COMMUNISTS PROMOTE TRADE UNION MONOPOLY

"Loyalty to investment in government securities is costing Australia's newest and biggest union, the militant Amalgamated Metal Workers Union $33,000 a year through inflation. This is revealed in the latest publicly available balance sheets of the unions, which merged to form the AMWU - the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Boilermakers' and Blacksmiths' Society and the Sheet Metal Working, Agricultural Implement and Stove Making Industrial Union". - Leo Chapman in The Sunday Australian, January 23.

The creators of yet one more monopoly are not likely to be unduly concerned about the effect of inflation on investments, or on superannuation funds, totalling $880,000. What they are interested in is more highly centralised power, which can be used to further the Marxist programme. The combined assets of the merging unions are just over $3 million. The Marxist controllers of this monopoly will have enormous funds and organisational facilities at their disposal. But in the face of this new monopoly threat to the Free Society, the McMahon Government has been completely complacent. And there have been few warnings from Australian business spokesmen, some of whom state privately that with the growth of centralisation in industry, which they accept as "inevitable", the parallel growth of centralisation in the Trade Union movement is desirable.

All power has a corrupting influence, and those who seek power, irrespective of the sphere in which they operate, tend to seek agreements with their fellow power operators. The fewer who share the power, the easier to come to agreements concerning its use - or abuse. The great majority of individuals simply do not count.

In a Paper given at a recent University of Sydney summer school, (printed in The Age, Melbourne, of February 1, the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator Ivor Greenwood, had much to say on the importance of the rule of law. The Senator's words were excellent. But Senator Greenwood's Government has done nothing to ensure that the rights and freedoms of members of the Unions in process of being amalgamated are protected. Surely the destruction of a union and the acquisition of its assets is a matter of vital public interest? Only a minority voted for the creation of the new Union monopoly, and clearly many of them did not understand the implications. Interviewed on an ABC radio programme last week, one Marxist Trade Union official bluntly said, in a matter of fact manner, that if the Federal Government "interfered" with the Communist promoted programme for centralising Trade Unions, a large number of industrial and construction activities would be brought to a halt by strikes.

History is a great teacher, for those willing to learn. It is just over twenty years ago when a similar type of blackmail threat was used when Communist Party Trade Union boss Ernie Thornton was riding high. He had succeeded in amalgamating the Ironworkers Munitions Workers' and Ironfounders' Union. The Communist Party was striving for still more Union amalgamations. But the 1948-49 Communist amalgamation campaign was defeated, primarily because of the Industrial Groups and because Trades Hall leaders of that period realised that the destruction of the smaller unions would eventually result in providing the Communists with the power base they sought.

How different is the position today. ACTU President Hawke, another man with a strong will to power, is not likely to challenge the Communist programme. He owes too much to the Communists.

As inflation progressively increases, as it must while present finance economic policies are pursued, a highly centralised and Communist dominated Trade Union movement will be in the position to exploit the friction generated by inflation, and impose its will on the whole community. Halting inflation with constructive policies would immediately deprive the Communists of their major asset in the drive for power.

MR. LYNCH'S FUTILE WORDS

"The retrenchments are clearly a matter of regret. It's too early to make a judgment of how this will affect the automotive industry as a whole - but we'll be watching it closely. The Government is already studying the decisions to retrench these workers"…..Earlier Mr. Lynch told a crowd of about 80 (at an Australia Day ceremony) that "We have every reason to be confident about the future. Any problems we have are transitory problems which must be met and overcome." - The Sun, Melbourne, February 1.

If Minister for Labor Lynch will consult the record he will find that back in l960 and 1961 one of his predecessors was saying the same type of things that he is now saying. His name was William McMahon, Minister for Labor in the Menzies Government. It was only when the electoral backlash of 1961 nearly swept the Coalition Government from office that Prime Minister Menzies took dramatic action to stimulate the economy with a deficit budget of $238 million. Today the press headlines scream that leading business organisations are calling upon the Government "to stimulate the economy". There is no problem about how to achieve this stimulation; all that is required is a massive injection of new money. But such a policy must, under present finance-economic rules, lead to even more disastrous inflation. The essence of the problem is how to expand new financial credit without in the process creating new costs, which in turn must be recovered through still further price increases.
If the Treasury "experts" responsible for Mr. Snedden's disastrous 1971 Budget do not know how to solve this problem, then they should be retired immediately and replaced with men who will accept responsibility for a policy, which will reverse inflation.

HEATH'S RUTHLESS TACTICS ON COMMON MARKET

"Instead of a definite guarantee of protection against abrupt dislocation of trade between Australia and the UK during British transition to the common agricultural policy, terms of the 'safeguard clause' in the Treaty of Brussels depend solely on the good faith and good intentions of the Community countries. It is distinct from the paraphrase of the safeguard terms negotiated by Mr. Geoffrey Rippon in Brussels last May and included in the British Government White Paper on EEC entry, and assurances received by the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. McMahon, when he recently visited the UK." - From Paul Gardiner in London in The Australian Financial Review, January 26.

A close study of the "safeguard clause" is, as Mr. Gardiner describes it, "a decidedly tricky piece of Eurocratese with innumerable escape routes to non-compliance". This is but more concrete evidence of the ruthlessness of the Heath Government and its determination to surrender completely to a "United Europe".

It is no use Country Party leader Anthony expressing pained surprise about the further watering-down of even the assurances given concerning Commonwealth trade. A British Prime Minister who can, in the face of strong British electoral opposition, and in spite of a pre-election promise that he would require a united nation before joining the European Economic Community, demonstrate that he is prepared to end a thousand years of British history, to betray every fundamental right and tradition built up over the centuries, is not going to be squeamish about what happens to Commonwealth nations.

We warned from the beginning what the Common Market was really all about, and now we notice that there is no longer any pretence about the proposed destruction of British independence, But the end is not yet. Mr. Heath talks of the great benefits, which will flow from a "United" Europe. Unemployment in the EEC countries now exceeds one million, and inflation still continues. At the time of the last British Elections Mr. Heath spoke glibly about solving the unemployment and inflation problems. They are worse than ever.

Further evidence of the Heath Government's ruthlessness has now been demonstrated by the manner in which it is attempting to have passed an abbreviated bill of only 37 pages for bringing British law into line with EEC legislation. This has been aptly described as "an outrageous piece of constitutional trickery".

Hitler was reported to have said towards the end of the Second World War that the British would eventually lose the war, even though they won the military battles. Himmler said Hitler's real objective was a United States of Europe. Edward Heath is on record saying that he hoped to achieve by peaceful methods the objectives Hitler sought by war. Edward Heath will find as Hitler did that the British are notoriously a stubborn people. The final Battle for Britain, and the old British Commonwealth is still to be fought.

GROWING EXODUS OF JEWS FROM SOVIET UNION

"The largest single group of Russian Jews to arrive in Israel has reached Tel Aviv in a Boeing 747 jumbo jet from Vienna. It was the first time a jumbo has been pressed into service on the almost daily immigrant run from Vienna, the staging point for Jews who have left Moscow on the way to Tel Aviv". - The Australian, January 19.

While the Political Zionists and the Soviet leaders exchange verbal blows, and Zionist propaganda continues to charge "anti-Semitism" inside Russia, there is clearly an agreement between the Political Zionists, who have created a Socialist State in the Middle East on territory taken from the original owners, the Palestinians, and the Soviet leaders.

Why the special treatment for Russian Jews? No other group is being permitted to leave the Soviet Union. It is a strange form of "anti-Semitism" when the Soviet permitted 15,000 Russian Jews to leave for Israel in 1971. It is estimated that 35,000 will leave this year. How is this exodus being financed? And why are these Russian Jews all going to Israel, and not elsewhere? Beyond doubt some of them are Soviet agents. And by supplying Israel with an increasing population, the Soviet is keeping the Middle East in a state of crisis, which they are successfully exploiting.

WHO RUNS AUSTRALIA?

"Canberra - The Minister for Education and Science (Mr. Fraser) last night defended the Federal Government against charges that it is obsessed with secrecy. He was speaking at the Australian Institute of Political Science annual summer school on the subject: 'Who Runs Australia?' 'The present Government is just as open, if not more open, in its attitudes as any Government over the past 22 years', Mr. Fraser said. 'It has a great desire for an informed public discussion on matters of great national moment'." - The Age, Melbourne, January 21.

Judging by press and other reports, Mr. Fraser did not convince the 800 people gathered at the Political Science summer school that the politicians have effective control of the 300,000 strong Commonwealth Public service. Professor G.S. Reid of the National University criticised the House of Representatives for failing to use its powers to curb the power of the bureaucracy. He drew attention to the crippling effects of strict party disciplines. In his Paper Mr. Fraser attempted to argue that it was the Ministers who made policy, not the bureaucracy. This is true in some cases, but it is not true in the majority of cases, particularly in the vital sphere of financial policy. Mr. Fraser is one Member of the House of Representatives notorious for using the "buck-passing" technique when he receives letters on financial policy. Like so many other Members, he merely passes these to the Treasurer for his comments. The Treasurer in turn passes them to the officials making financial policy.

The growing power of the Federal bureaucracy is only going to be curbed when the electors' representatives insist that their financial experts implement policies which will, amongst other results, progressively reduce the powers of the central Government and thus make it possible to have a genuine reduction in the army of permanent officials, most of whom would be making a more valuable contribution to the nation, and to themselves, if they stayed at home digging in their gardens!

IN BRIEF

ON TARGET BULLETIN

Policy and Administration

(cont:-) The democratic form of organization can be visualized diagrammatically as a circle, the circumference representing individuals with the necessary power to make decisions concerning policy-making in different spheres. The centre of the circle represents the administration, staffed by individuals accepting the responsibility of devising the best ways and means of obtaining policies required. By virtue of their position, individuals decide on results whether or not the administrators remain at the central position of responsibility.

For efficient administration a different type of organizational structure is necessary. This can be shown diagrammatically as a pyramid. In this type of organization supreme authority at the top imposes its will and decisions on the whole structure through a series of subordinate authorities. If administration is left to those persons best qualified, then administrators must be placed in positions of complete authority SO LONG AS THEY PROVIDE THE POLICY-MAKERS WITH WHAT THEY WANT.

Effective control of policy requires that individuals, con sidered as electors, consumers, or members of any type of sporting or cultural organization, have power to discipline administrators if they are failing to produce the results desired and specified.