FAIRER RULES FOR OUR EXPORT INDUSTRIES?

by Betty Luks
As you read the following article think very carefully about what the president of the South Australian Farmers' Federation is actually saying.
The Adelaide Advertiser reported the South Australian Farmers' Federation intends to initiate a national campaign to gain fairer rules for our export industries. Only time will tell what effects the US-Australia FTA will have on the farmers, but it seems these fellows are attempting to shut the gate after the horse has well and truly 'bolted'. Where have they been all these years? Jeremy Lee and Eric Butler have been warning them for decades their politicians were selling them out to the New World Order bosses… but they wouldn't listen! Instead they listened to the hirelings in their midst who ostracised and demonised any local League supporter who tried to warn them.

Of course they are right when they claim the National Competition Policy targets export industries using pure economic ideology to guide its decisions, and, with the radical restructuring taking place under the reform 'guidelines', up to 2 million jobs are at risk.
But, they are wrong when they say that as farmers they couldn't survive if their export markets were lost -- because the local market accounts for only 20 per cent of what they produce. They merely demonstrate they also are victims of pure economic and financial ideology. It is not unlike an arms manufacturer saying he couldn't survive to produce for the local market if he couldn't export 80 per cent of what he produced --- even if those arms were being activated and 're-imported' against him!

What John Lush the president of the S.A. farming group is really saying is that under the present economic and financial policies the farmer cannot financially survive upon the financial returns he gets for 20 per cent of his production. Think about it. What an incredible situation. A very small portion of 20 million people -- our farmers -- produce enough to feed 100 million people… and yet financially, they won't survive unless they keep doing it. If we take into account the infrastructure needed to supply the water, the energy and the soil nutrients it takes to produce enough food for 100 million people, that is a lot of our physical resources being used up and exported just for the return of financial 'figures'.

Physically the production is huge. If the farmer operated as a self-functioning feed-back system, he couldn't possibly consume all he produces - not in years and years, and yet financially he can't survive. No matter that he exports 80 per cent of his real physical wealth in return for the bulk of the figures in his bank account. Under the present rules the farmer is trying to fight with his hands tied behind his back, but if the financial and economic policies were changed for the benefit of the Australian people, he might find that instead of having to work from daylight to dark, he and his family could take some time off, have a decent holiday. Not only could he and his family have a rest, but he might discover the lands could also be rested and he wouldn't have to rape and abuse his soil into the bargain. But for him to see that, he would have to have a complete change of mind and understanding.

Are we ever going to hear Australians ask the question: Why should our farmers have to produce enough for 100 million people when the population is only 20 million? What prevents the farmers, and us, from gaining a just price for their goods and allowing them, and us, to live in relative peace and security?
Clifford Hugh Douglas reminded us: "It is the volume of money, and not the amount of available goods which governs the purchasing power of the general population."

The Liberals need to be reminded of their 1949 Statements of Beliefs, Nos.12 & 16:
"We believe that national financial and economic 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."
"We believe that all forms of industry, primary or secondary, or otherwise, depend one upon another, and that their community of interest will be the guarantee of the nation's growth."
Nothing there about the need to export, export, export - or we perish!

THE DAVID HICKS 'KANGAROO' COURT

The following information is from internet sources:-
David Hicks, Guantanamo Bay prisoner of U.S. military authorities, met with his parents for 15 minutes before the military tribunal proceedings began last Wednesday. There were no guards present for the meeting, and it was unclear whether Hicks was shackled. The U.S. military said he would be allowed to meet them once more after the hearing. Hicks, who arrived at the prison camp in Guantanamo in January 2002, could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted. He pleaded 'not guilty' at the hearing. Before Hicks made a plea his attorneys were allowed to question the five-member commission panel on their qualifications and impartiality.

Presiding Officer challenged
Hicks' lead civilian defense attorney, Joshua Dratel, began by challenging the presiding officer, Army Col. Peter E. Brownback, a former military judge. He contended Brownback had ties to John D. Altenburg Jr., a retired Army general in charge of the proceedings.
Brownback worked with Altenburg in Fort Bragg, N.C., and his wife worked in Altenburg's office. He also attended the wedding of Altenburg's son and spoke at a retirement gathering for the general.

Osama bin Laden's driver also in Court
On Tuesday, the first day of the tribunal, Osama bin Laden's chauffeur, 34-year-old Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen, declined to enter a plea. That hearing marked the start of the first U.S. military tribunal since World War II. Hamdan withheld his plea until motions filed by his military-appointed lawyer are decided. A ruling is not likely until November. His defence is challenging whether the hearing should proceed without a ruling on his ''enemy combatant'' status, which allows fewer legal protections than for prisoners of war. That classification was used to justify trying Hamdan and others before the tribunals, which will allow secret evidence and no federal appeals, rather than at courts-martial or in U.S. civilian courts.

Hamdan's defence attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Swift, has filed a lawsuit in U.S. civilian courts in Washington alleging the illegality of commissions. Swift also challenged the capacity and impartiality of four panel members - including the presiding officer - and one alternate.
''It is important that these proceedings not only be fair, but appear fair to the world,'' Swift said in the hearing Tuesday that lasted more than eight hours. Hamdan is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, including attacking civilians, murder and terrorism. He isn't charged with any specific violent act. Hamdan, also known as Saqr al Jaddaw, has said he earned a pittance for his family as bin Laden's driver before the Sept.11 attacks, but has denied involvement in terrorism. U.S. officials allege that he served as the al-Qaeda leader's bodyguard and driver between February 1996 and Nov. 24, 2001, and that he delivered weapons to al-Qaeda operatives.

The only member of the commission with formal legal training is the presiding officer, Army Col. Peter E. Brownback, a former military judge who volunteered to come out of retirement. Asked by Swift whether he thought the proceedings were legal, Brownback chose not to answer.
John D. Altenburg Jr., a retired Army general, will decide whether any of the commission members should be removed. It was not clear how soon he might rule.

NGO's WEIGHED 'IN THE BALANCE' AND FOUND 'WANTING'

Margo Kingston's expose of John Howard's moves to bring the Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)'to heel' through a centrally controlled government body, ("Not Happy, John", Chapter -- Keeping democracy in its place) is well worth reading.
Margo Kingston saw that "John Howard has a very rigid view of who does - and doesn't - have a right to work with and lobby governments.
· Churches should stick to 'religious issues' - meaning that they should shut up about wars or whether a GST on food is fair.
· Charities should quit talking about the causes of poverty and stick to doling out soup and blankets.
· Non-profits that stay out of 'politics' or toe the government's policy line - are fine.

For those who don't do what he wants, Howard has a five-phase plan to shut them up or shut them down.
Phase One: stop funding NGOs that speak out, thus intimidating others into silence.
Phase Two: strip activist NGOs of charitable status.
Phase Three: set up a government 'non-government organisation'.
Phase Four: use public service and intelligence assets to spy on awkward NGOs.
Phase Five: require NGOs to qualify for a 'licence' to talk to government.
The result: NGOs that do manage to retain government funding inevitably self-censor.

Many of those groups who raise their own funds still depend on governments granting them the status of charities to remain viable, including the tax deductibility of their supporter's donations. (Australians claim half a billion dollars a year in tax deductible gifts.) After the introduction of the GST the government set up an inquiry to 'define' a 'charity'. Peter Costello rejected the definition to any charity that had as one of its purposes advocacy of a 'political cause' or 'attempting to change the law or government policy'. And who would make the critical assessments? Why the Australian Taxation Office of course! The department directly under the Treasurer!

What in the world is happening to the Welfare groups?
In the light of the above, Margo would have a few problems with David Brockschmidt's address "What in the world is happening to the Welfare Groups?" to the League's recent S.A. Seminar. David has been 'a thorn in the side' of not just the large supermarket chains in Adelaide but also the large professionally-run commercial 'charitable' organisations as well. Over the last twenty years, David has collected the perfectly good food, clothing, shoes, etc., from the supermarket waste bins and distributed it out to charitable groups. You know, those groups who solicit our dollars for their work among the poor and the needy.
After waking up to what they did with his donations - threw them out into their own rubbish bins - he now works only with some of the smaller charities. He knows from first hand they are using the goods for the needs of the people.

Bigger organisations not interested
He has been trying for years to get the bigger organisations to improve the services they offer by using the unwanted goods from Coles, K-Mart and Woolworths. David, in his address to the seminar said:
"The hard-core charity professionals have well paid and secure jobs, and power, over the paid workers and the good-hearted volunteers. Their whole aim in life is to have power over others and the belief that they have a ticket to heaven. It is about time that we pulled the Holy Masks off their faces and show the public what they really are. They are part of the ruling class as so clearly shown in George Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. I am sure that if Christ came back today they would be the ones who would go to Hell while Heaven would be reserved for all the victims of their system.

My message to charity workers is as follows
You are in the position to fight the causes of poverty and not to profit by treating the symptoms. You are not here to keep the people dependent in order to justify your jobs. You have to attack power structures in order to bring justice into our sick society. You are charity workers in the name of Christ. Men and women with a mission. You must be crusaders against the evil forces in your own charity organisations and in our society."
David had more to say on those charitable organisations that spend more on CEO's salaries, overseas trips and 'bricks and mortar' than they do on the poor and the needy. In a world where two thirds of the population struggles to eat properly each day, the amount of wastage from supermarkets shows the darkest side of our consumer society.

He insisted
Let us not shy away from the fact that these food retailers are only giving us what we demand - fast, efficiently packed, guaranteed fresh, cheap groceries. The question we must ask ourselves is whether the poor and hungry of the world are paying the price for us.

** For the full story of a modern David's battle (address) against the Goliath Supermarket chains and 'Charity' groups, send $6.00 to Mayo Tapes, Box 6, Hahndorf, S.A.

THE CANADIAN SCENE: CROWN CORPORATIONS UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT

Paul Fromm, Canadian Association for Free expression, 24th August
A passel of Crown corporations which collectively suck up billions of taxpayers' dollars each year are pleading they should be exempt from the freedom-of-information law. They want to live in hog heaven on our money, but bristle at the thought of any scrutiny on the part of the tax slaves who support them. Free speech supporters will be especially incensed at the attitude of the Race Relations Foundation, headed by former B'nai Brith heavyweight Dr.Karen Mock. "The Race Relations Foundation was 'concerned about malicious or frivolous requests from white supremacist and other racist groups' seeking information to discredit human rights and multicultural policies, or to harass race relations agencies and community groups."
Just what would a "malicious" request for information be? It's hard to imagine. And if information, that is, truth, would discredit human rights or multicultural policies, don't they deserve to be discredited? Canadians have too long been given them mushroom treatment by federal bureaucrats: kept in the dark and fed ……!

CBC among agencies balking at inclusion under access-to-information law by Jim Bronskill
(The Public Broadcaster) CBC argues its journalistic sources will dry up if the public broadcaster is forced to comply with the country's freedom-of-information law. The CBC is among several Crown corporations squarely opposed to the looming possibility of becoming subject to the federal information law. Internal Justice memos spelling out their positions were released to The Canadian Press in response to a request under the access law. The federal sponsorship scandal has fuelled debate about whether Crown corporations - state-controlled companies that operate at arm's-length from government - are sufficiently accountable to the public.
(Australians readily recall the recent disclosures of the ATSIC members' disgraceful misuse of public funds…ed)
The Access to Information Act enables people who pay $5 to request government-held records ranging from expense reports and audits to correspondence and opinion polls. But more than a dozen Crown agencies, including the CBC, Canada Post and Via Rail, are excluded from the law. As part of its response to the sponsorship affair, the government is looking at broadening coverage of the access act.
Two years ago, a federal task force proposed new rules that would result in application of the law to most Crown corporations.

IRAN WILL DESTROY ISRAELI NUCLEAR FACILITIES IF OWN ATTACKED

BASIC FUND

LETTERS

The following letter appeared in "The Argus" Goondiwindi, Queensland above the name of Senator Len Harris.
U.S. "RIGHT" TO RAISE PRICE OF DRUGS
"U.S. drug companies will have an inalienable right to push up the cost of Australian pharmaceuticals under the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I revealed the fundamental flaw in the agreement in Parliament with letters exchanged between Trade Minister Mark Vaile and his U.S. counterpart Richard Zoellick. Minister Vaile's letter said:
"Australia shall provide opportunities to apply for an adjustment to the price of pharmaceuticals under the PBS".
Mr. Zoellick's response confirms and accepts the arrangement. I'm concerned that Labor amendments could not stop the U.S. ratchet up prices.
Australia can alter domestic legislation in regard to the PBS as much as we like, but disputes between Australia and the U.S. over the PBS or any element of the agreement will be decided by a dispute resolution panel, based on the text of the agreement, nothing to do with Australian law.
Mark Vaile's letter of exchange on the PBS forms part of that agreement. The dispute panel set up under this agreement is like an invisible government.
One Nation opposes the shift in decision-making. There is an abysmal lack of basic protection for Australia in all areas, including the PBS.
Senator Len Harris, One Nation, Queensland.

IRAQ INVASION, 9th August 2004.
Dear Mr. Howard, Prime Minister, Canberra
I have studied the subject of the invasion of Iraq by United States, British, and Australian armed forces once the commencement of the concept was first reported by the media. My conclusion derived from the evidence presented, is that the 2003 invasion like that of 1991, was, illegal, immoral, and illogical. [by illogical I mean avoidable, and not in the interests of Australians!]
I have listened to your comments as reported by the A.B.C. Sunday, 8th August, 2004.
I have before me three documents:
(a) "Final Judgment of International War Crimes Tribunal", which was done in New York 29th Feb., 1992, finding those charged viz. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dan Quayle , Secretary of Defence Richard Cheney, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Commander of the Allied Forces in the Gulf, guilty of nineteen separate crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the First Protocol thereto, other international agreements and customary international law.
"The Members believe that it is imperative if there is ever to be peace that power be accountable for its criminal acts and we condemn in the strongest possible terms those found guilty of the charges herein. We urge the Commission of Inquiry and all people to act on recommendations developed by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social justice on which lasting peace must be based." EQ.
[If guilty then, how much more culpable are those people responsible for the 2003 invasion?]
(b) "Sexing it up - Iraq, Intelligence and Australia", by Geoffrey Barker.
(c) "The five biggest LIES BUSH told us about IRAQ", by Christopher Scheer, Robert Scheer, and Lakshmi Chaudhry. (Copies of covers of (b) & (c) enclosed.)
Mr. Howard: Why don't you give the Australian people the REAL reason for the invasion of Iraq by the United States of America, Britain, and Australia, which is namely: to assist the modern Zionist State of Israel in its long planned expansion of its borders to the rivers Nile and Euphrates? Knowledge and intelligence of this objective has been readily available for many decades!
An early reply before the coming Federal Elections would be very much appreciated.
Yours faithfully, John David Sterling Barton, Collarenebri, NSW.

FREEHOLD TITLE UNDER THE CROWN
The following letter by J.D.S. Barton is also of much interest and a matter of concern to all freehold property owners in this land. Constitutional authority Dr. David Mitchell was asked at a public meeting in an Adelaide hotel a number of years ago:
"Under Land Rights, do the Aboriginal people have title to the land in the same way the owners of this hotel have freehold title? His answer was, "it is not clear!" I also wonder are the Aboriginal people aware that they are being used for future Fabian plans of attempting to set up a Socialist republic. The Aboriginal people probably believe they have freehold title to the land and in the event of such a catastrophe for us all taking place, they would find they have been 'managing' the land for their future masters!
Dear Mr. Latham, Leader of the Opposition: 9th August, 2004.
I have heard you state publicly that you are personally in favour of Australia becoming a republic, and that in the event of yourself becoming Prime Minister, you would initiate a referendum on the matter within a few years of obtaining that office.
I understand that at present all land titles in Australia stem from a foundational title derived from the "Crown".
I also understand that since the "Mabo" and "Wik" cases in the High Court, Native Title has been firmly established as a foundational title, though at present not strong enough to replace the foundational Crown Title.
I also have a further understanding based on what I believe to be sound legal advice, that in the event of Australia becoming a republic on the abolishment of the Crown Title, before any foundational title based on a republic can be put into place, even be it less time than a nanosecond, that on the removal of the Crown foundational title Native Title immediately, and automatically slips into the place of the Crown Title as the foundational title for future land titles in Australia!
I have a question:
Will you fully inform the people of Australia of how Native Title will replace the Crown Title as the basic foundational title of all land titles in Australia, on the advent of Australia becoming a Republic BEFORE the question of Australia becoming a Republic is placed before the Australian people at a referendum?
An answer to my question, before the campaign for the coming Federal Election gets fully underway would be very much appreciated.
Yours faithfully, John David Sterling Barton, Collarenebri, NSW.

NATIONAL WEEKEND COMING UP

BOOKS, BOOKS, BOOKS

"Howard's War" by Alison Broinowski. Why did John Howard lead Australia into a highly unpopular war with Iraq? The war has cost Australians more than $700 million, so far, but has predictably made Iraq and its neighbours more unstable - and hasn't delivered any of the results our leaders 'promised'. How could it have been 'in Australia's interests' when it has made us a target for terrorism and put us at odds with our Asian neighbours? John Howard mightn't have revealed his real reasons for going to war but this book does.
Price: $23.95 posted.

"Guantanamo: What the World Should Know" by Michael Ratner and Ellen Ray. David Hicks' Australian lawyer Stephen Kenny has written as Introduction to the book. "Make no mistake, Guantanamo is a prison where cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment - even torture as we know - is practised, and it is utterly illegal," writes Michael Ratner. He warns his readers, "Alarm bells should be ringing throughout the West. Liberty, democracy and the right of dissent are at stake. The recently deceased former president Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union -- "The Evil Empire". Is America turning into a fascist state? It is just incredible the way human beings can justify their own barbaric actions! This is a must read. Price: $30.00 posted.

"Not Happy, John" by Margo Kingston. In the triumphant first-flush of toppling Saddam Hussein, John Howard invited George Bush the President of the United States to visit our shores and speak on the matter which had so bitterly divided the nation. She writes on that presidential visit: "…what I experienced on 23 and 24 October last year made me fear for our democracy's future. I saw a Parliament on its collective knees before a condescending Imperial Caesar, led by a lame provincial governor of a Prime Minister so blind to the duties of his own democratic office, so unmoved by the issues still rending his own people, that he turned what might have been a healing thank-you visit into just another vehicle for his own ambitions. I saw him do so at the expense of Westminster traditions and norms of civilised behaviour that I'd thought were above partisan politics. I saw elected politicians - elected by us, the Australian people - shouted down, physically manhandled and viciously abused."
That day, John Howard, 'conservative imposter disguised in ill-fitting Menzies hand-me-downs' kow-towing to the Imperial Caesar, "had left the public service in ruins -- reduced to mere caterers, lackies, careerists and political stooges." She saw, "The castrated press gallery was largely oblivious to what was happening to our democracy before their very eyes on their own professional beat". $30 posted.