THE PARLIAMENTARY IDEA IN TATTERS

Without anyone quite realizing it, parliamentary decision-making has shifted out of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The real debate takes place outside, in the party rooms, without the public scrutiny which is an integral part of our system. There may or may not be some real debate about policy in the party rooms. We'll never know. But when members reassemble on the benches of their respective chambers, the decision as to how each member will vote has already been taken - and woe betide any member who breaks party solidarity.

The traditional view always was that each member was duty-bound to vote in public on the floor of the house on his conscience, and nobody could lawfully interfere with that duty. The public could know what his conscience said by reading in Hansard how he voted. The result of this disastrous change is that backbenchers are now 'faceless men and women', and the only media attention is focused on the leaders and the cabinet.

What does this mean for the public? Simply, that only a very small percentage even know who their state and federal members are. A large bulk of the population sees no connection between their 'faceless' representatives and the issues that concern them. Many interpret this as ignorance and apathy in the electorate. Such a view is wrong. Ask people their views on one thing at a time, and they express firmly-held, strongly-expressed opinions. Ask them whether their member of parliament can fix those issues and they laugh derisively. And because they don't know of any other mechanism to take note of their views and solve pressing problems, they 'turn off' from politics.
One result is that opinion polls now show an overwhelming revulsion against politicians, who are now ranked below all other occupations in terms of honesty and service.

PUBLIC POLLING TAKING OVER

Without a reliable one-to-one 'touchstone' with their own electorates, politicians are increasingly obsessed by opinion polls. Apart from national polls, each party runs its own internal polls from time to time, concerned with but one thing - how popular they are, and what their chances are in the next election. Even the big polls show something of the cynicism in the electorate.

Recent polls on the Iraq war show that nearly 70 per cent of Australians believe they were deceived by the Howard Government in its reasons for going to war - but don't care! Why? My own view is that they are so used to being deceived and disappointed that it has become a universal expectation.

Polls run in February, before the war started, amidst the biggest demonstrations ever seen in Australia, showed the majority against a possible war, although 75 per cent accepted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Once the war started, and scenes of young Australians in uniform were portrayed in emotional farewells as they left for the Gulf, the polls showed Australians swinging behind the war. This was to be expected. Supporting the home team is an Australian tradition. But now 67 per cent believe the reasons for the war were untrue. You might expect a national sense of outrage. It might yet come if we suffer Australian casualties. But at this stage the general feeling is that deception is an integral part of the electoral process. And that's sad.

RUNNING LOCAL POLLS

Where local polls are being run on an electorate-by-electorate basis, some interesting insights emerge. Ask people who their state or federal member is, and less than ten per cent have any idea. But ask their views on topical issues, and the majority have firm, often well thought-out views. Questions such as "Should the remaining 51% of Telstra be sold?" "Should an elected member of parliament represent his party or his electorate?" "Should people have the right to defend their homes and property from unlawful invasion with a firearm?" "Should the first home-owner's grant be extended?" and a host of others receive clear answers from the great majority, in both rural and metropolitan areas.

There are a whole host of things people want. They simply don't believe that our political system, as it presently operates, is designed to give it to them. These, of course, are the questions every member of parliament should be regularly asking his voters, and committing himself to "re-presenting" those views in parliament. But he'd have to buck his party to do so. So he never asks, thus choosing to remain silent and faceless and anonymous as far as his electorate is concerned.

Meanwhile, the national polls concentrate on the popularity or otherwise of the elected leaders, never realizing that most voters are turned off by the process and, if they have to choose, wonder cynically which one will do the least damage.
We're not going to change things by throwing another party in with the existing ones.

THAT GROTESQUE ISRAELI WALL

Started in 2002, the Great Wall of Israel already stretches 150 kilometres, with 500 bulldozers working franticly to extend it further and make it impregnable. President George Bush has already declared it a stumbling-block in the "road map" for peace; but Ariel Sharon is turning a blind eye to its extension and the injustices it is causing.

According to a summary of editorial opinion round the world, The Weekend Australian (26-27/7/03) said: "The West Bank wall being built by Israel was portrayed by Le Monde diplomatique as a land grab and a device that would strike at Palestinian economic infrastructure, creating enclaves and ghettoes …. Gadi Algazi wrote that prime farming land under Palestinian ownership had been hived off in the north, none of the promised gates had materialized and, under Ottoman law still in force, Palestinians with land on the Israeli side stood to lose it after three years if left untended. But more than 'annexation', the wall was part of a 'bigger project', "Refusing the Palestinians access to their fields and wells causes long-term changes to their economic system and breaks their links with the land," wrote Agazi, "if all these plans are realized, the creation of a viable Palestinian state will be inconceivable." This would lead to the dispersement of the Palestinian people as a "gradual process, steady and silent". Palestinian society would be stripped of its human resources and its dreams of independence".

Surely, that's Sharon's real intent - isn't it? What chances of Bush taking a stand? Eight feet of concrete wall, razor-wire, regular guard-posts, mined approaches and electronic sensors - some "road-map"!

THE DANGERS OF THE NEW EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

Details emerging on the proposed European Constitution, signed on June 20 and due for ratification next year, show the full horrors of what is proposed. A few random clauses make it clear:
Article 1-10 "The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's institutions in exercising competences conferred upon it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States".
Article 1-53: "The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives".
Article 1-11: "The Union shall have competence to promote and coordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States".
Article 1-14: "The Union may adopt initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States' social policies".
Article 1-11: "The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy".
Article II-21: "Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited".

The proposed Constitution also ensures shared jurisdiction in such varied areas as internal markets, justice, agriculture, transport, energy, the environment and consumer protection (Article 1-13) The National veto is to be abolished in 47 areas. A full-time European President is to be appointed, along with a full-time European Prosecutor.

Commenting on this the latest arrival of the bi-monthly English magazine Right Now said: "This combined document is clearly intended, as the preface puts it, to make the EU "united ever more closely" in order "to forge a common destiny". There can be no doubt that it succeeds in both aims. By transferring even more powers from national parliaments to Brussels, by force feeding us yet more antidemocratic political correctness, by forcing us all into a common mould, the Constitution, if passed, will indeed succeed in uniting all of us who live on this continent in a common destiny - a common destiny of drabness, neuroticism and mediocrity - a common destiny so restrictive that eventually it will almost certainly breed radical reaction …."

The same disease - which is essentially religious - runs through all western countries. It could well be termed "Bureaucoercion" - an attempt to mould, direct and control all human beings, eradicating any excellence, privilege, merit and distinction, to be replaced with "common man" in the likeness of Huxley's "Brave New World". The directors of this programme know exactly what they are doing. They see themselves as gods.

The technicians for the programme, the legions of faceless bureaucrats already indoctrinated in the new religion, believe themselves part of a righteous blueprint, whose responsibility it is to ignore and if possible correct the primitive and outmoded claims to individuality and diversity. To them "the good of mankind" does not equate with the good of individual men, women and children, but the cohesion of an amorphous mass - the lemmings or the gadrene swine of a glorious future.
Heaven help us all!

HOWARD'S WELFARE WEDGE

by Betty Luks
Political editor of The Australian, Dennis Shanahan reports various charitable organisations believe John Howard is driving a wedge between them in order to silence them on 'sensitive' political issues. The Howard-Liberals are offering charities $2.5 million to form their own umbrella group in a move seen by some as an attempt to split the community sector and isolate critics. (The Australian 31st July, 2003.)
On Target has already reported on the Bush Administration's threat to 'muzzle' outspoken members of U.S. Non-Government (humanitarian and charitable) Organisations, through control of the 'purse strings' of government-aid. (10th July, 2003)

According to Mr. Shanahan the Howard-Liberals have "committed $50,000 to develop the idea that a "Not-for-Profit Council" be set up to act as a lobby group, co-ordinator and single voice for all community groups, not just welfare bodies and charities…" In other words, the 'majority' (the numbers game again) will have the 'ear of Caesar'. "John Howard has personally put the idea to leading charity and church groups, arising from a submission to his "Community Business Partnership" body in April.

The idea is that not-for-profit organisations, which may include sporting and social groups, could use the proposed council to provide assistance with tax matters, help with insurance costs, provide management guidance and lobby for them… But some charity leaders are wary of the proposal because they fear it will be used to silence critics, isolate the existing "Australian Council of Services" - the peak body for charities - divide welfare groups and build in extra costs," writes Mr. Shanahan.

The problem is more deep-seated than that: The situation is now such that it is only financially-powerful Caesar who determines those worthy to receive the 'handouts' for humanitarian and charitable needs. The Christian churches, having forgotten their own teaching on both Caesar and Mammon, give no leadership nor direction for the people. They don't have another 'Stephen Langton' in their midst for this day of troubles, therefore, King John - in the form of John Howard - is tightening the financial nooses around their charitable necks. If the Church had a present-day Archbishop Stephen Langton to lead her against the tyranny of 'King John' Howard, the humanitarian and charitable organisations wouldn't be going, begging-bowl and cap in hand, to the financial masters for handouts.

It was Eric Butler who warned his fellow Australians
"Centralised power is the capacity to impose, from one focal point, a desired line of action upon all other individuals. Centralised power requires the sanctions of administration; the pressure of administration is probably the greatest in the field of finance, with all it's manifestations - debt, taxation, the control of the issue of finance, the terms on which we get it, and the conditions under which it is taken away. Once we grasp this, in essence, the subject of power is the central question concerning man in the world and living together in society."
"If the individual were left with his own power, particularly money power, to do things for himself whether through private institutions or through his local institutions, he certainly would not even think of wasting his time in attempting to get increased services from a central bureaucracy…
"Welfarism is another of the deadly poisoning of the whole concept of personal responsibility and Christian freedom. Deadly because the individual is bribed with his own substance and made to feel grateful. But only on terms can he get a little of his own substance back. The truth is, if you make any group so dependent upon you that they must come to you for their very substance, then you can eventually persuade them to sacrifice their very freedom for the welfare handout."
(From "The Moral Implications of Centralised Power," to be published later this year.)

1949 Liberal Party Statement of beliefs
The Liberals have moved a long way from their original philosophic base. The (1949) No.12 Statement of Liberal Party Beliefs reads: "We believe that national and economic power and policy are not to be designed to control men's lives, but to create a climate in which men may be enabled to work out their own salvation in their own way."

Jeremy Lee exposes (once again) Howard's economic rationalist belief, and it is certain he does not believe "national and economic power and policy are not to be designed to control men's lives."

On Target 10th July, 2003: "The latest Federal Budget raised the total of direct and indirect taxation to approximately $10,000 per head of population, or $40,000 for the average family of four. On top of this the States raise their own taxes…The per capita average State tax across Australia is $1,892… between them, Federal and State direct and indirect taxes now levy $11,890 for each man, woman and child, or about $47,000 for each four Australians. And they still have to pay their household rates, telephone charges and electricity on top, before beginning to earn a dollar for themselves."

Reader, sit down and work out how long you have to work for Caesar before you start to work for yourself and your own family's needs. There can't be too much spare change left in the pockets of the ordinary Australian, if any, for humanitarian and charitable causes. No wonder these groups go with begging-bowl and cap-in-hand for a handout from Caesar!

MONEY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PEOPLE

An article by the Rev'd Janice Hughes in Anglican newspaper, "Focus" (date unknown), highlights the impact Howard's economic rationalist policies have had on this country.

"'Economic rationalism', writes Rev'd Hghes, "places money at the head of all considerations…There is no place for God and certainly no place for our neighbour…Economic rationalism is 'a false god'."
Quite right Rev'd Hughes! Surely there is no better description of a man's god, than to say that his god is the power in whom he trusts?

As Senior Corrections Chaplain and member of the Social Responsibilities Committee in Brisbane, the cleric would have concern for those, in one way or another, in need of help. But to put Mammon back where it belongs, in its rightful place, is going to take more than complaints in a church newspaper. It will mean another battle with the Caesar and Mammon of the day - and the Church once more insisting that money is simply a means by which we should deal with the abundance God provides.

We were told how we were to prioritise our personal and social life aright: "Life is more than food and the body more than raiment…Where your treasure is, there will be your heart…"

C.H. Douglas wrote
Society is primarily metaphysical; its foundation, "that Faith, that Credit (from creedo, i.e., belief) based on the unity-in-diversity of human needs, which in sober truth, has moved mountains. Into the temple of this Faith the money changers have entered and only when they have been cast out shall we have peace."

Gentle reader, you need to do some serious reading. You need to be 'deprogrammed'.
The League Book Services carry a range of books explaining how the 'money changers' (Mammon) usurped the powers of government and now lord it over us all.

Must reading
"The ABC of Social Credit" by Elizabeth Holter;
"Australia 2000- How Bright the Vision" by Jeremy Lee;
"The Truth About Social Credit" by Eric D. Butler;
"The Money Trick" by Institute of Economic Democracy;
"The Breakdown of the Employment System" & "The Use of Money" by C.H. Douglas.

For the beginner the "Introducing Social Credit" series.

Details and prices for all books are available on request from all League Book Services.

N.Z. 'BOOK BURNING' AND CENSORSHIP SCANDAL ERUPTS

The New Zealand Herald is keeping its readers informed of a Canterbury University 'book burning' scandal which has 'erupted and is spilling over' into the public arena. The recent 'eruption' can be traced to a controversy that surrounded the 1993 masters thesis of former Canterbury student Joel Hayward, which questioned the validity of Holocaust history. The story thus far ...
· 1991: History postgraduate student Joel Hayward, aged in his late 20s, begins to write a master's thesis which questions the extent of the Holocaust.
· 1993: The 360-page thesis entitled The Fate of Jews in German Hands is completed. Described as an historiography of Holocaust revision it questioned the use of gas chambers, claimed far fewer than six million Jews died, and found no direct evidence of plans to carry out mass murder. The thesis is embargoed for three years, later extended to six years.
· 1994: Canterbury University awards Hayward a first-class honours pass, which was concurred by an external examiner at Waikato University. Hayward later withdraws his main conclusions but the thesis is meanwhile praised by controversial Holocaust "revisionist" historian David Irving.
· 1996: Hayward appointed to Massey University as a senior lecturer in defence and strategic studies.
· 1999: Hayward asks Canterbury University to withdraw his thesis from its library, but is refused. He is allowed to write an addendum.
· Early 2000: Waikato University Professor Dov Bing reviews the thesis for the NZ Jewish Chronicle and Hayward faces a strong public backlash.
· April 2000: New Zealand Jewish Council condemns Canterbury University for condoning the publication of the thesis and refusal to withdraw it from its library.
· December 2000: An independent inquiry headed by retired judge Sir Ian Barker finds Hayward's thesis was faulty and its conclusion unjustified. The university vice-chancellor, Daryl Le Grew, apologises to the Jewish community.
· June 2002: Hayward resigns from Massey University to recover from a nervous breakdown caused by the stress from the publicity and death threats to him and his family. Has since worked as a freelance historical writer, having published books including his most recent - a thematic study on Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson called For God and Glory.

An article by Canterbury University historian Dr Thomas Fudge in the May 2003 issue of History Now examined Dr Hayward's treatment over his 1993 masters thesis, which questioned the validity of Holocaust history. Dr Fudge, who lectures on medieval religious dissent and witch-hunting, explored what for Dr Hayward became a career-ending controversy. He revealed in the article that Dr Hayward had been harassed, received death threats against his children, and suffered an emotional breakdown. He left his teaching post at Massey University in June last year and is unable to get another job. Dr. Fudge's article which appeared on 6th May, The Fate of Jews in German Hands: From Holocaust Historian to Holocaust? played on the title of Hayward's thesis, "The Fate of Jews in German Hands."

Dismissal and resignation
Editor of History Now Professor Ian Campbell was asked to appear before his editorial committee and history department head Peter Hempenstall. Prof. Campbell disclosed, "…The board disapproved of my editorial decision and, as a result, I couldn't continue as editor." An embargo was slapped on the journal and 500 copies recalled. As result, the decision to recall and destroy copies of the history department's journal, and dump the editor Professor Ian Campbell, has divided the academic community. Dr. Fudge, who wrote the offending article, has resigned in disgust explaining he could not remain at a university that suppressed academic freedom. Dr Fudge said he plans to leave at the end of the year. "It made me a hypocrite trying to teach my students to think critically and ask the tough questions - all of the academic values that universities are about - and here my department was saying, effectively, we're going to burn books."

Vice-chancellor Professor Roy Sharp and history department head Professor Peter Hempenstall in defence of their decisions said while a university should not prevent an academic publishing controversial or unpopular opinions, it was not obliged to publish such an article itself. There had been no attempt to stop publication elsewhere. "Indeed, Dr Fudge was offered suggestions as to other media in which he could publish."

In the article, Dr Fudge asked if Dr Hayward had been the victim of a modern-day witch-hunt. He stressed the importance of academic freedom and said it was the duty of universities to challenge conventional beliefs.

The New Zealand Herald quoted the national president of the Association of University Staff, Bill Rosenberg, as saying "he had taken calls from academics around the country worried about the censorship."

BASIC FUND

WEST AUSTRALIAN STATE WEEKEND

SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

UNITED SETTLERS ASSOCIATION (UKSA)

WEBSITE - www.bankwatch.info