"REVIEWS" OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION SHOULD EVER ENGENDER SUSPICION

"State and Federal politicians, usually contending on territorial, and ideological lines, have made a businesslike start on reviewing our Constitution. " Editorial. The Herald, Melbourne, October 9th.

We are amongst those who believe that the correct principles underlying sound government are, like the correct principles underlying morality, eternal: without change. The stresses and strains which have been mounting over the past fifty years or so, in particular, in Western societies are largely attributable to the social irritants of escalating taxation; escalating inflation, and the concomitant mounting waves of socialisation as the individual is further and further stripped of economic independence, and driven towards the oasis (a mirage, as it happens) of Big Government, the end result of which is the Monopoly State.

What the politicians, along with all their batteries of political "scientists" are (albeit unknowingly) involved in at the moment amounts to little more than an exercise in public relations. The Big Government which has been forced on us, in the main as a result of the inherent deficiencies in the modern finance-economic system, must continue to expand, otherwise our society (typical of Western societies) will collapse; that is, unless the direction of the finance-economic system were reversed, as it could be, but won't be.
Readers who wish to delve more deeply into this issue are advised to read None Dare Call It Conspiracy, available NOW from Box 1052-J, G.P.O., Melbourne, 3001.

The public relations exercise, mentioned above, can only have one end result: the "amendment" of the Australian Constitution which will give more power to the central government (Canberra) to enable it to "cope" with the big problems of the seventies. The "horse-and-buggy" Constitution, we are endlessly being assured, does not allow our "statesmen" to govern adequately. As if we had any "statesmen"; as if the party politicians at Canberra had any more than a marginal effect on government.

Today's political problems are predominantly traceable to exigencies brought about by lack of finance; and this in turn is presently beyond the control and ability of politicians. All that the separate political parties are able to stage is an exhibition of shadow boxing, as they endeavour to cope with the same problems under the same rules; one party is prepared, even eager, to slide towards Big Government more quickly than the other.
However, the other main party is heading in the same direction all the same. The Australian League of Rights is the worst in the world for pointing this out!

The final paragraph of the Editorial from the Melbourne Herald, of October 9th draws comment from us it reads:- "We should remind ourselves that the British, from whom we drew most of the constitutional attitudes, are much more flexible. They have no written constitution as such".

The great tragedy is that Britain does not have a written constitution. If she had one, for example, it is most unlikely that Edward Heath, and his shadowy backers from the world of international finance, would be able to get away with dragging Englishmen into the Common Market, which means the end of Britain's control over her own affairs, without a national referendum. It is most unlikely that Britain's "dose" of Socialism would be as great as it is now.

Australians can thank their lucky stars that they DO have a written Constitution to protect their rights, and the rights of the States, which amounts really to the same thing. Australians must be ever vigilant to condemn and reject any measures which will give more power to government and especially to the Central Government at Canberra. We are fearful that this is what will emerge from all the "reviews" of our Constitution. Let us all beware!

(None Dare Call It Conspiracy, now available, is priced at $1-12 post free. Six copies for $4-00 post-free. Fifty copies for $30-00 post-free.)
The Naked Capitalist is also available now. (Price $2-24 post free.)

IMMIGRATION CONTROL A HOT POTATO

"The Minister for Immigration (Dr. J. Forbes) admitted last night that the Federal Government discriminated against coloured migrants." - The Age, Melbourne, October 6th.

None of the politicians from the A.L.P. or the Liberal coalition are being straight, in our opinion, on the immigration issue. It is a real political "hot potato" and the feeling against coloured immigration into this country is rising rapidly. The A.L.P. is obviously under pressure from the unions to keep the coloureds out, not only because of fear of semi-skilled and unskilled jobs being taken away from Australians, but also because the working man (blue collar) is by nature a true conservative; the radicals of today are numbered among the academics, and these exude social poisons. The working man, the true Australian, doesn't want his life patterns dislodged by swarms of Asians flooding into Australia.

It is significant that the A.L.P. spokesmen have been silent over the Uganda Asians. A.L.P. spokesmen haven't condemned the Government for not accepting a couple of thousand of these Ugandan Asians. Indeed Mr. Arthur Calwell, to his credit has been most specific that we should keep them out, at all costs. The people who have condemned the Government on this score are academics, left-wing journalists, political "scientists"; people who live in an abstract world of unreality. Some of them, let us be charitable, are idealists; but only some of them. There are the real subversives.

Those who saw Monday Conference on A.B.V.2 would have witnessed the Prime Minister, Mr. McMahon, under attack on this issue (Ugandan Asians) by the Editor of The Age, Melbourne (Mr. Graham Perkin) and the Director of the Australian Institute of Economic Affairs (Dr. T. B. Millar). The latter impressed us as a most smug gentleman. Mr.Perkin, of course, is an old adversary of the League of Rights. We mention this as evidence of our contention that the drive for the relaxation of our Immigration Wall is emanating from the intellectuals; not from the workers.

We have not noticed any of the revolutionary "protesters" in our streets whipping up animosity to Uganda for its "racism". If South Africa or Rhodesia had expelled one-tenth the number of Asians from their respective territories, our streets, we venture to say, would be heaving with the most violent of protesters. Dr. Jim Cairns would be having a field day!

Mr. Barnes, former Minister for External Territories, as reported in The Age Melbourne, September 28th, has said that Australia was bringing migrants to this country who had made "a devil of a mess of their own countries". We agree fully with Mr. Barnes when he says that - "If we import these people with a completely different approach to life than we have in Australia then we are heading for trouble". He went on to talk some sound common-sense; the criterion for migrant acceptability is cultural; they should have the same life patterns as ourselves, and these derive from the same beliefs, basically; beliefs which generate such things as standards of conduct.

Dr. J. Forbes (Minister of Immigration) has never satisfactorily explained, as far as we are concerned, just how Turkish migrants, for example, as Moslems, will "dovetail" into a Christian community. We don't think that they could, certainly not more than an insignificant number of them. Social frictions will build up here, if this type of madness continues, as surely as night follows day.

Mr. Barnes made another observation which would carry us off into deeper waters were we to allow it. He said:-".. .it was alright for the Council of Churches and others to say that all men were equal, but this does not work out in practice." Readers will have read in the past in these pages many references to the World Council of Churches, and more recently, to Action for World Development: we shall not comment further here and now, except to support Mr. Barnes. We often hear that "all men are equal in the sight of God". So they are, but the equality lies in the sight of God, and not here in man's imperfect world. No men are "equal" (whatever that means), and inferentially, no races are "equal". All men should have, ideally, equal opportunity; but that is another story.

MOVE TO ABOLISH PREFERENTIAL VOTING IS NOW "ON"

"Preferential voting would be scrapped under a Government Bill tabled yesterday". - The Sun, Melbourne, October, 6th.

This Bill is being introduced into the Legislature of Western Australia, but the same will be introduced into the House of Representatives at Canberra, if the A, L.P. gains the Treasury Benches in a few weeks from now. A second Bill before the Parliament of Western Australia proposes the abolition of the Upper House; traditionally a Labor objective. Because of the intricacies of the Western Australian parliamentary machinery it is unlikely that either of the two Bills stands a chance of passing into law. But the intention is well and truly there.

Sir Edgar Coles, a prominent member of a Victorian Liberal Party Branch, has forecast that the defeat of the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government could result in a long spell in opposition for it, because the victorious A.L.P. would attempt to alter the voting system from "preferential" to "first past-the-post". Mr. Malcolm Fraser, the Minister of Education (Commonwealth) expressed his agreement with Sir Edgar's views. If the Australian Labor Party could carry off this legislation, then there is no doubt that a non-Labor Government could be in opposition for a long spell. For one thing, the L.C.P. would no longer be supported by the preferences of the D.L.P., and the fate of the D.L.P. itself would be pretty bleak.

We believe firmly in the bi-cameral legislature. Political power must be as decentralised as possible, in the interests of the sovereignty of the individual. An Upper House is a brake upon swift and hasty legislation; it increases the difficulties of a majority government bent on ramming legislation into law, legislation which would be rejected by the majority of electors were they to have a say. As evidence of this we can detail the 1944 Powers Referendum. Dr.H.V.Evatt, of the then Curtin Government, was demanding sweeping powers for Canberra. The Tasmanian Upper House held out against the cession of these powers to Canberra, which the Tasmanian Lower House was prepared to grant. Under the Constitution this "obstinacy" on the part of the Tasmanian Legislative Council (Upper House) forced a national referendum on the powers issue, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Australia, thus preventing the power-hungry men at Canberra from gaining further control over the lives of Australians.

We must be vibrantly alert that this does not happen again. The "reviews" of the Constitution now taking place may be more than a straw in the wind!

FINANCIAL INSTABILITY ON AUSTRALIAN HORIZON

"Australia's trade balance continued to run amok in September, with record exports, and a continued slump in imports. - The Age, Melbourne, October 10th.

We have made many comments in recent issues of On Target on the apparent absurdities of what we have called the Trade Game. For decades we have been whipped along by the economists, whilst being yelped at by the politicians, to strive for a "favourable balance of trade"; to gain those "export surpluses", the "London Funds", and the various other financial objectives, which boil down to favourable figures in the books. This situation no longer obtains; surpluses now are an embarrassment, which put all manner of stresses and strains on the economy.

Economic double-speak is the order of the day! Now the Australian dollar is "undervalued" say some experts; so we must "revalue". This will keep out much speculative capital inflow, but it will make our exports more expensive and we mustn't have that in a time when the national economy is depressed.
The Country Party will throw up its hands in horror because we don't want Australian primary produce to become dearer on the world markets, as up to now we have had an embarrassing glut of wheat, wool, canned fruit etc. The Red Chinese have rescued the wheat situation, at least temporarily, and just what the wool future will be isn't clear as yet.

Mr. Tony Thomas, writing in The Age. Melbourne, October 10th states, "The current situation is that we are sending real resources abroad and getting nothing in return but domestic inflation." "In effect, we are subsidising export industries at the expense of the rest of the community".

We are most certainly getting the figures in the books - The Australian (October 10th) states that capital is pouring into Australia at the rate of about $150 Million a month. Mr. Thomas is no doubt referring to an unbalanced "demand" situation in the economy which is surmised to follow on from large surpluses of liquidity; we do not see any evidence of this type of inflation in a depressed economy. Many overseas corporations are pouring capital into local manufacturing offshoots, and making them manufacturing bases for Pacific/South East Asia region of the world's markets. In this sense these industries would be receiving a subsidy from the remainder of the community in that the vast amounts of overseas capital involved in these undertakings is recovered, with high interest, from ultimately the ordinary consumer.

ON TARGET BULLETIN

The Creation and Control of Money

The creation and loaning of credit by all banks, except Central Banks, is governed by what is called the "liquidity" of the banking system. This and similar jargon is used to obscure the reality.
"Liquidity" simply refers to the amount of legal tender held by the trading banks.

Banking practice dictates that credit should not be expanded substantially beyond ten times the amount of what is called "cash at call". Now "cash at call" is not only governed by the amount of legal tender manufactured by authority of the Central Banks, but of greatest importance is the fact that Central Bank credit is also treated as cash by the Trading Banks when deposited with them. Through their control of the creation of notes, coins, and central bank credit, Central Banks dictate the credit expansion, or restriction, policies of the Trading Banks.