THE NATION-WIDE ATTACK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

by Jeremy Lee
There is no joy in being able to say "We told you so" over an issue of national importance that threatens liberty. In 1968 - 34 years ago - the Australian League of Rights published a small booklet of 29 pages titled They Want Your Land. The theme was that a programme devised by the British Fabian Society in the 'thirties to dispossess property-owners was being applied in Australia. It did not operate by forceful ejection, but by a combination of controls, charges, inflation and debt which finally robbed owners of any equity in their property. The objective was the same as that of Karl Marx, although methods differed.

As They Want Your Land explained: "In 1848 a man called Karl Marx, and his colleague Engels, outlined in The Communist Manifesto ideas which have changed the course of history. In this basic Communist document, Karl Marx listed his famous ten steps for communising a State. It was made clear that these steps were means to an end, not an end in themselves. The Communist Manifesto said that they will 'in the course of the movement ....necessitate further inroads upon the old social order ....'
As a former Canadian Communist Party Member, trained in Moscow, put it 100 years later, '...one control leads to cause another, until, as a logical result, the State controls and finally owns everything.'

The following are eight of Marx's ten points:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of the number of State factories and instruments of production; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture .....

They Want Your Land went on to point out the difference between Lenin's revolutionary approach and the Fabians' 'gradualistic' programme for achieving Marx's objectives. The gun was Lenin's weapon; 'permeation' that of the Fabians. The famous George Bernard Shaw described the Fabian approach: "....we urged our members to join the Liberal and Radical Associations in their district, or, if they preferred it, the Conservative Associations - we permeated the party organizations and pulled all the strings we could lay our hands on with the utmost adroitness and energy, and we succeeded so well that in 1888 we gained the solid advantage of a progressive majority full of ideas that would never have come into their heads had not the Fabians put them there."

Less than 20 years after the formation of the Fabian Society in Britain, Federation took place in Australia. It was to be some years - 1948 - before an Australian Fabian Society was formed. But British Fabian ideas had arrived in Australia earlier, through the Socialist International. The Fabian concept for the future of farming was published by its policy division, "Political and Economic Planning" (PEP), on April 25th, 1933, which included the following statement: "Whether we like it or not - and many will dislike it intensely - the individualistic manufacturer and farmer will be forced by events to submit to far-reaching changes in outlook and methods. What is required .... Is the transfer of ownership of large blocks of land - not necessarily of all the land in the country, but certainly a large proportion of it - into the hands of the proposed statutory corporations and public utility bodies and of land trusts."

Instead of wiping out the farmers by brute force, as Lenin did in the Soviet Union, the devious Fabians preferred the never-ending economic "squeeze", coupled with more and more regulations designed to ensure that the farmer, while retaining his title-deeds, was unable to make choices on the use of his property. The combination of these policies of gradualism began to exact a terrible toll of Australia's family farms.

The National Party (or the Country Party as it was formerly called) found itself under enormous pressure as farmers demanded answers. Sooner than tackling the Fabians, the Nationals chose the easier course of attacking the League of Rights for explaining what was happening. But even their own advisers were spelling out the future. The Queensland Countryman (the Party's own news-paper) in November 1968 carried the remarks of Professor Tribe, who told the National Farmers' Union in Hobart:
"This problem of clearing the country of clodhoppers and hayseeds is a human problem. We're caught in forces which are international and enormous - if we stand up and try to stop them, they will overwhelm us, we have to soften the blow in economic and human terms. The people who remain on the farms are also going to be syndicated, corporations, companies, etc. What has happened to the broiler industry is setting the pattern for other industries ...."

Faced with such a programme the Country Party-cum-Nationals crumpled, and ever since have accepted the role of a limp tail on the Liberal dog. John Anderson was recently described as a "Liberal in gumboots". But so were his predecessors, as far back as Doug Anthony, who coined the infamous phrase "Get-Big-Or-Get-Out". The onslaught has now reached a new intensity with the advent of a mass of environmental laws which go as far as telling a farmer with freehold title deeds the sort of vegetation and grasses he may or may not grow. Any of his land within 50 metres of a waterway is confiscated from usage - even though he must by law keep it free of state-proscribed weeds and pay rates on it. That's a perfect example of a successful Fabian operation.

Now - as we explained in last week's issue of On Target - under the new provision of water privatisation, he will face the loss of the water that falls on his own land, either having to buy a "water-title" or else 'leasing' the water he requires for his farm. If ever there was an example of the separation of ownership and control, that's it. The farmer can endure a great deal so long as he has certainty of title. He is, by the nature of his occupation, both innovative and independent. A system of viable family farms is the greatest deterrent to tyranny. Both Marx and the Fabians knew that. What a pity the Nationals refuse to recognize the fact!

Mabo struck a mortal blow at the certainty and security of tenure. The mass of bureaucrats who arrive with instructions on how the farmer is to run his property have added to that uncertainty. Freehold title goes all the way back to Magna Carta in Britain, which declared: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

Ever since the right to private property has been woven into the freedoms of the English-speaking peoples. Magna Carta went so far as to enshrine the biblical principle that a man's debts could not be applied to his widow when he died. The practice of usury, which is the root cause of today's inflation, was condemned in terms which today would be called 'anti-semitic'. At the time of its formation, when it possessed some philosophical principles, the Liberal Party recommended and used the classic book The Road To Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, first published in 1944.
Hayek made this statement:
" ... What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. If all the means of production were vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of 'society' as a whole, or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us. ....

It is pathetic, yet at the same time encouraging, to find as prominent an old communist as Max Eastman rediscovering this truth:
"It seems obvious to me now (he writes in a recent article) though I have been slow, I must say, in coming to the conclusion - that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of freedom and equalness that Marx hoped to render infinite by abolishing that institution ...."

The sanctity of private property developed in Britain over hundreds of years (resulting in such well-known concepts as "an Englishman's home is his castle") was transferred almost immediately into the fledgling Australia of 1788. Records of newly-released convicts being granted land-titles can be found in the first settlements. The States, as they gained authority each instituted secure title-deeds, lease-hold and free-hold, under the Crown. It is suspected that many of the hundreds of regulations being applied to property owners are in conflict with established freedoms under Common Law, and would be struck down if tested before the High Court. Certainly, earlier precedents in Australia appear to justify such an opinion. But it is only when land-owners begin to work together instead of being penalized one at a time, that we'll ever know. The time to find out is now.

IRVING'S COURT CASE COSTS HIM HIS HOME

ONE NATION'S REPLY TO 2002 BUDGET

A portion of Senator Len Harris' (One Nation) reply to the Liberal Government's recent Budget. Send to his office for a copy of the reply in full. Senator Len Harris, Tel: (07) 3202 2300; PO Box 1000, Ipswich, Qld., 4305.
E-MAIL: senator.harris@aph.gov.au FREECALL IN QUEENSLAND: 1800 638 820

Asset sales and privatisation
Sydney airport is up for grabs. The rest of Telstra will be flogged off. What is left for the future? I put it to you that this government plans to sell off anything that is not nailed down.

GATS - General Agreement on Trade and Services
There is another agenda that the government is keeping low key. That is a General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS. First and foremost, it is an instrument for the benefit of business, a treaty currently in effect designed to gradually whittle away Australia's service industries, broadly defined as everything from health and aged care to education. By June 30th, 2002, countries must submit requests for service sectors that they would like other countries to include under GATS. The European Commission wants the removal of the national interest test. It wants Australia Post open to competition and more access to our water services. What other requests have been made? GATS negotiations and requests for market access must be clearly laid out. A serious and informed debate must take place.

While on the subject of GATS, I want to raise the government's Intergenerational Report. The two issues are linked. Future economic growth opportunities are going to be the greatest in an ageing society. There will be a shift of resources into sectors that serve the aged, such as health care and leisure, the very services that GATS cover. If the GATS enables liberalised health and aged care services, this will lower the fiscal exposure of the government to the ageing population, absolving government of its social responsibilities.

Supermarkets & Multinational dominance
GATS is a treaty to benefit multinational companies. Our service sector will end up just like our supermarket sector. During the last decade, the large players have grown to a point where Woolworths's share of industry turnover was 41.2 percent in 2001 and Coles' share was 31 percent. These two companies therefore control over 70c in every dollar spent in this industry. The rise of one-stop shopping and the looming threat of Sunday trading will be the nail in the coffin of the local mum and dad operated stores, our small businesses. I am not just referring to supermarkets; I am referring to hardwares, nurseries, newsagencies, petrol stations, hairdressers, butchers, fruit and vegetable stores.
Liquor retailers, health food stores and others are feeling the pinch. They cannot compete with the size of Coles and Woolworths and the massive buying strength and alliances of the multinationals ensconced in the shopping plazas.

Small Business
Where is the helping hand for small business in this hour of need? The Australian Small Business Association has already criticised the government's forecast of a 12 percent increase in business investment this next year. The figure is grossly overstated and unrealistic. ASBA said on ABC radio that many thousands of small businesses have no money in the bank. "They are living on a day to day basis to make their profit and to be able to pay their day to day expenses."
Has the government consulted with any of the key stakeholders in the economy at all or are they only interested in the top end of town?

Anti-terrorism Bills smack of Police State
While all of the anti-terrorism bills smack of the police state, the Proceeds of Crime Bill 2002 will be seeing a turnabout of the common law principle of innocent until proven guilty. A person's assets can be forfeited on the balance of probabilities, on a mere suspicion. This government seems to have a special penchant for odious legislation which reverses the onus of proof and common law principles.

ENRONITIS - A COMMUNICABLE DISEASE

Taken from "Elitists' Hands in the Cookie Jar" by Jim Rarey

In a February 2002 article on the collapse of the American giants Enron and Global Crossing, investigative journalist Jim Rarey noted: "If the Enron practices are as widespread in other companies, as some believe, we may be seeing a domino effect with Enron and Global Crossing only the beginning."

The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) having sifted through testimonies presented at a Congressional Enquiry into the collapse, have compiled a list of suspect practices engaged in at Enron. A questionnaire was sent out to 150 other energy companies, requiring them to answer under penalty of perjury, whether or not they were engaging in any of the suspect practices. The result was a veritable flood of disclosures. So far, over US$ one trillion in the value of the stocks of these companies has vanished and that doesn't take into account the billions of US$ in bonds for which an accounting has yet to be made.

The 'problems' are not limited to energy producing and trading companies, implicated in the scandals are retailers such as K-Mart (FBI criminal investigation) security analysts, brokerage houses, insu-rance companies, auditors and consultants, large investment banks and even bond rating services.

Surprise, surprise, Banks in it too
And banks such as CitiGroup, Credit Suisse, First Boston and J.P. Morgan Chase are involved in the scandal. A subsidiary of the Rockefeller controlled CitiGroup (Travellers' Insurance) is suing its own parent company for losses on transactions it insured between CitiGroup and Enron. Some very powerful and well-connected directors are claiming they were misled by company executives and/or auditing firms. Many are members of the elitist US organization pushing for world government, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Others are associated with one of the CFR's many spin-offs or organisations controlled by CFR members such as The Trilateral Commission (TLC) and the Business Roundtable.

Mr. Rarey writes: "The maze of sham transactions has set insiders against each other in a scramble to cut losses and point fingers."

WHAT WILL WE TELL OUR CHILDREN?

THE 'SEASONED POLITICIAN' ALWAYS 'SCENTS' THE DANGER

by Betty Luks
"Seasoned politicians are always aware of who they associate with because someone is always watching," writes Phillip Coorey in Canberra. "Early lesson for Family First MP", Advertiser, Adelaide, May 27th, 2002.

Quite so Mr. Coorey. In this day of the politically correct watch-dogs, seasoned politicians are very conscious of who they associate with; they wouldn't be seasoned and they certainly wouldn't still be politicians if they didn't! I'm not sure Mr. Coorey intended to spell it out quite so plainly as any On Target reader would read the article, but he names as one of these self-appointed 'watch-dogs' (one of the self-appointed groups always watching), "the Melbourne-based B'nai B'rith Anti Defamation Commission, a national organization 'dedicated to researching and combating all forms of racism'".

Wouldn't 'wolf-packs' be a better description of such groups? These packs roam about looking for any 'sheep' that might have strayed from the politically correct fold. Their job is to menacingly threaten to destroy or devour any such 'strays'. Mr. Coorey identifies this "one self-appointed" pack which "watches closer than most... Its board of advisers includes former governors-general Sir Ninian Stephen and Sir Zelman Cowen, former prime ministers Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke and other eminent people - Lowitja O'Donoghue, Sir Walter Campbell and Neville Wran... The self-styled watchdog releases a monthly journal 'presenting news and analysis of far-Right activity in Australia and the world'."

The unfortunate 'new-born lamb', targeted by the wolves in this case, was newly elected member of the South Australian Upper House, Andrew Evans, who represents the Family First Party. "Mr. Evans" writes Phillip Coorey, "was pinged for giving a speech in late April 'at a far-right meeting of the minds'. The occasion was the Adelaide Forum, sponsored by the Australian Freedom Foundation. The forum had promised to focus on the issue of whether world events were being 'shaped by conspiratorial forces'." I happened to be at that meeting and had summed up Mr. Evans as being a pleasant sort of a fellow, but would need to gain more political astuteness and 'do some homework' if he was going to be truly effective in helping families. In politics, it is one thing to say we have a problem - all the parties will tell you that whilst in opposition - it is quite another thing to fight like hell to have the right policies implemented. It is another thing to know what are the right policies!

Lots of wolves out there
With those wolf-packs out there, some of the braver sheep will end up bloodied and battle weary. In fact, they might need to call on the Good Shepherd to give them some protection and guidance! What was Mr. Evans' 'litmus test' when deciding if it was 'politically correct' to address the AFF? "I went in there, I gave my speech and left. I asked before I went: 'Are you with the League of Rights?'"

Notice the poor lamb did not stay long enough to be 'indoctrinated' by the politically incorrect. (Both the Australian Freedom Foundation and the Australian League of Rights are Christian-based movements.) No straying from the 'herded flock' by this little lamb. Oh! Dear! Be not concerned Mr. Evans. Such a 'politically correct little lamb' will probably grow up to be a 'seasoned politically correct politician'.

TOOWOOMBA WEEKEND

2002 EDITION OF 'YOUR RIGHTS' IS NOW AVAILABLE

You can purchase your copies direct from Australian Civil Liberties Union, Post Office Box 1137, Carlton, 3053. Price $6.50; $8.00 posted.

'Your Rights' has been published every year since 1974 and is the most commonly used laymen's guide to the law in Australia. It has chapters on wills and estates, rights of victims of crime and pension payments. The rights of taxpayers, investors, consumers, motorists and mental health are also discussed. The 2002 edition also discusses anti-terrorism laws, Tampa, September 11th, Falun Gong, ASIO and DSD. A review in the Law Institute Journal said: "Your Rights 1999 is an extraordinary publication - a must have for just about everyone.

ADELAIDE FORUM TAPES STILL AVAILABLE

SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

WEST AUSTRALIA - ANNUAL SEMINAR & DINNER

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN STATE WEEKEND

NATIONAL WEEKEND