THE COALITION: AUSTRALIA IS OPEN TO BE EXPLOITED

by James Reed
First and final post-election comment. Previously I wrote about the record number of ethnic/non-Anglo Saxon candidates run by both the Coalition and the Labor Party. I have gone through the results and on the information available to me, believe that “star” recruited ethnics all failed to make the grade, both for the Coalition and the ALP.
As well, the alternative parties also fell into the multicultural trap and their ethnic candidates scored poorly. Independent ethnic candidates also scored poorly, some scoring lower than say, nationalistic candidates. Overall, good times!

Joe Hockey, Treasurer who was “born in Sydney in 1965 has a different background from many of his parliamentary colleagues. His father, Richard, was born in Palestine of Armenian background, and came to Australia in 1948. The family’s original name was Hokeidonian.” Source:

The Treasurer is a big-growth man. He wants a focus on infrastructure: “We need cranes over the cities, we need to have cranes around the country.” (The Australian 10 September 2013 p.19) Here we go again. There are masses of vacant office spaces in cities right across Australia – what do we need more buildings for? Well, we don’t, but it seems that the sole purpose of Australia, with its insane, unsustainable immigration policy, is just to provide more profits to the housing and construction industries.
What a pathetic ending for humanity. A world which was once “human scale” has been transformed into a vast “multicultural, commercial, residential and retail mecca” – for what? And for how long? Will all this be here in 200 years time? Or even 20?

Remembrance of Things Past
Even so, given all of the above horrors which now will engulf our long-suffering nation, we can take only a brief gasp of air and think about what Labor had in plan for us. First they would continue with destroying what remains of free speech with so-called unification of discrimination law. Second, if it is possible, consider the attitude recently expressed by former trade minister Craig Emerson. (The Australian 12 September 2013 p.12)
The article attacks both Rudd and Abbot for what is, from our perspective, very mild mouse-like squeaks of economic nationalism. For “Asian century man” Emerson, on the foreign investment issue, “Both leaders chose to follow public opinion, refusing to accept their responsibility to lead it in the national interest.”

There is the anti-democratic sentiment of the new class exactly. With this attitude to public opinion, why even bother about “public opinion” of elections? Hopefully next election Emerson will lose his seat.  

LONG LIVE “XENOPHOBIA” !

by Peter Ewer
So, “rural leaders” are critical of National MPs and farmers wanting a crackdown of foreign buy-ups of Australia. (The Weekend Australian 14-15 September 2013, p.6) “Rural leaders” are nervous about criticism of the Indonesian government’s plans to carve out a controlling interest in 1.5 million hectares of cattle country in northern Australia. They claim that without foreign investment, meaning, allowing foreigners to buy up as much as they want of Oz, we will never become Asia’s food bowl.

Not true; with Asia owning all of Australia’s agriculture – which at the extreme is what they want – we become by definition Asia’s food bowl, whilst our people starve. Consider: If it is okay to sell of massive interests to Indonesia and that benefits Australia, then why not sell everything? And why stop there? Unload even Parliament House in Canberra if the Asians will buy it. The logical conclusion of foreign investment is national dispossession.
Never do we hear about how foreign investors get their “capital”. Clearly, if Australia through social credit had control of its own financial power, this cargo cult mentality could wither away.

Further reading: The Use of Money by C.H. Douglas Douglas’ Auckland Address

ALOR Blog: Money Its Nature and Origin

LETTER TO THE PRESS

The Editor, Stock Journal 16th September 2013.
Dear Sir,
Free Trade Agreements (FTA’s) are often encouraged and one of the recent advocates has been Rabobank’s Thos. Gieskes, who feels they ensure foreign capital for farmers (Stock Journal Sep 12).
FTA’s are meant to assist sales of our produce to the nation with which we have signed an agreement. In reality, most of these exports are from primary production which command keen support anyway because of our clean and green status.
On the flip-side is our requirement to receive imported goods into Australia. Many of these are of inferior quality and sell more cheaply than our home-grown items. Inevitably the imports cause loss of jobs and business closures in Australia.
New Zealand sells dairy products and lamb to countries they share an FTA with. In return they import more cheap food and goods than they can consume, so they repackage them for export to places like Australia under a label claiming “product of NZ”.
Surely the benefits of an FTA are questionable. Those who advocate them need to answer the question, “What if we had an FTA with every country?”
Closely following Mr Gieskes desire for foreign capital to assist farmers, has been the Indonesian plan to buy over 1 million hectares of northern Australian cattle country. The only benefit could be, to assist some debt laden farmers leave their properties. In every other regard, the same land would produce the same cattle for the same market, if we owned the land. The only difference is that we have lost ownership of the land.
Is this really the result we need from foreign capital?
Will the new Government reflect the wishes of the vast majority of Australians who oppose foreign ownership of our agricultural land?

- - Yours sincerely, Ken Grundy Naracoorte South Australia  

SEE ANY REPORTS RELATING TO THIS INCIDENT IN WESTERN PRESS ?

According to “Truth of US-Russia Confrontation” by Daoud Rammal, As-Safir (Lebanon) newspaper:
“Aggression was over the Moment those Two Missiles were Fired”. A well informed diplomatic source told As-Safir newspaper that “the US war on Syria had started and ended the moment those two ballistic missiles were fired, leaving inconsistent information, as Israel denied and Russia confirmed, until an Israeli statement was issued indicating they were fired in the context of an Israeli-US joint drill and fell in the sea, and that they were not related to the Syrian crisis.”
The source further told the Lebanese daily that “the US forces fired these two rockets from a NATO base in Spain, and were instantly detected by the Russian radars and confronted by the Russian defense systems, so one of them exploded in the airspace and the second one diverted towards the sea.”

In this context, the source pointed out that “the statement issued by the Russian Defense Ministry, which stated the detection of two ballistic missiles fired towards the Middle East, intended to neglect two points: the first was the location from which the two rockets were fired, and the second was their downing. Why? Because the moment the full military operation was launched, Head of the Russian Intelligence Service contacted the US intelligence and informed it that “hitting Damascus means hitting Moscow, and we have removed the term “downed the two missiles” from the statement to preserve the bilateral relations and to avoid escalation. Therefore, you must immediately reconsider your policies, approaches and escalation. Therefore, you must immediately reconsider your policies, approaches and intentions on the Syrian crisis, as you must be certain that you cannot eliminate our presence in the Mediterranean.”

“This unannounced direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington increased the Obama Administration’s confusion and certainty that the Russian side was ready to move until the end with the Syrian cause, and that the US did not have a way out of its impasse except through a Russian initiative which would save America’s face...” he added. From this point, the diplomatic source clarified that “in order to avoid further US confusion, and after Israel denied knowing anything about the rocket firing in its first statement, which is the truth, Washington demanded Tel Aviv to adopt the rocket firing to save its face in front of the International Community, especially since these two rockets were the beginning of the US aggression on Syria and the announcement of the beginning of military operations, after which US President Barack Obama was supposed to go to the G20 Summit in Russia to negotiate the destiny of Syrian President Bashr Al-Assad. However, he went to find a way out of the impasse he’s in.”

The source further indicated that “after the US-Russia rocket confrontation, Moscow intended to increase its number of military experts in Russia, and added to its military units and destroyers to enhance its military presence in the Mediterranean. It also set a time for announcing about its initiative on stopping the aggression on Syria after the G20 Summit, after drawing a side scene on the sidelines of the summit which was followed by two successive visits for Iranian Foreign Minister, Hussein Amir Abdul Lahyan, and Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Al-Moallem, in which a way out was agreed on with the Russian side, and it included a Syrian announcement on approving the Russian initiative regarding putting Syrian chemical weapons under international supervision and preparing Syria for joining the non-proliferation treaty.”

Finally, the source pointed out that “One of the first results of the US-Russian military confrontation was the British House of Commons’ rejection to participate in a war on Syria. This was followed by European stances, most significantly, the German stance announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel.” (Translated by Sara Taha Moughnieh)

AND NOW THAT AMERICA HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO HER KNEES

Pepe Escobar in AsiaTimes article “China stitches up (SCO*) Silk Rd” reveals:
“While the whole world was terrified by the prospect of the Obama administration bombing Syria, Chinese President Xi Jinping was busy doing the Silk Road. One has to love that famous Deng Xiaoping dictum; "Always maintain a low profile". This being the second-largest economy in the world, "low profile" always packs a mighty punch. Cue to September 7, in Astana, Kazakhstan's capital, when Xi officially proposed no less than a New Silk Road in co-production with Central Asia. *SCO: acronym for Shanghai Cooperation Organization  

Wikipedia states: The Silk Road, or Silk Route, is a series of trade and cultural transmission routes that were central to cultural interaction through regions of the Asian continent connecting East and West by linking traders, merchants, pilgrims, monks, soldiers, nomads and urban dwellers from China to the Mediterranean Sea during various periods of time. Extending 4,000 miles (6,437 kilometres), the Silk Road gets its name from the lucrative Chinese silk trade which was carried out along its length, and began during the Han Dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD).
The central Asian sections of the trade routes were expanded around 114 BC by the Han dynasty, largely through the missions and explorations of Zhang Qian, but earlier trade routes across the continents already existed.
Trade on the Silk Road was a significant factor in the development of the civilizations of China, the Indian subcontinent, Persia, Europe and Arabia. Though silk was certainly the major trade item from China, many other goods were traded, and various technologies, religions and philosophies, as well as the bubonic plague (the "Black Death"), also travelled along the Silk Routes.

Continuing Pepe Escobar: Xi's official "economic belt along the Silk Road" is a supremely ambitious, Chinese-fueled trans-Eurasian integration mega-project, from the Pacific to the Baltic Sea; a sort of mega free-trade zone. Xi's rationale seems to be unimpeachable; the belt is the home of "close to 3 billion people and represents the biggest market in the world with unparalleled potential". Talk about a "wow" factor. But does that mean that China is taking over all of the Central Asian "stans"? It's not that simple.

A roomful of mirrors: On Xi's Silk Road trip, the final destination was Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan's capital, for the 13th summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). And to cap it all off, nothing less than a graphic reminder of the stakes involved in the New Great Game in Eurasia; a joint meeting on the sidelines of the SCO, featuring Xi, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
This is Rouhani's first foreign trip since he took office on August 4. Not an epic like Xi's; only two days in Bishkek. In a preliminary meeting face-to-face with Xi, Rouhani even started speaking "diplomatic Chinese" - as in the upcoming negotiations over the Iranian nuclear dossier leading, hopefully, to a "win-win" situation. Xi emphatically supported Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Rouhani stressed the Iran-China relationship "bears vital significance for Asia and the sensitive Middle East issue".

And that leads to the common Iran-China-Russia front in relation to Syria. Even before meeting with Putin, Rouhani had agreed with the Russian four-part plan for Syria, which, as Asia Times Online had reported, was brokered between Damascus, Tehran and Moscow (See Al-Qaeda's air force still on stand-by, September 11, 2013). According to the plan, Damascus joins the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW); discloses the location of chemical stockpiles; allows OPCW inspectors access to the sites; and then comes the long process of destroying the stockpiles. In the nuclear front, Tehran and Moscow remain open for business. Russia will hand operation of Unit 1 of the Bushehr nuclear power plant over to Iran in less than two weeks. And there will be more "cooperation" ahead.

The importance of this triangulation cannot be overstated. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in that Xi-Putin-Rouhani Kyrgyz room. Tehran, Moscow and Beijing are more than ever united on bringing about a new multipolar international order. They share the vision that a victory for the axis of warmongers on Syria will be the prelude for a future war on Iran - and further harassment of both Russia and China.

The God of the market, it's us: Meanwhile, monster business - and strategic - opportunities beckon in the Eurasian corridor. Xi's Silk Road Economic Belt, with trademark Chinese pragmatism, is all about free trade, connectivity and currency circulation (mostly, of course, in yuan). It's ready to go because there are no more border problems between Russia and Central Asia. It ties up perfectly with China's push to develop its Far West - as in Xinjiang; consider the extra strategic Central Asian support for the development of China's Far West.

Here's an example. At a China-Eurasia Expo in Urumqi, Xinjiang's capital, earlier this week, China Telecom and two Hong Kong telecom companies signed seven deals with the governments and companies from Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Russia and Mongolia. Not many people know that Urumqi boasts more than 230 Internet companies; nearly half are connected with neighbouring countries. Xinjiang is not only about Han Chinese encroaching on Uyghurs; it's no less than the communications base for the Eurasian corridor - a hub for broadband and cloud computing.

Beijing is already massively investing in new roads and bridges along the Eurasian Land Bridge - another denomination of the New Silk Road. As Asia Times Online has reported, the New Silk Road is all about highways, railways, fiber optics and pipelines - with now the added Chinese push for logistics centers, manufacturing hubs and, inevitably, new townships. There are plenty of Pipelineistan gambits to implement, and a lot of mineral resources to be exploited. And, crucially - considering the original Silk Road traversed Afghanistan - there's also the prospect of an Afghan revival as a privileged bridge between Central, East and South Asia. Not to mention speeding up China's land access to both Europe and the Middle East.

In China, no major decisions such as this are "spontaneous", but there's a neat softening PR behind it. In Astana, Xi said, "my home, Shaanxi province, is the start of the ancient Silk Road"; and he was "moved" as he reviewed Silk Road history during the trip… The SCO was founded 12 years ago, when Uzbekistan joined the members of the original Shanghai Five; China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Turkmenistan preferred its splendid isolation.

The original emphasis was on mutual security. But now the SCO encompasses politics and economics as well. Yet the obsession remains on what the Chinese define as "the three evil forces" of terrorism, separatism and extremism. That's code for the Taliban and its offshoots, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The SCO also tries to fight drug trafficking and arms smuggling.

Again in classic Chinese style, the SCO is spun as fostering "mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and seeking common development", in an atmosphere of "non-alliance, non-confrontation and not being directed against any third party." …”Read further here

WHY AUSTRALIANS SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT THE TPP

by Ken Sievers, from WikiLeaks website:
What is the TPP? The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the so-called “free trade” agreement currently under negotiation between the US, Australia and several other countries.
[1] The US hopes to finalize these negotiations by October this year. The goal of the TPP is to make it easier for big business and international corporations to act across borders without interference from states. The TPP will effectively erode state oversight in favour of corporate freedom in areas such as the environment, workers rights, food safety, internet freedom, the costs of medicine, and financial regulation.

Probably the most dangerous feature of the agreement as it now stands is the introduction of an Investor State Disputes Settlement (ISDS) system, in which foreign corporations are allowed to sue countries in order to protect the profitability of their investments.
The TPP is another step in the direction of total market deregulation in the interests of international big business and is another threat to Australia’s national sovereignty. What is at stake is democratic society’s ability to regulate a market economy in the broad public interest. The TPP would constitute a further shift of power towards corporate rule without the normal means of democratic accountability, such as elections, advocacy and public protest.

Corporations can sue countries in extrajudicial tribunals The ISDS provisions of the treaty authorize the establishment of supra-national tribunals, which would be independent of any other judicial system, to arbitrate disputes between corporations and states. A leaked text reveals the extreme corporate privilege that these investor-state tribunals constitute. Under the TPP, if a company believes an Australian law endangers its “expected future profits,” it can challenge the government at an investor-state tribunal. This tribunal has the power to overrule Australian laws and levy fines against the Australian state. The fundamental assumption is that corporations can sue sovereign states, but sovereign states cannot sue corporations operating in their territory. These tribunals are a one-way street.

How do the tribunals work? Such tribunals already exist as a part of the World Bank and the UN. Normally they consist of three corporate lawyers, unaccountable to any electorate, who rotate between acting as prosecutors (suing governments on behalf of corporations) and judges in other disputes. These tribunals are not bound by precedent and there is no appeal mechanism. When an investor-state tribunal rules in favour of a foreign investor, the government must hand the corporation an amount of taxpayer money decided by the tribunal. The obvious consequence of the threat of such challenges by corporations is that states will either change or weaken their regulations to avoid the fines, or avoid enacting legislation which might attract a fine in the first place.

Some examples of decisions by these tribunals Similar tribunals in other parts of the world have already ordered states to pay over $3.5 billion to investing companies under existing U.S. agreements. These include payments over toxic bans, land-use policies, forestry rules, etc. More than $14.7 billion remain in pending claims under U.S. agreements alone. Even when governments win, they often still have to pay for the tribunal’s costs and legal fees, which average $8 million per case. The TPP would expand the scope of policies that could be attacked. For example, the TPP could be used to block the Australian government’s requirement that cigarette companies use plain packaging. If the policy was successfully challenged, Australia would either need to pay “compensation” to the relevant corporations and/or remove the rule altogether.

The TPP is being negotiated in complete secrecy. Why don’t you know anything about the TPP? Because the negotiations are completely secret. It is so secret that even in the US, Members of Congress, state governors, the press, and the public are not allowed to see drafts of the agreement. At the same time there are over 600 business representatives serving as official U.S. trade advisors who have full access to an array of draft texts and play an inside role in the process. In Australia, a few people involved in the negotiations know the details, but they are not allowed to reveal them to Parliament, let alone the Australian public. The strategy is to minimize informed political and public debate until a deal is signed, and at this point any alterations become impossible.

Should Australians worry about the TPP? Some might say that we in Australia have nothing to fear from the TPP. An article written last year stated that “the Australian Labor Government has made it clear that it does not support the inclusion of ISDS clauses despite immense pressure from corporations and the U.S. government.” As recently as 15 July this year, it was announced that the “new Trade Minister Richard Marles has confirmed Australia will not sign the agreement if it includes a so-called Investor State Disputes Settlement clause.” Without the ISDS clauses, it would seem there is no possibility that foreign corporations could appeal to investor-state tribunals to challenge our laws and policies. Still, there are two reasons why it is still necessary to raise the alarm now about the TPP negotiations

Although written before the recent elections we thought it important to republish.1. The Liberals/Nationals would “consider” the inclusion of ISDS tribunals Though the minority Labor government looks likely to reject the ISDS clauses, the Opposition who may win the next election, is ambivalent. The shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Julie Bishop, has stated they “would be prepared to consider” ISDS clauses in the TPP negotiations. The Liberal/National Coalition are generally hostile to regulation and in favour of big business and the so-called “free market”. They would likely be happy to empower these tribunals, as a means of permanently blocking government from making rules which might limit the profits of foreign and domestic corporations in the future. The TPP negotiations are already well advanced, and it would be easy for the Coalition, should they win the election, to quickly approve the TPP, including investor-state tribunals, before anyone realized what was happening.

2. The TPP represents part of an ongoing global push towards ever greater unaccountable corporate control. The TPP negotiations between Australia and the US must be seen in a global context. Not only are there many other South East Asian and Latin American countries involved, but there are similar moves in other parts of the world. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has already been in place for 20 years. The Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) between the US and the European Union (also known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is currently under negotiation. This is also being negotiated secretly. Negotiations are also currently taking place for an EU-India Free Trade Agreement along similar lines, where “democracy is being sidelined for the blind pursuit of an unaccountable corporate-driven agenda.”

Investor tribunals are the new method for extending corporate control. At the recent World Economic Forum, the EU pushed for measures to protect investors with international investment agreements involving investor-state tribunals, but several Latin American countries protested. They have had many bad experiences with these tribunals which are used to protect the profits of foreign corporations: “Latin American countries have been taken to international courts at least 153 times, 34% of the total number of known cases.”

There has also been a huge increase in such litigation. Until 1991 there were only 24 recorded cases of investor-state disputes, but in 2011 there were 450 known cases. In other words, investor-state tribunals are becoming the weapon of choice for corporations to avoid regulation in the countries where they operate, and their use is increasing year by year. Some examples from Latin America: “In 2009, the government of Uruguay, following recommendations from the World Health Organization, increased the size of health warnings on cigarettes packages. A year later, it was sued for US$2 billion by tobacco giant Philip Morris which claimed Uruguay had expropriated its trademark.

Back in 2000, when Argentina was in a deep economic crisis, the government eased people’s hardship by freezing electricity and water tariffs. It has since been battling over 40 lawsuits demanding multi-million dollar compensations.
After an Ecuadorian court ordered Chevron to pay US$18 billion in damages and clean up for oil-drilling-related contamination in the Amazonian rainforest, Chevron counter-sued Ecuador arguing that the government breached its investment treaty with the US by allowing the legal case to continue.”

Will Australia stand up and say no? Since there is a worldwide push for investor-state tribunals to protect the profits of foreign corporations, it is difficult to imagine politicians in Australia standing in the way of such powerful pressure from overseas investors. As we can see in foreign and domestic policy, the current leaders in Australia believe our future lies with the US, the EU, and their policies. It is here, as in other areas, that the WikiLeaks Party can make a real difference. The WikiLeaks Party will break open the secrecy surrounding these negotiations*, and will not be afraid to stand up for Australian self-determination. By doing so, the WikiLeaks Party will defend the interests of Australian small business, which is everywhere being squeezed by the leviathans of international big business.

[1] The twelve nations currently negotiating the TPP are the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam. It also looks like Japan will join the negotiations as well.  (emphasis added..ed)

* Let's believe the WikiLeaks Party will continue to stand up for Australian self-determination even though they did not score a candidate in the recent elections.

“WE GOT IT WRONG” SAYS IPCC (YAWN…YAWN)

Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor The Australian 16 September, 2013.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.
More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C. Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact….
It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions…”  

JEWISH GENIUS AND OTHER MYTHS

by Peter Ewer
Racial realists such as Charles Murray, co-author of “The Bell Curve” (1994) argue that Jews have a higher IQ than any other ethnic group and in a 2007 article in Commentary argued that genius is in Jewish genetics. Other IQ researchers have revised the Jewish (Ashkenazi) IQ down from 127 to 107.
Interestingly enough Jewish genetic researcher Harry Ostrer in “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People” (2012) is sceptical of the DNA theory of Jewish smarts. As Josh Fischman (“Jewish Genius and Other Mythical Traits,” The Chronicle of Higher Education 15 April, 2012) points out, “a better explanation is that Jews were in the right place at the right time”.

While there could be a genetic component, when the IQ measurements were done Jews had been living in places where schools were improving and IQ rises as education systems improve. If IQ doesn’t explain Jewish power, then what does? As this question is now beyond discussion, both politically ands legally, I guess I will never know.  

CONTACTED YOUR LOCAL COUNCIL YET?

Remember the pre-election letter Louis Cook sent out to newspapers in his region asking readers to insist:
“Now that Kevin Rudd has let us off having a referendum to recognize local government in the Australian Constitution because it appeared more advantageous for him to have an election a week earlier than allowed for the referendum… If councillors cannot recover the funds spent on the worthless recognition of local government in the Constitution then councillors deserve vengeance by ratepayers at the next council elections. Vote them out!”

Well, the Victorian government is voting a whole Council ‘out’!
The “dysfunctional” Wangaratta City Council is to be sacked “by the Napthine government because of rampant bullying and intimidating behaviour towards staff and councillors and waste of ratepayers funds. Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell will introduce legislation to formally dismiss the Rural City of Wangaratta Council on Wednesday, which will receive bipartisan support. Administrators will be appointed until the next council elections in October 2016.

The move comes a day after independent MP Geoff Shaw was charged by Victoria Police but Ms Powell said the decision to dump the council had been coming for some time. She said the decision had been signed off by cabinet on Wednesday and was the last resort. The last council to be sacked was Brimbank City Council…” Read more:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Sir/Madam,
The segment on page 8 of OT Vol49No34, August 2013, “The Coming Election and the Destructive Effects of Inflation” by Louis Cook prompts a few comments.
There has been only one instance since federation when inflation has been dealt with constructively.
During the latter stages of, and for a period after the end of, World War II, then prime minister John Curtin implemented a system of consumer price discounts, whereby a definite amount of money created and issued by the Commonwealth Bank (then the “People’s Bank”) was used to reduce prices at the retail level beginning with those items used to compute the consumer price index.
This policy could well be described as a sales tax in reverse – it resulted in a fall in prices, rather than a rise in prices.
This action by the Curtin Government eliminated inflation – there was complete stability in the economy for 3 or 4 years. It is interesting to note John Curtin died in office aged 60 years.
While John Howard was federal treasurer, I wrote to him and asked him that, given the success of the consumer price discount system, why not “give it a go now”. (This was in the 1970s) In his response, Mr. Howard told me that “this policy would not be used now because it does not come to grips with the basic cause of inflation”.
In my response to Mr. Howard’s response, I asked him what WAS the basic cause of inflation, and why was he doing nothing about applying a solution. No reply to the latter was received from Mr. Howard. Inflation could be truthfully described as a tax on savings.
When the Commonwealth Bank was sold during the period of the Keating government, this action resulted in “the rug being pulled from under us” as far as our financial independence is concerned.
Please readers, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall any objections to the sale of the Commonwealth Bank from any non-Labor parliamentarians.

- - Gerald Patch Toowoomba Qld. 6 September 2013  

THE USE OF THE NATIONAL CREDIT: HERE ARE SOME WW II FACTS

On Target 22 May 1992 : The stock reply by the party strategists is to claim that Independents can do no good in Parliament. What needs to be widely publicised is that during the early dark days of the Second World War, there were many Independents in Australia's Parliaments, particularly in South Australia, where W. McGillvray of Chaffey was responsible for having a motion passed in the South Australian Parliament calling upon the Federal Government to use national credit to finance the war effort to the maximum. Published in booklet form, the McGillvray address was distributed in hundreds of thousands around Australia and was a major contribution to the national grassroots movements demanding financial reform in order that a maximum war effort might be prosecuted.

This movement was responsible for the 1940 Federal Elections finishing with the balance of power held by two Independents, A.W. Coles of the famous Coles Stores, and Alex Wilson from the Mallee, Victoria. Wilson was prominently associated with the financial reform movement and eventually decided that national survival depended upon bringing the John Curtin Government to office.

Only a political ignoramus would dispute that the Curtin Government's liberal use of national financial credit enabled Australia to maximise the war effort, with both primary and secondary industries stimulated. It was the same Curtin Government, which broke with financial orthodoxy to implement a system of consumer price discounts which eliminated inflation in Australia for five years. Australia's situation is even more critical today than it was during the dark days when Australia was fighting for survival against the Japanese thrust south. The nation pulled itself together during that critical period. The Independents played an honourable role at this time. Independents can do the same again today.