some people working hard and responsibly to keep their families, given the dis-order Freud has wrought so indiscriminately with genitals - in paint and in person..."

Andrew writes of Lucian Freud, reputed to be the father of as many as 40 children and grandson of Sigmund Freud the father of psychology, "The link between his profligate sex-life and his art seems clear. His bed-sheet and his canvasses are cut from the same bolt...Just how the politics of taste have changed - towards the ugly, the lovelessly sexual, the de-personalised, the shocking... "

On one thing he does agree with the National Gallery and that is that they must purchase this "crude, rude and cold painting". If only to have it stand next to Paul Cezanne's 19th century Afternoon in Naples allowing us to compare and contrast. It is, he reports, "a stark reminder of our cultural decay and death - it is perfect. Perfectly shocking, that is, to those who assume we're getting better and better in every way."

FREE TRADE FANTASIES

by Antonia Feitz
In a press briefing at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec, April 21st, 2001, US trade representative Robert Zoellick claimed free trade is a winner because it delivers economic growth, increases family income, cuts costs for families, advances freedom and supports security. Try telling that to all the hundreds of thousands of Australians who've lost their jobs. And to all the people whose wages and conditions have been reduced under the economic 'restructuring' demanded by Australia's zealous ideological commitment to 'free' trade.

If free trade did deliver Zoellick's outcomes people would embrace it enthusiastically. The fact that they don't - that on the contrary all over the world people reject free trade policies and are deserting the major parties - proves free trade doesn't deliver the claimed benefits. So what's going on? In short, the statistics - while true - only measure aggregates. Wealth is being generated, but not distributed. The figures do not reflect reality as experienced by people. People know the much trumpeted 'growth' is a mirage of job-shedding mergers and acquisitions. They know current economic policies have unjustly and disgracefully divided people into winners and losers. They know the majority of families with children struggle to make ends meet.

Tax reform burden
They know tax 'reform' has laid a heavier tax burden on people and is destroying thousands of small businesses. They know that public education and health are being run down and that there aren't enough police. They know that competition is forcing companies to cut corners - just look at Ansett's humiliation due to cost-cutting on essential maintenance. They know that the relentless drive for ever more efficiency has resulted in extremely poor animal husbandry and agricultural practices with devastating environmental consequences - look at Britain.

This is the reality that people experience and this is why the electorate is so volatile - though the elites profess puzzlement, or pretend to. Stupidly, and showing how out-of-touch they are, they dismiss the people's anger and distress as "the politics of envy". Quoting from the same globalist catechism that John Howard has learned off by heart, Zoellick said governments "need to help people adapt to change - whether it's due to trade, or whether it's due to technology or other types of competition".
No, they don't actually. Governments are supposed to govern for the welfare of all their people, not just big business.

Globalist mantra
Zoellick also parroted the globalist mantra that free trade policies "will have to work hand-in-hand with a policy to improve schools because people are going to have to have the adaptability to learn all their life and to be able to adjust". Again, why should people "adjust" to inhuman economic policies whose only goal is maximising shareholders' profits and to hell with every other consideration? Here's a better idea as a basis for policy-making: how about implementing economic policies that suit and benefit human beings? How about treating people as ends, not means?

BARREN THINKING

by Antonia Feitz
In an interview with Robert Gottliebsen, David Murray, the CEO of the now inappropriately-named Commonwealth Bank, revealed the barrenness that underlies current economic thinking. According to Murray, Australia's large current account deficit (CAD) has made Australia unattractive to investors. While he agrees that the low dollar benefits exporters, the downside is that "they will face big costs when they replace equipment and keep up with technology." (Australian, 21-22/4/01)

A sensible response would be to kick start our manufacturing industry so we don't have to import. But common sense is spurned by the free trade ideologues. Murray says we just have to make ourselves attractive again by raising the rate of return on business investment. And how do we do that? "Productivity improvement." In plain English, more of the same 'reforms' that are tearing the nation apart. Yes, Murray wants more labour flexibility (cut wages and conditions), more promotion of the online economy (close offices), more efficiency in the public sector (cut jobs and reduce services) and pressing on with more competition (destroy communities and small businesses).

Now everybody knows that these policies are as welcome in the electorate as a dead possum in the ceiling. Even politicians know it: would Howard and Costello have performed those amazing back-flips without the goad of electoral anger? Not bloody likely, as Eliza Doolittle once said. Nevertheless Murray has warned whomsoever wins the next election that if they head in the "wrong" direction, the world will harshly deal with us "because we are a debtor to the rest of the world".

Reflect on what Murray said: if whoever wins the next election is silly enough to listen to the people instead of the banks, they will be punished. Such is the sorry state of democracy in this country.

BASIC FUND

TALK-BACK PROGRAMMES

A supporter rang to say she had heard a German-Australian recounting her experiences of Allied bombing during WW2 and the atrocious conditions imposed upon the German people after the 'peace-keepers' occupied Germany, on a SA talk-back programme. The supporter's comment was "I hope those leaders of the Allied Nations burn in hell for what they did to the people."

What did they do? Dropped phosphorous bombs on the civilian population; military men will tell you phosphorous continues to burn after the initial explosion and water does not extinguish it. The scene was described, It seemed the rivers boiled as the victims jumped into the rivers trying to stop the burning of their flesh." Hideous. The starving German people tore the wall-paper off the walls and boiled it to extract the glue to eat. Germany had to be brought down to such a level that it could then be 'built up', at a cost of course. The Marshall Plan was then implemented. Big 'bikkies' for the international gangster-bankers who financed the plan.

This is a glimpse of the 'humanitarianism' of the western leaders - you know, the ones who claim the high moral ground. To get a balanced view of WW2 you need to read David Irving's works, such as "The Apocalypse" would be a good beginning. It reveals what really happened to the civilian population - including the refugees who were fleeing the oncoming Soviets - of that undefended, ancient cultural city of Dresden. Send for a book catalogue from one of the League Book Services or get onto our website. The website has a complete list of books, prices and book service addresses. Website address: www.alor.org/

SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 29th. Guest Speaker will be Mrs. Betty Luks, National Director, Australian League of Rights. Subject: "Implications of the Racial Vilification Legislation". There is a belief among the ruling elite that they know what is best for the people, even to telling them what they can think, believe, or say, on such issues as immigration, race and multiculturalism. That is an arrogant assumption and must be challenged. Although the legislation is claimed to be aimed at what is euphemistically called 'racial vilification', it will not end there. Betty Luks will challenge that belief. The meeting will be held at the Estonian Club, 141 Campbell Street, Sydney - commencing at 7.30pm. The cost of attendance is $4 per person (a steal at that price!). Books from the Heritage Book Service will be on display. For enquiries phone: (02) 9759 4450.

Next Month: Tuesday, June 26th - Mr. Graeme Campbell, Founder of Australia First Party Inc. Subject - "Is There a Way Out for Australia?"

Further Dates for your Diary: Tuesday, July 31st - Mr. Ian Murphy. Subject: "The Question of Australia's Defence"
Tuesday, August 28th - Annual General Meeting. Guest Speaker: Mr. Welf Herfurth Subject: "The Threat to Freedom and Democracy in Germany Today".

CANBERRA CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

QUEENSLAND STATE WEEKEND

STATE WEEKENDS

Dates for your diary
WEST AUSTRALIA: August 11th-12th, 2001, to be held in Perth

SOUTH AUSTRALIA: August 18th-19th, 2001, to be held in Adelaide National Director Betty Luks will be available in early June for meetings in central/northern Queensland. Those interested in having her speak on "The Arrogant Assumption Behind the Racial Vilification Legislation" please contact Mr. Gerry Patch, who is co-ordinating the tour, by phoning (07) 4635 7410.

NATIONAL WEEKEND