COALITION CONVULSIONS

Objective political observers of the calibre of Mr. Alan Reid are agreed that only a miracle - another open split in the Labor Party or some similar development - can save the Fraser Government from electoral defeat when it next faces the electors. Declining electoral support, as measured by the normally reliable Morgan Polls, and a number of elections, reflects not only growing dissatisfaction with the Government's policies, but its low credibility rating by the Australian people. Now comes the open conflict between the Coalition parties. Much more than a "smartening up" process is going to be required to stem the loss of electoral support.

If Mr. Fraser really believes that all that is necessary is for his supporters to go out and "sell" his Government to the people, he is completely out of touch with reality. The open admission by the Victorian National Country Party that it is prepared to consider some merger with the Liberals, demonstrates what we have been saying for years: that the policies the C.P. has helped to implement as a partner with the Liberals have so decimated the Australian rural community that this must progressively weaken the NCP's electoral base. In spite of what should have been favourable electoral conditions for it, the vote for the N.C.P. at the Victorian State Elections revealed a serious decline of support. If Federal NCP leader, Mr. Doug Anthony had any effect on the Victorian elections, it was probably to lose the Victorian NCP votes!

The NCP could have made a major constructive contribution to the preserving of a free Australia by advancing constructive policies and by maintaining its independence acting as a balancing factor. But any rank and file NCP support for constructive policies was ruthlessly stamped upon and allegations made that this was evidence of "infiltration" by the League of Rights. Doug Anthony and his Federal NCP colleagues played a major role in denigrating the one real constructive initiative to emerge from the NCP: the "Petersen Plan" put forward by Queensland Premier J. Bjelke-Petersen (see "Censored Economics", 75 cents posted). They are now in the position where they are sinking with the Liberal Party, inside which there are those now openly urging open electoral conflict with their NCP colleagues.

If the Victorian Liberals adhere to their policy of standing a separate Liberal team at the next Federal Elections, NCP Minister Webster will almost certainly be defeated. But even more serious is the threat to NCP Senator Glen Sheil in Queensland, also threatened by the Liberal Party in that State. The NCP is now in a situation that can only worsen progressively unless it can establish itself as an independent political force with constructive policies, which will unite Australians.
Premier J. Bjelke Petersen appears to have grasped the reality of the situation, realising that his own political future, and that of the NCP in Queensland, is also seriously threatened. Our own view is that he can only survive the next Queensland State Elections as Premier if he can lead a constructive programme; put as much distance as possible between himself and the Fraser Government, and introduce policies which will at least partly offset the disastrous policies being imposed from Canberra.

Premier Bjelke-Petersen's' declared intention of using a national anti-taxation campaign to get leverage on the Federal Government, forcing it to implement what it promised before the last two Federal Elections, is realistic politics. In his initial jousts with Federal Treasurer John Howard, the Premier has scored all the points. But he must go further and point out to the Australian people that currently he is limited in what he can do because of the Federal Government's monopoly control of credit creation.
In response to John Howard's implied threat that Queensland would get less tax revenue from Canberra if its anti-tax campaign were successful, Premier Petersen should inform the Fraser Government that if it raises no obstacles to Queensland establishing its own bank of credit issue, it would be in a position to finance its own economic requirements.

The convulsions inside the Liberal and NCP parties are but one more manifestation of a process of disintegration, which must continue under present centralist finance economic policies. But if the major result of these convulsions is a constructive programme initiated by the Queensland Premier, they will be seen historically in retrospect as a type of cleansing process out of which emerged new life.

INSULTING IMMIGRATION POLICY

It is no secret that the politicians at Canberra are becoming increasingly restive about the growing electoral opposition to the current immigration policy. The League of Rights brochure and "voting form" have provided electors with the opportunity of expressing their views. All the evidence reveals an overwhelming majority of electors in opposition to the policy of bringing increasing numbers of non-Europeans into Australia.

In an address to a National Press Club luncheon in Canberra last week, the Federal Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr. MacKellar, said that the Government was committed to take in more refugees. "Whether we like it or not, we will all have to do more", he said. The decision to take 14,000 Indo-Chinese refugees this year "was not likely to be the end of the story for Australia." This confirms what we have warned about. The "silent invasion" of Australia is to be intensified.

One interesting and revealing incident at the Press Club luncheon took place when, in answer to a question about Japan's low intake of refugees - now less than a dozen, and these regarded as being only in transit - and whether this might rise, Mr. MacKellar facetiously said that "Japan as I understand it, has decided to relax its entry policies and may accept 50 or 60". The audience laughed but Japanese guests, including Japanese Ambassador Okawara, was not amused. The truth is that at the recent Geneva Conference on refugees, the Japanese agreed to take only 500. Very sensibly they agreed to contribute ($66 million American) to help refugees ELSEWHERE.

Sir Lawrence Hartnett, who played a major role in General MacArthur's island hopping campaign in the Pacific War, has made the constructive suggestion that a Pacific Island, or a number of islands, should be made available for Indo-Chinese refugees, and help provided there. An adviser to the Singapore Government, Sir Lawrence recalls that the world's "experts" once insisted that this small island, with its lack of any resources, not even fresh water, could not become a viable independent nation. But Mr. Mackellar now reveals that his Government's policy is not merely one of offering refuge to people. These people are required to "contribute in sharing the future tasks of developing Australia."

Launching into what can only be described as a propaganda spiel to justify bringing more non-Europeans, refugees or immigrants, into Australia, Mr. MacKellar said that Australia could not sit on its resources "like a dog guarding its bones, refusing to share, denying population growth and being timid about achieving the undoubted potential there is for building a prosperous, free and great nation." There is not the slightest evidence to indicate a small nation, in terms of population is at a disadvantage compared with a nation, like the United States, with hundreds of millions.

We have not noticed large numbers of Swiss wanting to migrate from their small country. The story about prosperity depending upon population growth is absurd nonsense, even though believed by some who should know better. As for a natural increase in the size of the Australian population, if Mr. MacKellar and his Government would implement financial policies, which eased the burden on the young families, there would be more children. Why not finance the young Australian family instead of financing growing numbers of non-Europeans into Australia?

Mr. MacKellar and his "advisers" realise that the majority of Australians are against their policy. But do they accept the view of the majority? No. And at the Press luncheon Mr. MacKellar further revealed his totalitarian philosophy by urging that a bi-partisan policy on immigration be adopted. In other words that the parties should agree that they unite in defying the wishes of the Australian people. It is clear that immigration must be made a MAJOR issue at the next Federal Elections. If Mr. MacKellar could be removed, this would help to get a message through to our Canberra masters.

A BRIEF COMMENT