MONARCHY
SERVES WELL"It is noticeable that those who
most vociferously demand a republican structure for our governments, State and
Federal, are singularly devoid of tolerance, decency, and care for the individual
as taught....by the Founder of Christianity..." - Sir Mark Oliphant, in The
Age (Melbourne) March 5th.
The Age (Melbourne, March 5th) published
a very good Review; "The Royal Connection".
The case against the Monarchy
was put by Professor Manning Clark, of the Australian National University, Canberra.
His political leanings are well-known to us: we reported in these pages recently
that a Manning Clark was listed in a Communist weekly as being the donor of a
not insignificant amount of money to a Communist Party appeal. As this has not
been denied, we assume that the donor was, in fact, Professor Manning Clark.
The
case for the Monarchy was put by Sir Mark Oliphant, former Governor of South Australia,
and one of the world's notable nuclear physicists. The article is so good that
we regret that we are unable to reproduce it in full, and must be content with
picking the eyes out of it. Sir Mark takes a swipe at Republican America which
"left her (Britain) to rot, while building anew the economies of her enemies,
Germany and Japan."
We would hesitate to condemn the American people over
this, as such policies were framed by the Hierarchy of Finance in the U.S.A. which
plays the tune to which mere politicians dance frantically. But we take Sir Mark's
point, the "great Republic" ratted on her ally; quite so.
A further shaft,
not in support of republicanism, was the headache for Australia, and others, arising
from "Republican Indonesia's" policy of confrontation under President Soekarno.
These references just mean that republicanism doesn't guarantee any superior sort
of conduct from nations.
With respect to the systems of honours, Sir Mark
notes that: "When the (Whitlam) Labor Government threw away imperial honours as
unsuitable, because of their titles, for a self-governing classless society, it
realised rapidly that some alternative honours system was necessary.
The
British Monarch became Queen of Australia, and in her capacity as titular Head
of State, it is she who awards the new Australian honours. It is difficult to
reconcile this fact with the claim that the Labor Party wants a republic. Recently,
too, a prominent member of that Party accepted a knighthood, leading one to speculate
how many others would lay aside their republican convictions if offered such distinction.
Those surviving Labor men who were knighted in the past have not abandoned their
honours."
As the the egalitarianism of the Socialists and Communists, it is
mere rubbish, for: "free men... can never be equal. Rightly, they demand equality
of opportunity, but they recognise that equality of achievement is impossible."
Sir Mark makes reference to Bertrand Russell, who said that anyone who
has had anything to do with education cannot believe that all men are equal. And
yet, we daresay that many of our angry young school teachers are even now bemused
by the myth of the "equality of man"; i.e. everyone is the same; no better, no
worse; no smarter, no duller.
It suits Socialist egalitarianism to believe
this; its nonsensical idealism helps to propel the Socialist legislation along.
The envy, which lurks in most hearts, is sated in the more immature by the spectacle
of those with superior attainments, and possessions, being levelled to the Socialist
norm. Socialism is sustained by envy.
Sir Mark concedes that we cannot
escape change, and that even the Westminster system of government must be moulded
to the needs of the times. He warns: "The greatest danger we face today arises
not from the continued existence of the Monarchy, nor from a filial loyalty to
Britain, but from the almost complete suppression of individual liberty among
Party members elected to Parliament."
Sir Mark went on to outline many
failings and shortcomings of the Party system with which League supporters are
quite familiar: viz, the Member's first loyalty is to the Party; he dares not
be honest, his career is at stake, he has sold his soul. So...."a referee, not
answerable to either Party, must therefore exist." We are told that the President
of the U.S.A. must spend about 30% of his time in election campaigning; and finally...."Whatever
the merit or otherwise of the action taken by the Queen's representative in dismissing
the Labor Government, it resulted in the end in an election, the supreme democratic
process.
Sir Mark Oliphant is doing Australia quite a favour by telling
us some plain home truths; he should be thanked. |
IS "VALUE ADDED TAX" LURKING AROUND THE CORNER?"In
the great tax debate, value added tax has a special place. A nightmare place,
horrendously complicated, but inevitable." Anthony Clarke, in Sunday Press
(Melbourne) March 6th.
This "value added
tax", usually referred to as just "V.A.T.", may well be the "reform" which Mr.
Fraser, and his colleagues, are mentioning. All this will mean is that the taxation
emphasis will be shifted, along with a bemusing public relations campaign, from
the personal collection to indirect collection of taxation. At the present time
personal tax revenue accounts for 57% of total; customs and excise 18.1%; sales
tax 8.5% and company tax 14.5%.
In V.A.T. an accruing tax is levied on
an item of production at every stage of its "development", from the raw materials,
and/or imports, right through all processes, until it finally reaches the consumer.
There's no doubt that if V.A.T. is introduced into Australia that the bureaucracy
could not be held down to present levels; the Sunday Press article states
that 12,000 (twelve thousand) bureaucrats in the U.K. are required to administer
V.A.T. alone. It also states that experience has shown in Europe that V.A.T. is
inflationary: we don't have to be told that.
ALL taxation is inflationary.
In the U.K., V.A.T. rates are 8% for most goods and services, and 25% for luxury
items; and this is arbitrary.
What is a "luxury" item? It's what some team
of bureaucrats say it is, that's what. |
ATTACKS
ON THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION INTENSIFY"The
Australian Constitution should be scrapped because it had created confusion, controversy,
and conflict, the Opposition's Defence spokesman, Mr. Hayden, said yesterday."
- The Sun, (Melbourne) March 2nd.
According to Mr. Hayden, a doctrinaire
Socialist, we should have a new Constitution based on "democratic" principles
(our present Constitution, by implication, is not democratic.) The ceremonial
Head of State is to have no political powers (out with the Westminster system
of government which has served us so well for so long, AND prevents dictatorships.)
Upper Houses of Parliament are to be emasculated, so that Socialist legislation
can be rammed through the lower house into law, without any checks by a powerful
Senate, as fully intended by the Constitution, to represent the States, not any
political Party.
It is true that the Senate has suffered because of the Party
system therein, but it proved its effectiveness all the same. The Senate saved
us from even worse Socialist legislation during the three-year Whitlam era; which
could return uless the Fraser Government performs much better in the field of
economic management.
For example, we probably
would have had ex-Senator Murphy's "Bill of Rights" - a great confidence trick,
if ever there was one. Mr. Hayden now says that we must have a Bill of Rights,
which will no doubt be pretty much the same as Senator Murphy's proposed legislation.
Incidentally, we still have supplies of the League of Rights brochure -"Senator
Murphy's Fraudulent 'Human Rights' Bill". Those interested should send for some
copies, and send a small donation, say one dollar, to cover handling and postage.
Even Mr. Malcolm Fraser is showing some interest in a Bill of Rights.
Mr.
Hayden laments: "The fact is that we do not have a firm and undeniable commitment
to the basic right, that every adult citizen in this country can vote at elections."
Every adult citizen in any Communist country has this magnificant "right", but
that does not allow them the freedom to throw off the worst political tyranny
yet seen in Man's history. Australia is one of the very few Western countries
which has so-called "compulsory" voting.
"Ballot-box
democracy" is a hoax, as under the Party game, politicians claim that they always
represent the "majority": rule by the majority. But this is a deception, and the
situation is not as it seems, James Guthrie summed it up well in his little masterpiece
- Our Sham Democracy "...Those in control of the modern State can,
and do, penalise minorities, because they claim that they represent a majority
- the fact being overlooked that we are all, at one time or another, a member
of a minority. Parents are in a minority; farmers are in a minority; the country
dwellers are in a minority; skilled men are in a 'minority; the politically wise
are very much in a -minority."
"But so-called democratic governments demand
the right - and they continually exercise this right - to over-rule every minority,
which together make the majority. In other words, in practice we are witnessing
governments using the technique of the manipulated mass-vote to disfranchise successive
minorities, and transfer their rights to the manipulators." |
