RECOVERY? OR A NATIONAL FUNDING CRISIS?

by Jeremy Lee
The Federal Government and its economic spokesman Treasurer Costello are fond of telling us how well Australia compares with the rest of the world, with one of the fastest 'growth' rates in the OECD. After a few years of privatisation and the selling of national assets, federal government debt is lower than for a long time and we've had a period of more modest interest rates. How come, then, that we have insurance firms toppling over, medicos who refuse to work because of lack of cover, hospitals teetering on the edge of calamity, universities facing intractable budget blow-outs, ambulance services only partially operating?
While this is going on, we have further government hand-outs to foreign multinationals to keep operating in Australia so that, even though the profits go out of the country, Australians can still obtain jobs from foreign companies in their own land.

The current medical crisis is a case in point. With the collapse of United Medical Protection following HIH, thousands of neuro-surgeons have, temporarily one hopes, ceased work while some sort of 'rescue operation' (using tax revenue) is launched. But the crisis in health and medicine is not new. It has been building for years. The key factor as in every other stressed sector, is the accumulation of debt.

Three years ago The Sydney Morning Herald (17/12/99) reported: "The cash crisis in the State's hospitals has worsened, with debts rising almost 15 percent to a record $387 million in the last financial year and businesses in some areas forced to wait up to two-and-a-half months for payment. "In addition, the NSW Auditor-General, Mr. Bob Sendt, found there had been further difficulties since June, with a blowout in the time taken to pay bills. "Mr. Sendt warned that many health area services, particularly in rural areas, remained stuck in a cycle of using Health Department loans to try to pay bills on time. "'Unless there is some strategy in place to improve the relevant areas' financial operations, these loans simply substitute one financial obligation for another,' he said....."

One year later six general surgeons at the John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle resigned because they were instructed to cut surgery by 45 percent due to a "budget blowout". The Sydney Morning Herald (9/2/00) said: " ....the director of general surgery, Dr. Stanley Chen, said the surgeons had been performing only what was absolutely necessary .... 'We are not prepared to take any further cuts from our current level. It's the bare minimum at which we can provide the services we have to provide ...'"

The crisis cut right across the board by the first part of this year (2002). Overrun hospitals were working out ways to keep patients away. The Sydney Morning Herald (7/3/02) told its readers: "Major Sydney Hospital emergency departments are closing their doors to ambulances carrying all but the most critically ill patients for up to five hours a day.
"The worsening hospital over-crowding crisis is exposed by Health Department figures .... "Emergency departments in Sydney were partially closed for 5642 hours in the six months to December – nearly double the shutdown times for the same period in 2000 ...."

Although health is currently in the spotlight, every sector is feeling the pinch. Australia's venerable university system, which has turned out outstanding academics in all fields in times past, is scrambling and competing for the Almighty Dollar. The Sydney Morning Herald (15/4/02) reported: "More than a quarter of universities do not have enough money to make ends meet, the Federal Government's latest report on the status of Australia's troubled education sector shows. "The report indicates 10 of the nation's 38 public universities recorded 'negative operating margins' in 2000. Just five were in the same position in the previous year....."

So what's the result? Universities, like the beset legal profession, hang out their shingles and tout for commercial business in a way that trivializes their customary standards. The overseas student is prized above Australia's own young people, simply for commercial reasons. Every sector is under stress. The Defence system, with a pitifully small number of active service-men, is continually scratching for resources. Research and Development has been cut to a degree where the nation's best brains seek better opportunities overseas. Maintenance on Local Government infrastructure is hundreds of billions of dollars in arrears. While there is a universal feeling that taxes are too high and punitive, from every quarter hands are held out for an increased budget allocation.

Politicians, of course, revel in the situation which appears to have no answer. "Where's the money to come from?" is the stock answer to the most justified plea for financial resources, or the most angry complaint about initiative-stifling-taxation. Their art is not to allocate where there are most needs, but where there are the most votes. But there is never any genuine questioning of a budgetary system that places large segments of the economy into conflict and stagnation. The idea that taxation is the only source of public expenditure is played to the extreme. But nobody dares question the $100 million freshly-created money that is added to the money supply each 24 hours!

This is outside accepted discussion, being the private domain of a small cartel of rapacious trading banks. Their job is to extend their loan base as far as possible, whether to a public hospital, a prestigious university, or a lowly couple wanting their own home. And then to maintain a permanent, interest-yielding debt structure that delivers them the fattest profits possible through boom or bust, without ever considering the cost in human misery. And no politician dares question the system. Their job is to tax as high as possible, and then allocate the handouts.

If that $100 million new money each 24 hours was credited to Australians instead of being charged at interest, it would work its way through the system, finally cancelling out an equivalent debt. As each sector found its aggregate debt receding, it would begin to emerge with better services for lower costs. This in turn would allow genuine tax reductions. The overall result would be a more productive economy without the threat of higher interest rates. But the private trading banks would scream, and corporate donations to political parties would drop alarmingly!

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP – MOPPING UP

As this is written the good ship SS Yarra has changed course from Adelaide for Port Pirie because it fears possible union-sponsored-demonstrations in the South Australian capital. Why? The Australian company which owns the ship has announced its intention to re-register the ship under the flag of the Bahamas. It's a simple procedure. As a private company there is no law against such an action. Having done so it no longer comes under the maritime law which sets minimum pay and conditions for Australian seamen. It will sack its Australian crew and fly in a new crew from the Ukraine. Ukrainian seamen are prepared to work for much lower wages, and do not have to pay taxes in Australia. Neither does the company.

The Australian shipping industry has warned long and loud that such a precedent will result in the destruction of our maritime industry. We agree. It is so outrageous it brings the blood to the boil. But in the language of globalism, where the highest output from the lowest wages is the way to go, this is a "smart" move, and entirely in keeping with the advice given by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and his Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Australian IT companies to make their bases in India, where costs are lower and wages are cheaper.

What future for Australia and its current retreat from a reasonable standard of living with such 'leadership'?
To Australians concerned for their country and future generations this is betrayal.

FREE TRADE? OR FREE EXPLOITATION?

THE FAVOURED FEW

In contrast to its parsimony to Australian industries and services, the Australian government falls over itself to hand tax-grants to multinationals. Back in 1989 Australia handed $35 million to Eastman Kodak because it threatened to close up shop and go to Brazil. It promised to stay in Australia for five years and save the 800 jobs that would otherwise be lost. The brave John Howard – at that time in Opposition – roasted Keating's move: "....At that time John Howard staunchly opposed the deal, describing it as corporate 'blackmail'. He told Button in a television debate: 'There are hundreds of companies that say, if only the Government can give us a few million, we'll give them back billions. I just think that what you're doing is opening up a Pandora's Box for others to come and blackmail'" (The Sydney Morning Herald, 13/12/97).

But when he took office as Prime Minister, John Howard went even further than the Keating Government. Out came a new official policy: " .... Howard's industry policy statement is a wholehearted declaration of Australia's willingness to bid keenly in what has been characterized by some academics as a 'global auction' for investment from multinational companies The process will be overseen by Australia's new Strategic Investment Co-ordinator, Bob Mansfield, who has held chief executive posts with McDonalds, Optus and John Fairfax. He will advise the Government on the 'possible use of incentives for particular projects'.

Investors will have a direct line to the PM ....While these undefined investment incentives could be paid to local companies, the promotion of the package is distinctly geared towards foreign investors. The industry statement says these incentives reflect the 'increasingly mobile' nature of world capital."

"The statement explains: 'The Government will, however, consider the provision of investment incentives, in limited and special circumstances. Such incentives could include grants, tax relief, or the provision of infrastructure services. They will be considered on a case-by-case basis ...."

Australia has one of the highest levels of foreign corporate ownership in the world, and this means that much of the 'value-added' work is done offshore. A 1992 study by the now defunct Economic Planning Advisory Committee (EPAC) predicted a rise in the proportion of foreign-owned corporations from 33 percent to about 50 percent by the first decade of next century ..... The emphasis on foreign investors has angered some local manufacturers who say the Government is showing more interest in attracting new firms at the expense of existing ones ....." (Sydney Morning Herald, 13/12/97). In fact, foreign corporate ownership was much higher than anticipated – over 90 percent.

Could ever a sellout be better explained? It had only been some eighteen months earlier – on June 7th, 1996 – that the newly-elected John Howard had faced the biggest gathering of investment bankers ever held in Australia in Sydney, where Mr. John Corzene, at that time chairman of Goldman Sachs, "a former central banker, was asked by the group to specify (to Prime Minister Howard – Ed) conditions for what he called the 'inherently blunt process that leaves many worthy initiatives without resources ....'" (The Australian Financial Review, 7/6/96).

And so the handout to foreign multinationals continued, while Australian industries went to the wall. In 1999 $100 million to Comalco for its Gladstone operation. Comalco has since been bought by one of the most powerful and ruthless global multinationals, Rio Tinto. And the latest, $75 million ($35 million from the Commonwealth and $40 million from the South Australian government) to the Japanese Mitsubishi company. It will, we're told, save 800 jobs.

But Australian companies also employ people. No handouts or tax incentives for them. Currently, South Pacific Petroleum is seeking help to keep its Gladstone oil shale project alive. It has one big disadvantage; it's Australian owned. Think on these things as the last vestiges of an Australian-owned Australia are mopped up, by permission of a Government that hasn't got the guts to stand for Australia.

RECYCLING EVENTS FROM HISTORY

by Betty Luks
Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council has complained the ABC should not have shown the year-old BBC documentary The Accused, in which presenter "Fergal Keane alleges that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is responsible for crimes against humanity and argues that he should be tried for war crimes in connection with the Sabra and Shatilla massacre of Palestinians by the Phalange Lebanese militia forces in 1982." (Australian Jewish News, 26/4/02).

Describing the programme as "a deeply disturbing piece of anti-Israel advocacy journalism" and "a deeply flawed documentary" which "is the subject of serious allegations over its accuracy and balance", he goes on to complain the programme "recycles events that occurred almost twenty years ago, yet provides no new evidence". What Mr. Rubenstein fails to mention in the article is that a Belgium court is still considering whether to charge Ariel Sharon with war crimes for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres in 1982 – and that there are survivors of the massacres who want to testify to the court. Thus presenting first-hand evidence that has been suppressed all these years.

As for accusing the programme of "recycling events that occurred almost twenty years ago", there are those within the Jewish communities who have no qualms about 'recycling events' that occurred over fifty years ago – if it suits their agenda. Phillip Chester, president of the State Zionist Council of Victoria ("Israel in crisis: how you can help", Australian Jewish News, 29/3/02), suggested just what the Jewish community should do to help the Israeli cause in the Middle East.
Media response and contacting opinion-makers is not something that needs to be left solely to the communal organizations to tackle. Every individual who can write or is prepared to speak to journalists, politicians or other communal leaders can take an active role here. If you do not have enough information, or do not feel confident to carry out these tasks, please contact the State Zionist Council or any of the many other communal organizations that are involved in these issues. Join our Public Speakers Service and speak to non-Jewish organizations about Israel, the Holocaust or Jewish life. Mr. Chester continues, "I know that we all pray that eventually there will be a peaceful and secure co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians. However ... at this critical juncture, when her population is being continually terrorized, its duty and first priority must be to protect its citizens. No other country would think or act differently."

Quite right Mr. Chester, the same goes for the Palestinian people who certainly see themselves as also having a national identity and a national homeland. Hanan Ashrawi – Palestinian Christian spokeswoman (hardly a 'terrorist') – had this to say of the plight of the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation forces (Durban, South Africa, August 28th, 2001):
"From Jerusalem, from the heart of Palestine, a land besieged, and repeatedly violated by a most brutal Israeli military occupation... From the midst of the people of Palestine, a tortured nation, guilty only of unwavering commitment to freedom, dignity and independence... From the depths of unredeemed history, I have come to join you today. I represent a narrative of exclusion, denial, racism, and national victimization, but I also come with a message of hope, redemption, and historical vindication embodied in the spirit and the will of a people that has refused to succumb to all forces of oppression, violence, cruelty, and injustice."

Excluded, denied, victims of racism, and national victimization? What about 'the Israelis doing unto the Palestinians as you would have them do unto the Israelis' Mr. Rubenstein?
Professor Arnold Toynbee once observed "The most tragic thing in human life is when people who have suffered impose suffering in turn".

SHARON'S PLAN TO DRIVE PALESTINIANS OUT?

In an article published in the UK newspaper The Sunday Telegraph, 28/4/02, Israel's "leading historian Martin van Crevald predicts that a US attack on Iraq or a terrorist strike at home (he lives in Jerusalem), could trigger a massive mobilization to clear the occupied territories of their two million Arabs". Will we read about it or view the attacks on the Palestinians in our compliant media? Probably not, writes the historian. He predicts any outside intervention would be held off by the Israeli air force. They would not drag people out of their houses, but use heavy artillery to drive them out; the damage caused to Jenin would look like a pinprick in comparison.

"Three submarines will take up firing positions. Borders will be closed, news blacked out and all foreign journalists confined to a hotel. The article ends by asking "Are you listening Mr. Arafat?"

My question is: Are the Christian Church leaders going to do anything about the holocaust that took place in the Jenin refugee camp and what have they got to say about the attack on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem?

REAL EVENT WAS ELECTORAL HUMILIATION OF GOVERNING DUOPOLY

It is easy to see why the 'politically correct elite' of France are squealing like stuck pigs at the result of the first round of voting for the office of president. The 'political earthquake' we watched on our TV screens was not due to the sudden rise of the Front National. Le Pen's party has had very solid support for years, and on April 21st polled only slightly more than it did in both 1995 and 1997. The truly momentous event was the electoral humiliation of the governing duopoly: The candidate of the Socialist party which has ruled France for the last five years polled just 16 percent, yes, 16 percent of the vote. Meanwhile the 'President of all the French' – Chirac – is supported by less than one in five of them. For that matter, reported John Laughland, Le Pen gives the distinct impression he is not particularly interested in power for himself. The Spectator, 27/4/02.

Le Pen also shared some personal thoughts with Laughland from which we quote: "Great historical events are the result of a concatenation of people and of Providence... My beliefs are simple ones. I believe in the nation and the family. Together with the nation, the family is the crucible for what little possibilities there are for human happiness. Society must have certain fundamental values or else there can be no personal development...You will think this odd coming from a politician in the middle of an election campaign. But I regard it as pre-apocalyptic that people are, right now, fighting around the stable of Jesus. If there is a massacre at the Church of the Nativity, if blood is shed, I will take that as a serious sign, as a warning from Heaven. But life must go on..."

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor, I read the two extracts from your initialled correspondents, OT 12/4/02, condemning Peter Hollingworth with a certain sadness. That there was failure on a superficial level due to an over centralised church organization seems quite clear. Social Crediters should be the first to recognise that over-centralisation induces human failure, while decentralisation protects against failure.
What should be equally clear to Social Crediters is that had not Peter Hollingworth been appointed Governor General, it is highly doubtful that that failure would have ever seen the light of day, and it should be equally obvious, the attack on Peter Hollingworth arises out of fear an appointee from the Christian Church may discover the prime spiritual principle Christ established in the exercise of power, so clearly expressed in the few words given us by Lord Acton.
Why the Christian Church has never taken on board the statement that "All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", and nailed it to its masthead along with Christ's Great Commandment on Love, could be classified as one of the great theological blunders in the 2000 years history of the Christian church.
That failure may rank as great a mystery as the appointment by John Howard, the globalist, of a Christian Bishop to the position of Australian Governor General.

The fact is, there is absolute consternation in the ranks of those working for the destruction of Christian constitutionalism because of this appointment. For the moment, Peter Hollingworth has destroyed their first attempt to regain lost ground by stubbornly refusing to yield. No constructive critic can deny the voracity and viciousness of the sustained, unrelenting, campaign mounted by the most powerful forces of mammon, both nationally and internationally, in their efforts to remove him. That he did not yield must be counted as a positive for the character of the man by those who understand what is at stake.
We should take the positive view, Peter Hollingworth either understands what is at stake, or is learning very quickly. To increase that learning his critics may care to seek an assurance from the Governor General, an understanding, that his high office was designed to emulate the evolution of the Christian Monarchy as an institution which functions as a bulwark against power that corrupts absolutely. This was the support we gave John Kerr whom Gough Whitlam counted as a reliable republican. We can do no less for Peter Hollingworth.
In fact, we can do much more if we give the matter prayerful consideration.
Yours faithfully, Edward Rock, Cape Paterson, Vic.

Mr. Nigel Jackson sent the following letter to The Australian 13/4/02:
Sir, The occasion of the funeral of the Queen Mother, marked by exquisitely beautiful and morally profound ritual and liturgy, displayed the grandeur of the soul of Britain which is epitomised in the Sovereign and her royal family. Yet in your leading article "Monarchy's role up for discussion" (13-14/4) you assert that "the monarchy must face the reality of a new world order". On whose say-so, I wonder? It must be a remarkable political order indeed if it can match the inspiring spirituality of Britain's – and Australia's – monarchy. You also advise us that the Crown "has become less relevant in a modern, diverse and independent" Australia. I should have thought that that diversity makes the Crown more relevant as a source of national unity and dedication to the common weal. By the way, are we "independent" of that new world order"?
Yours sincerely, Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic.

LETTER WRITING

BOX-IRONBARK PETITION

OLGA SCULLY LOSES DEFAMATION CASE

TOOWOOMBA STATE WEEKEND, MAY 25th-26th, 2002

DATES FOR YOUR DIARY

ADELAIDE FORUM TAPES AVAILABLE