THE TRAGEDY OF THE FEDERAL OPPOSITION PARTIES

"Canberra, Monday - The leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr. Snedden, reacted sharply today to suggestions that the Liberal Party was lagging in its pursuit of fresh policies. 'The Liberal Party is taking giant steps to create new policies, he said. In a special press statement, he repeated details of a network of sub-committees established early this month to re-write the party's platform and policy. These committees would ensure that the party was ready with 'sound and creative new ideas'." - Political Correspondent. Brian Jones in The Sydney Morning Herald, May 22.

It is no secret that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst Federal Liberal Members of Parliament concerning the performance of leader Mr. Billie Snedden. And Mr. Snedden is not highly regarded by Country Party and DLP Members. His press statement last week is seen by political observers as an attempt to reply to criticism within the Liberal Party that he is not adopting sufficiently "progressive" polities to ensure the return of a Federal Liberal Government. One of the with-it Federal Members, Mr. Andrew Peacock, former Minister for External Territories, and a close friend of the Victorian Liberal Premier, Mr. R. Hamer, made the pointed comment following the Victorian State Elections that the Liberal Party win was "a fillip to those of us who believe the Liberal Party should adopt moderate and progressive polities as Mr. Hamer has successfully done. This is the course of the Liberal Party in the federal sphere. We can't go back to the hard issues of the past."

As pointed out in last week's On Target, there is little evidence to support the view of the Peacocks that the Victorian Liberals were returned primarily on the "progressive" polities of Mr. Hamer. If the Liberal Party can only retain office, or gain it, by adopting the policies of the Labor Party, then does it really matter which Party is in office?

The major element in the Victorian Election results was a strong anti-Whitlam Government "back-lash". There is nothing wrong with the basic principles and policies of the Federal Liberal and Country Parties as stated in their original platforms. The emphasis on the necessity for effective decentralisation concerned an absolute. Mr. Peacock and his fellow trendy Liberals may regard this as one of "hard issues of the Past", but they are going to find that increasing numbers of electors are starting to react strongly against the open centralism of the Whitlam Government, and that they are looking for more than contests in gimmickry.

The Liberal Senators are adopting a much more realistic approach than their colleagues in the House of Representatives. Mr. Snedden originally opposed the establishment of an investigation into the activities of Senator Murphy but eventually was forced to agree to the aggressive initiative of the Senate. As we predicted, the Senate is increasingly playing a much more important and effective role in the Federal Government. Those candidates who take a firm stand on State Rights and decentralisation are going to poll heavily in the next Senate Elections. We suggest that all the League watchers carefully note what we have to say.

League actionists everywhere report a growing upsurge of support for the "back-to-principles-campaign" being generated by the League. While there is deep division inside the Federal Liberal Party ranks, further evidence of this being provided by Mr. John Gorton's public criticism of a growing campaign to elect Mr. Malcolm Fraser, former Minister for Defence and Education, to replace Mr. Snedden, there is also some division inside the DLP concerning its future. Many of the most influential supporters and members of the DLP are desperately keen to achieve an amalgamation with the Federal Country Party.

Judging by the searching examination of League National Director Eric Butler last week in the TV programme "Current Affair", the myth still prevails that the League exercises such influence inside the Country Party that it can effectively veto any proposed amalgamation between the Country Party and the DLP. As Mr. Butler correctly observed, the League has no policy concerning what organisational agreements are made between parties. He stressed that organisational unity between different parties could have no bearing on the direction in which Australia was moving unless there were unity on policies which would challenge those now being imposed.
A new national party consisting of the DLP and the Country Party, and perhaps bringing in some of the Liberal Party, and led by a man like Mr. Doug Anthony could only prove a major disaster unless it was prepared to challenge the finance-economic polities generating increasing inflation.
What is required is for the Opposition parties to evolve a firm constructive programme, which includes positive steps for reversing inflation.

Over the years the League has consistently and correctly predicted what must happen under Keynesian finance-economic debt polities. Figures recently provided by Federal Treasure Crean show that the nation's money supply has been increased by approximately ten per cent over the past twelve months, primarily through the expansion of financial credit. So there is no need for the old hackneyed question of "Where is the money to come from?" What is required is that a portion of this new credit-money be introduced into the economic blood-stream without increasing costs. An interim programme would be to abolish completely all Sales Tax and to finance with new credit-money a moderate subsidy of basic consumer items in the economy.

The violent opposition of the Marxists to any steps to use consumer subsidies is striking confirmation that this is the one type of policy they fear would start to reduce the industrial friction which they are so successfully exploiting. Members of the Opposition parties who advocate such a policy will be abused as League of Rights "stooges". But as the Australian crisis deepens, it is becoming clearer that the League offers the only programme of activity, and the only policies, which can defeat the Marxist threat.

BIGOTS VIOLENTLY OPPOSE RACIAL REALITIES

"Students at London School of Economics physically attacked Professor Hans J. Eysenck, punching him and bloodying his face. Professor Eysenck, a professor of psychology and author of the book Race, Intelligence and Education, which claims Negro Americans and the Irish are less intelligent than their White and English counterparts, was addressing the students on 'current theories of intelligence'." - The Australian, May 10th.

The case of Professor Eysenck is revealing. In Nazi Germany he was ill treated because he was a Jew. At the London School of Economics meeting he was beaten by Communists. Professor Eysenck said afterwards, "I think it rather sad that those who are supposed to be the elite of this country behave in this fashion which is very fascist." Professor Eysenck later described his Communist attackers as "Left-wing fascists". Professor Eysenck's book is a most dispassionate and humane study of the evidence for and against the belief that intelligence is to some extent genetically determined and not solely the product of environment, as the Marxists and other equalitarians claim.

It has been observed that although Professor Eysenck's book has become a source of wide controversy, it has not been widely read. We express no views on the conclusions reached in the book, but draw attention to the significance of the Marxists attacking, even physically, any scientists who dare to doubt the equalitarian dogma concerning alleged equality in human beings. Not even the fact that Professor Eysenck is against racial segregation has saved him from the Marxist bigots.

COMMUNISTS PROMOTING AFRICAN "LIBERATION" LEADER

"Mr. Eddison Zvobgo, Director of External Representation of the African National Council in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) will begin a six-weeks lecture tour of Australia when he arrives at Sydney's international airport next Thursday.... Mr. Zvobgo's tour is being organised by the Alternative Rhodesia Information Centre. . . . Full details of Mr. Zvobgo's tour and public meetings will be published in next week's Tribune." - Tribune. "Australia's Communist Weekly", May 22-28.

Mr. Eddison Zvobgo appeared in last Monday evening's ABC TV programme "Monday Conference". What the viewing public did not see was Mr. Zvobgo giving the Communist clenched fist salute to supporters at the conclusion of the videotaping on Sunday. Mr. Zvobgo was one of the hard-core detainees who had been associated with the campaign of violence and terror in Rhodesia, most of it directed against Africans. His reported statements make it quite clear that he is prepared to condone the use of terror to overthrow the Government of Rhodesia.

As the terrorists operating against Rhodesia, using Zambia for their forward bases, are Communist-trained and Communist-equipped, it is not surprising that the Australian Communists should be warmly welcoming Mr. Zvobgo. His visit to Australia, with other visits planned for Africans supporting violence and terror against Rhodesia, is further evidence of our warning that the pressure against Southern Africa is going to be intensified by the promoters of World Revolution.

The Zvobgo visit to Australia once again highlights the double standards of the Whitlam Government. We have heard much from Senator Murphy and his colleagues, including the Minister for Immigration, Mr. Al. Grassby, about deporting alleged Croatian terrorists. We suggest that readers should direct a flow of letters to Mr. Grassby, to their Federal Members, and to the press raising the question of how did the Communist-promoted Mr. Zvobgo obtain a visa to visit Australia. And will other advocates of terrorism against Rhodesia also be given visas to this country so that they can enlist aid and sympathy for their terrorist causes?

PRIVY COUNCIL LOSS COULD DESTROY FEDERAL SYSTEM

"If Britain agreed to remove Australian Privy Council appeal rights, it could destroy the Australian Federal system of government. This warning was given in a long letter published in The Times yesterday from Mr. Robert Jackson. A historian who has a special interest in the Commonwealth, Mr. Jackson is a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, and editor of the quarterly journal on international and Commonwealth affairs, The Round Table." - The Australian, May 26th.

It is becoming increasingly clear why the Whitlam Government has made abolition of Australian appeals to the Privy Council one of its top priority policies. Mr. Whitlam has left no doubt about his long-term programme of destroying the States and the Federal system of government. Exploiting the desperate plight of Municipal Government, he has shrewdly introduced legislation to enable the Federal Government to make direct grants to Municipal Governments if they will organise themselves into Regional Governments. The plight of the Liberal "Opposition" was again demonstrated when, after some controversy, Mr. Snedden and his "anti-Socialists" decided that it would be "bad politics" to oppose the new Socialist thrust by the Labor-Socialists!

Mr. Snedden and his colleagues also retreated on the offshore resources legislation. At his press conference on May 22nd, Mr. Whitlam said that it was "futile" to talk to the States on the subject. He had the effrontery to charge that if the development of offshore resources were left to the States this would enable overseas interests "to get access to Australian on-shore resources under terms which were to the disadvantage of our country". We are not going to attempt to justify what State Governments have done, much of it under the pressure of financial centralism imposed from Canberra, but it is a little "rich" for Mr. Whitlam to claim that one Government at Canberra is more concerned about Australia than are State Governments. And we draw attention to the Dr. Cairns mission to Red China, during which discussions took place concerning an agreement between Peking and Australia to develop Australia's resources.
Mr. Whitlam's much-publicised nationalism appears to mean selling out to the Communists.

The Australian States, and the Senate, can now be seen as the last barriers against the establishment of the complete totalitarian State in Australia. As Mr. Robert Jackson points out in his letter to The Times, "The British Crown and the British Parliament are the guarantors of the reserved powers of the Australian States for as long as the Australian State electorates wish to maintain those States and those powers in existence." The Whitlam Government is seeking to by-pass those provisions in the Federal Constitution that provide for decisions concerning changes either by the States in unison or by a referendum of the people.