BUYING OFF THE STATES

"The increase in Federal grants for roads was very generous the Prime Minister, Mr. Gorton, said yesterday." The Sun Melbourne, March 14.

Mr. Gorton was announcing the Federal Government's grant of $1252 million an increase of $502 million, or 67% over the previous five-year grant. This is election year and the Federal Government has been under increasing attack over the destruction of the Federal system whereby under the constitution the States should have financial sovereignty. This increased grant is merely a sop to State Premiers to quieten their increasing criticism of Mr. Gorton's centralist policies. Nor is it so very generous when depreciation of the value of the dollar through inflation is measured in the terms of the last five years with which this grant is compared, and the next five years, for which it is made.

Taking the official figure of inflation running at 3.5% per annum, the 67% shrinks to 32%. But financial handouts mean little if political control is retained, and the jubilation of the Premiers contained no recognition of this important principle. In fact the money has been given with very definite political strings attached. The Commonwealth has stated what proportions of the money is to be spent in specific categories. For example, in Victoria the Federal Government has insisted that half the money must be for Melbourne freeways and traffic interchanges - not for ordinary streets - so that increasing numbers of cars can be shuttled in and out of Melbourne at an increasing rate, thus aggravating the already torrid problem of overcrowding and congestion.
The hapless ratepayer will continue to pay heavy costs for road making in his suburban streets, the allocations to country Shires has in some cases diminished.

SOUND CREDIT POLICIES CAN DEFEAT RISING COSTS

"He (Sir Henry Bolte) gave a firm guarantee that Victorian motorists would not pay higher registration fees for at least five years" - The Sun, March 14.

One important lesson can be learnt from the increased grants, which are derived from the credit policies of the central Government. In this instance motorists costs so far as registration fees are concerned, can be stabilised. Had the Federal Government not made the credit available, Sir Henry's Government would have had to seriously consider raising registration fees to finance urgently needed road works. Such a rise would be an added burden to the cost of living, and would add to the pressure for increased demands for wage and salary increases, as well as increased charges and rates by those who use motor vehicles extensively in their commercial and service operations. The application of such credit has in this instance alleviated pressure on the cost structure.
It should be realised that such credit comes from the same source, which is used to finance every rise in wages.

Banking policy of the Federal Government is forced to accommodate industry's demands for increased overdrafts at such times, to meet the increased liabilities of employers. The credit released goes into the economic life stream as a cost, and forces up prices, resulting in a further impetus to the cost/price squeeze. If such credit was made available to the wage earner and other consumers outside the cost structure, no such impetus to the cost structure would result. Prices would come down as efficiency in production increased, and the value of the dollar would increase, buying more, not less, as it does under the present credit policies of the Federal Government.

There are plenty of ways and means by which such policies can be implemented, but if such policies were implemented the political power of those seeking to impose a highly centralised socialist economy on the Australian community would be effectively destroyed. Therefore the answer to the problem lies in the political field, and must be found there if there are sufficient Australians with sufficient drive and energy to reverse present policies.

THE DESTRUCTION OF RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT

"A powerful Federal public servants' union has decided to give the public service board seven days to lay a charge against a public servant who has been suspended without pay for the past six months," The Sun, Melbourne, March 13.

The individual in question is an employee of the External Affairs department. It is said he was working in Bangkok at the time of his suspension. Here is the case of an all-powerful department, a law unto itself, holding in contempt fundamental rights of the individual. It has taken upon itself the right to accuse an individual of a crime it will not state the nature of, suspend him from his employment, and for a considerable time his salary also, until a decision is reached on whether a charge is to be laid against him. Backed by a powerful state to enforce its decree in the matter, it denies the individual concerned the ordinary norms of justice afforded those brought before the civil authorities.
Here we see the working out of "justice" as would be the fate of the individual in a completely socialised state.

It is interesting to note in this case the revolt being led by an organization, which is an outgrowth of the bureaucratic monster. But it is also obvious that the union concerned has little in the way of offensive weapons when it comes to obtaining justice for the individual concerned. At the end of the seven days it has given the Public Service Board to lay its charge, it will find there is no authority higher than the Public Service Board which can be appealed.
The Government could not step in and direct the suspended man be brought before the civil court and charged in the normal manner. The Public Service Act would have to be changed first. Nor could the Government direct that any individual be discharged by the Public Service Board. In this respect the Board is above the Government.

Any individual, such as the Chairman of the Reserve Bank, whose policy was in direct conflict with the Government's could only be removed with the consent of the Public Service Board. In 1922 when the Act came into existence this was not a major problem. Today, when the real Government is not parliament but the bureaucracy, it just confirms the passing of parliamentary democracy.

TITO : "INDEPENDENT" COMMUNIST

"President Tito plans to warn any potential aggressor against Yugoslavia in a major policy speech in Belgrade" - The Sun March 13.

The greatest exponent of communist dialectics on the international chessboard is Marshal Broz Tito, the mysterious nominee of the communist underground who emerged in opposition to General Mihailovitch, the patriotic loyalist, anti-Nazi and anti-Communist then leading the guerrilla war against Hitler. It is now history, which will ever remain a black stain on the conscience of the West, as to how Mihailovitch was betrayed and deserted by the Allies; and finally murdered by Tito.

It is also history that Tito has been playing the West, including the Australian Government for political suckers ever since. In his propaganda line of the "independent" socialist he has extracted millions of pounds and dollars out of the West, as well as trade and immigration agreements out of Australia.

We are indebted to Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes in his Intelligence Bulletin for a correct description of the game that Tito is playing when he quoted Colonel Leontyev, the mouthpiece in Moscow for Marshal Grechko, who recently said: "Our enemies learn nothing. They are still talking about Socialism without Communism. But this is just as absurd as sea without water".

STORMY NEW ZEALAND RECEPTION FOR ERIC BUTLER

Mr. Eric Butler received a lively reception when he opened a short New Zealand tour on March 10. The Christchurch morning daily, The Press, of March 11 carried the headline, "EJECTION LEADS TO BRAWL AT MEETING" under which it was reported:
The police were called to a meeting in Christchurch last evening when a brawl developed during an address by Mr. E. D. Butler, director of the Australian League of Rights. Mr. Butler reports that press reports of the Christchurch meeting, featured in many New Zealand papers, were slightly exaggerated. But he states that "There is no doubt that there was an organised attempt by a group of University students, backed by several skilled operators who did not show their hand openly, to wreck the meeting, called by the newly formed New Zealand Country Party, which is the first party in New Zealand to come out clearly in f1avour of recognition of Rhodesia. I found it significant that the young man removed from the meeting later returned after the police had moved in, sat quietly and at question time did not even ask the question. As the meeting proceeded I felt that I was obtaining a much more sympathetic reception from the majority of the students."

Mr. Butler reports briefly as follows on the current New Zealand situation:
"Like Australia, New Zealand is scheduled to have general elections later this year. By-elections indicate that the Nationalist Government has lost some electoral support. Social Credit League candidates have been the main benefactors from the defection from the Nationalists, with little increased enthusiasm for Labor. With a very small majority, the Nationalist Party cannot afford even a small loss of electoral support. Like all aspiring party politicians, I found that the leaders of the newly formed Country Party are most optimistic about their prospects of gaining seats and holding the balance of power. The Social Credit League supporters also hope that they will hold the balance of power. But the Country Party leaders believe that much of the Social Credit League vote is a protest one, and that the Country Party will now take some of that Vote.

There is general agreement that the performance of the one Social Credit League representative in Parliament, leader V. Cracknell, has not been very spectacular during his first term in Parliament. There is considerable criticism of the League for not adopting a firm pro-Rhodesian policy. Many individual League supporters support a stand on the Rhodesian issue, but there has been strong resistance against making this official policy.

Minister for Trade Marshall has recently admitted publicly that a big majority of New Zealanders now supports Rhodesia, or is sympathetic. Once again I have been assured by Nationalist supporters that Prime Minister Holyoake and other Nationalist Members are privately sympathetic to Rhodesia, but are unable to shift the present policy because of various international pressures.

Commenting on the fact that the All Blacks New Zealand Rugby Team will be visiting Rhodesia next year, Mr. Holyoake has stressed that the New Zealand Government is conforming to the United Nations sanctions, and New Zealander are not permitted to use New Zealand financial resources to visit Rhodesia. I cannot help wondering if Mr. Holyoake really believes he is fooling anyone with this type of statement.

There is considerable speculation in New Zealand concerning the coming visit of Dr. S. Mansholt, the architect of the European Economic Community's agricultural policy. Dr. Mansholt's 'solution' to the glut of farm production inside the E.E.C. is to increase the size of farms and to eliminate a number of smaller farmers. It is clear that New Zealand farmers are to be asked to accept the same type of centralisation being proposed also to Australian Farmers.