PRESIDENT CARTER'S UNPLEASANT MESSAGE

Like the spokesmen for the Fraser Government, who continue to insist that their finance economic strategy is "working", some spokesmen for business also demonstrate an amazing capacity for self-delusion. Last week, for example, Mr. Brian Powell, director of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, insisted that economic recovery was on the way. He said, "There is increasing evidence that the Government's economic strategy is working, and there are now real prospects of growth and jobs, based on reduced inflation and improved international competitiveness in the 1980's."

The Fraser Government's "strategy" was based upon reducing taxation, inflation, interest rates and unemployment. Taxation has been progressively increased, inflation is moving upwards again, and will go higher as a result of Government policies; unemployment has remained high, while interest rates have also increased.
There is a threat of further increases following the steep increase in the U.S.A.

Much more realistic about the general situation is President Jimmy Carter, who perhaps feels that honesty may prove much more of a political lifesaver than wishful thinking. Speaking in California on October 11th, President Carter said that austerity and financial "discipline" were "unavoidable". The Carter policy is an attempt to halt the rising inflation rate in the U.S.A. While the President insists that he is going to "fight" inflation without creating more unemployment, the reaction of the Wall Street Stock Exchange gives same indication of the crisis conditions developing in the USA.

Unless countries like Australia take steps to insulate themselves from what is happening in other countries, then it is certain that Australians will also be subjected to a lower real standard of living. The "austerity" programme announced by President Carter would only make sense if the United States had experienced a major break down in its production system, food production perhaps being affected by serious drought. But the United States is capable physically of providing an abundance of food, clothing, shelter and the amenities of a civilised society. Australia is in the same position.

Talk of "austerity" programmes suggests that the free enterprise production system has failed. It has been so successful in the U.S.A. that not only can adequate be provided for all Americans, but there is such an enormous surplus that much of it is sent to the Communist enemy under the most liberal credit terms. Now it is proposed that Red China should also be financed so that it can receive a flow of economic blood transfusions.

As we have pointed out over many years, until certain basic truths concerning finance and real economics are faced and acted upon, all industrialised nations operating under present financial policies are doomed to try to solve their domestic problems by striving for greater exports. In many cases exports are sheer economic loss for the exporting nations.
The "fight" for foreign markets is a type of economic warfare, which can lead either to military conflict, or the type of world State.

One thing is certain beyond all argument: no genuine stability is possible under financial policies of increasing debt, higher taxation of all kinds and high interest rates. The present deepening crisis has developed generally as we have warned over the years. We must repeat our warning that our society is on the verge of greater convulsions. Attempts by Governments to take "firm action" without removing the basic causes of the convulsions can only lead to the open revolutionary situation anticipated by the Marxists of all kinds.

THE BETRAYAL OF BISHOP MUZOREWA

By the time this comment appears, the London talks on Zimbabwe-Rhodesia may have collapsed with the terrorist leaders Mugabe and Nkomo leaving to attempt to make good their threat to obtain power through the barrel of the gun. The Soviet will, of course, ensure that there is no shortage of guns. But irrespective of what happens now, Bishop Muzorewa has been betrayed by a British Government adopting the treacherous policy urged by Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. His position has been hopelessly compromised by his acceptance of the British proposal that the influence of the whites of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia be seriously reduced.

The Bishop's violation of an agreement he entered into with the Smith Government, an agreement that enabled him to be elected as Prime Minister, heading a black government, left Mr. Ian Smith with no other alternative but to return to Salisbury to denounce the Muzorewa agreement to the British proposals. The fears of the whites have been increased.
To be fair to Bishop Muzorewa, once he had been pressured to enter into talks at which the terrorist leaders were given equal status, he had been maneuvered into a type of no win situation. If he had refused to make any concessions to British and other pressures, the position of the terrorists would have been strengthened. But by making the concession he has weakened the Government of national unity in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. And what if another election should be held under the modified constitution, with once again the terrorists being invited to attend, and declining to do so, intensifying their terrorist attacks?
Would the British Government - and the Fraser Government agree in unequivocal terms to back that elected Zimbabwe-Rhodesian Government?

By refusing to accept the election of seven months ago, the Australian and other Governments have indicated that they will support nothing but a Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in which the position of the whites is so hopeless that they will have to leave. Mugabe and Nkomo are demanding that the whites receive no compensation for their properties. If the whites are dispossessed and receive no compensation, what will Lord Carrington, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Peacock and the rest have to say about this? Little, if anything.

Perhaps the most realistic summary of the London talks has been provided by the South African Prime Minister, Mr. Botha. Expressing his dissatisfaction with the talks, Mr. Botha likens the situation to "a football match that must be played over and over again until the winners lose."

The last remaining faint hope of preventing a major collapse in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is that the growing backbench revolt of the British Conservatives will trigger a similar revolt in Canberra, Wellington and Ottawa. And that if the South Africans are confronted with a situation which demands they openly send military forces into Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, they will be backed by at least the British Government. The betrayal of the Muzorewa Government can only be described as another of those sickening examples of Western cowardice and treachery, which have been such a feature of this century.

BRIEF COMMENTS

A Mr. M. Liffman, described as the "co-coordinator, Ecumenical Migration Centre", protests because even the Commonwealth Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr. MacKellar, felt it necessary to point out a number of errors of fact in Mr. Al Grassby's latest report. Mr. Grassby's report is, humorously, described by Mr. Liffman as an "important social document". When confronted on television with some of the major errors of fact and misrepresentation, Mr. Grassby conceded nothing, but waved his arms and let loose a torrent of evasive verbiage. The League of Rights' case was well put by W.A. State Director, Mr. Ray White, who stressed the point that what is urgently necessary is for a national referendum at which the people can have a say about their future.

Having both failed to honour their pre-election promises, with disastrous results for both New Zealand and Australia, Prime Ministers Muldoon and Fraser are now actively engaged in promoting a type of union between the two countries. As with the initial European Common Market talks, the stress is that only closer economic and trade links are envisaged. But these are but the forerunner to political union. Ultimately it is planned that New Zealand and Australia should be absorbed into a Pacific Common Market. Prime Ministers Muldoon and Fraser are to have a major conference in Wellington early next year. New Zealanders should carefully watch for the hooks in the baits offered. Their best hope of salvation is to maintain their own sovereignty.

Mr. J. Bjelke Petersen is being realistic in his refusal to contribute to an "aid to Kampuchea" fund. Significantly, the Commonwealth Government will now allow tax deductibility on such aid. Mr. Bjelke-Petersen quotes Andrew Peacock as saying (The Australian, Oct. 15th) that he doesn't know if aid to Kampuchea is getting through. For all we know, financial aid to Kampuchea could be being spent on guns. We have no doubt that Mr. Leonard Teale, a very fine Australian actor, and Chairman of the Kampuchea Relief Appeal, is utterly sincere when he draws a comparison between the Good Samaritan of the Bible ("did the Good Samaritan monitor the money he gave to the innkeeper?") - and aid to Kampuchea. In the days of the Good Samaritan, the innkeeper was a man of standing, integrity and substance in the community, a man to be trusted. This is an entirely different ball game to placing one's trust in Communist authorities, who are trained to use any dirty, devious trick they can get away with to advance any objective of the moment. More clear thinking please.

FROM HANSARD

Immigration. What they said THEN:

(Then) Mr. Billie Snedden (then) Minister for Immigration: May 22nd, 1969: "The policy of the matter is a policy of the Australian Government, and cannot be a policy of a State Government. I did read the article the honourable member referred to (Mr. Don Dustan, from New York, urging abandonment of the White Australia policy). It was over the signature of Mr. Dunstan. After I had read it, the aspect which struck me as the most remarkable was the article's assumption that Australia could attract very large numbers of people of a different race, and having done so, could escape the problems which other countries throughout the world have experienced as a result of large numbers of people of a different race coming into them. In fact, the policy of the Australian Government is to admit people of non-European race if they answer the criteria, which we have established in policy. Numbers of people are coming into Australia pursuant to that policy. The result therefore, is not an exclusionist policy. I think it is certainly not a policy which is directed towards the creation of a multiracial society". (our emphasis)

Mr. Fred Daly (A.L.P.) Representatives: March 25th. 1966:..."The Labor Party believes that Australia's Immigration policy gives effect to the principle accepted as the right of any nation to decide the composition of its population. The same test is applied to migrants by every nation. It has not, and never has had, a suggestion of racial superiority. It began as an effective aspiration, and from it has resulted a positive achievement. This achievement is a united race of freedom loving Australians who can intermarry and associate without the disadvantages and the inevitable results from the fusion of dissimilar races (our emphasis). We have a united people who share the same loyalties, the same outlook, and the same traditions. We seek to ensure - and I do not doubt that the Government seeks this too - that our society is so composed, that regardless of race, all citizens, as well as thousands of Asians and non European students and visitors, are fully accepted and have equal rights.
"Our nation is free of the racial frictions and hatreds that are so common in other parts of the world. The composition of our population ensures the integration of all people and the sharing of our freedom, independence, and way of life. This glorious ideal can be maintained without offence to any nation, subject to our policy being administered with sympathy, understanding and tolerance. The Australian Labor Party seeks to keep it this way and that is why, while we support the proposals announced by the Minister, we seek assurances that the principles and the very basis of our immigration policy shall not be disturbed or destroyed."

Mr. Barnes (Lib.-McPherson): Representatives: April 12th, 1961:"...I should like to know whether the honourable member considers that our White Australia Policy is a thing of the past which should be discarded. I am sure we were grateful to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) for his contribution this afternoon, and particularly for that part of his speech in which he gave a clear statement of the value of what we call the White Australia policy. (our emphasis). He pointed out that, in maintaining this policy, we do not think in terms of the superiority of whites. We regard this policy rather as something, which is necessary in order to preserve our racial homogeneity. The problem of disturbance of racial homogeneity is the basis of all the troubles, which arise in countries where there is a multiracial society. (our emphasis). So far, no one has found the answer to the problem of enabling the different races to live in harmony.
"The opposition has been particularly bitter about South Africa's apartheid policy, but it does not suggest an alternative. I think that we have a great degree of sympathy with the people of South Africa. We in Australia have been fortunate in that we had wise legislators in the past. Those legislators formulated the White Australia policy, which has at least kept this country free of groups of other races and permitted us to live in harmony here. (our emphasis). However, one of the characteristics of the human family is that all differences of this kind are looked at with a degree of hostility. I refer to differences not only of colour, but also of race, religion and politics. There are always differences in these matters......"