ANTI-SOUTH AFRICAN WAR HOTS UP

"Ambassador to the U.N. (Sir James Plimsoll) has told a special Indian Ocean conference here that Australia did not intend to have any defence alliance with South Africa". - The Age, Melbourne March 20.

Throughout the Australian press there is a rash of anti-South African propaganda. As that important international agency of international Communism, the United Nations, has declared 1971 as the year to combat racism the faithful have picked up the message and prodded by the hard core the thousands of brainwashed minions have taken up the theme. Press, Church and Education institutions have opened the floodgates to those whose thinking stops neatly short of examining inconsistencies in other parts of Africa, while an almost blanket terminology warfare is used utilising trigger words like "racist" to mask the tenuous basis on which the war against South Africa is being fought.

It should never be forgotten that the basic issue in the campaign to isolate South Africa is her refusal to compromise with communist "co-existence" policies. The race question, which is the main weapon used against South Africa, was the means by which the South Africans were alerted to the real designs of Communism. The Rivonia trial and the activities of men like Brain Fischer were significant landmarks in the use of the race question by the Communists in the endeavour to destroy South Africa by internal revolution.

It is a great pity the realities are not recognised by the Australian Government. Only a day or two before making the above statement on behalf of the Government, Dr. T.B. Millar, the noted defence expert was reported from U.S.A. where he said that South Africa and Australia would be the "springboards" for counter-offensive action in any east-west confrontation over the Indian Ocean. While he discounted the likelihood of such a confrontation, as any defence expert should, he pointed to the threat.

Professor Millar suggested that Soviet and Chinese naval forces in the Indian Ocean were being used to support African liberation movements. If this is true, and we might ask, how else do the terrorists get their equipment, then the confrontation is a reality now. Mr. McMahon as Prime Minister of Australia does not recognise the threat to us. As Foreign Affairs Minister under Mr. Gorton he must have briefed Sir James Plimsoll to dogmatically state the policy of refusing a defence alliance with South Africa. Then, as Prime Minister, almost his first action was to make a grant of $12,500 to organisations within Australia working to combat "racism ". It will be interesting to see which organisations are so blessed with our taxpayer's money. Whether communist fronts or not, they will be forwarding communist policy in the present tense atmosphere.

For a man who declared his intention of being "very anti-Communist, and very anti-socialist", Mr. McMahon has shown he is quite blind to one of the most important international issues, and from Australia's point of view, one of the most critically vital.

Progress Dependent Upon Financial Support

League activity is running at a higher level than ever before. Emerging from the ranks of supporters are those individuals equipped to play an increasingly significant role to maintain growth and continued expansion. Mr. Keith Oldfield recently conducted meetings and Social Dynamic Schools in South Australia. Mr. Don Auchterlonie in Gippsland supported by Mr. Perce Lawrence has done the same.
In Western Australia, Mr. Bob Nixon and Mr. Murray Nixon have recently completed a tour of the State lecturing in a large number of centers. League actionists took the initiative in the recent Murray by-election.

Mr. Jeremy Lee in Queensland-Northern N.S.W. has just opened up an important part of the middle west of N.S.W. hitherto untouched by League organisation.
A new initiative on Local Government and constructive action by League Supporters was established on a visit to the West Coast of South Australia by Mr. Edward Rock.
In Brisbane and Melbourne, new Metropolitan Councils have been established in the last few weeks for the purpose of generating increased activity in those cities. To maintain such progress we must maintain the strength of our financial base. Our $25,000 appeal now stands at the figure of $19,382. With the co-operation of all those who have not contributed to date, the final $5,618 should be quickly subscribed.

THE AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

"It is to be hoped that one of the items to be reviewed by the new Federal Government will be the operation of the Australian Industry Development Corporation". - The Commerce News, March 1971.

The item in the official journal of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce reflects the unease many people feel about the A.I.D.C. There is no doubt it constitutes a duplication of present banking institutions and is another attempt to mask the deficiencies of present financial policies A glaring example of irresponsible spending of taxpayer's funds, the A.I.D.C. is reported to be offering the most attractive salary range to prospective employees. In perks it tops attractive offers made by rival departments with access to taxpayers funds. For example, those joining A.I.D.C. who wish to build homes are offered 95% of the capital cost and the remainder at 4% interest. Long term low interest rates for bloated bureaucrats is the order of the day; however, it is the purpose of the A.I.D.C., which is most dangerous. It is founded upon the myth of the need for capital inflow to develop Australian industries.
Those in charge of our financial policies, if they continue to have their way, will ensure that Australia is chained to this policy.

Realising there is public uneasiness about selling out our heritage, the argument has been advanced that A.I.D.C. will channel the flow of finance capital into Australia and see that it goes to those industries which need it most. No wonder Dr. Cairns eulogised and congratulated the Government under Mr. Gorton for establishing the A.I.D.C. And no wonder the man who has tied the Australian rural community to the chains of international price fixers, Sir John McEwen, has seen to it that he has been appointed to the chief position at the top of the structure.

Given full reign under the growing policy of destroying national financial sovereignty and replacing it with international control, the A.I.D.C. in the hands of Messrs. Cairns-Whitlam and Co. will be a formidable weapon indeed to decide the fate of Australian industry, and the type of development which takes place.

PAY UP - OR YOU WON'T LAST

April 5, - Sir Henry Bolte, Victorian Premier, reported in the Melbourne Herald offering advice to Mr. McMahon on new negotiations with the Premiers to reconcile Commonwealth-State financial relations. Sir Henry put the view that Commonwealth-State relations were an issue of the greatest significance in Australian politics now. The issue ten years previously did not gain the attention it does today. If this is the case the Liberal Party cannot be thanked because it has continuously acquiesced in accepting growing control from Canberra.

The hard spadework has been done by organisations like The Australian League of Rights with continual publicity and pressure on the politicians to rectify the situation. During Federal elections when it should have been the issue of the day, the State politicians, including Sir Henry, have closed their ranks with their Federal Colleagues to keep the issue out of public discussion as much as possible. Publications such as The Liberal Socialist Road to Serfdom (15 cents posted) have embarrassed the Federal Government all over Australia. It has demonstrated that politics can only be fought and won when the issues are brought out into the open. It must be agreed with Sir Henry; Mr. McMahon is under pressure on this important issue. His approach to an equitable solution could well decide whether he will survive.

OUR LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER

COMMUNIST AGGRESSION IN LAOS

THE AUSTRALIAN AMBASSADOR

AMERICAN BANKER ENDORSES "GET BIG OR GET OUT" POLICY

"Multi-millionaire U.S. banker and financier, Mr. David Rockefeller, yesterday criticised Australia's long-term wheat deals with China' - The Age, Melbourne, 26th March.

Reading Mr. Rockefeller's remarks makes it obvious that his whole training and background render him unable to think of anything but in terms of finance. He does not criticise trade with China, he is all for it. He says that we should not finance wheat deals with China on a five-year repayment basis, but on a 90-day basis… "If the Communists want the money for five years they are obviously putting it to better use than buying wheat". This is right enough however, as the Wheat Industry is desperate for markets for surplus wheat, then under the financial rules which we follow, we take what we can get.
Mr. Rockefeller endorses the view of those agri-economists who insist that the small farmer must 'get big or get out' - "Production costs are rising all the time, and you have to have large holdings to survive". Under the present financial rules, again, this is the only answer.

The real answer : change the rules, e.g. the introduction of consumer subsidies financed directly by Central Bank credit outside the taxation system would be a big step in the right direction. These subsidies were employed in British countries during the Second World War. Mr. Rockefeller has no interest at all in the land, otherwise he would be on it; he thinks of the land as merely a factor in financial investment, which investment he does hold in W.A.
To him, "get big or get out" just means a better return on investment; nothing else.