ATTEMPT TO SMEAR LEAGUE EXHIBITION

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY WARNS ON HIGH COURT DECISION

One of Australia's most distinguished jurists, a man with an international reputation, Dr. Walter Henderson of Adelaide, has recently made available the following opinion concerning the High Court's decision last year that the Federal Government can use its External Powers to enter into international agreements and conventions which can then be used to legislate at the expense of the States:

THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gibbs C.J. Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aitkin, Wilson and Brennan J.J. Koowarta Plaintiff Bjelke-Petersen and Others.
Defendants And The Commonwealth of Australia v. The State of Queensland.
"This is a case decided by the High Court of Australia on May 11, 1982, in which every Australian citizen who is concerned with the preservation of the present federal method of government of country should have a practical interest. It turned on the question of whether or not the Racial Discrimination Act of the Commonwealth Parliament was within the power of that Parliament or whether it was within the powers of the States. Four of the judges led by Stephen J. decided that it was within Commonwealth powers, and three of the judges led by the Chief Justice decided that the subject matter of the Statute was within State power.
"I propose in this paper to set out and criticise the judgment of Stephen J. who has since left the High Court to become, as Sir Ninian Stephen, the Governor General of Australia. "The case arose in this way. An aborigine in Queensland took legal proceedings against the Premier of Queensland pleading the latter was acting contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act of the Commonwealth in denying him, as an aborigine, a certain right to take an interest in land. The Commonwealth Government intervened in the case, which then became the Commonwealth against the State of Queensland.
"The gist of the case turned on the content of the expression, 'External Affairs', in the Commonwealth Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament being given the power to legislate on 'External Affairs'. I shall examine the judgement of Stephen J.
"The kernel of the case presented by Stephen J. in the Racial Discrimination case is that when the U.N. deliberated on a matter it ipso facto becomes a subject within the External Affairs powers of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, and thus may be legislated on by the Commonwealth Parliament with certainty that it will not be ultra vires. He buttressed his argument by reference to a number of writers on international law. He says: 'This growth reflects the new global concern for human rights and the international acknowledgement of the need for universally recognised norms of conduct'. "Such a course of reasoning would lead him to accept as qualifying for entry into our 'External Affairs' the International Covenants on Human Rights which include an International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All these would be particularised and not lost in a general expression.
Nearly all the matters out in this Covenant are at present within the powers of the States. The view of Stephen J. is that, included in 'External Affairs' a Commonwealth Statute in respect of any one of more of them would over ride State legislation. This, of course, would lead to the demise of the States and transform Australia from a federal system into a unitary system. And this would be done legally and quietly.
"The faith of Stephen J. in the 'global concern' for human rights is not supported by facts. The countries of the Communist world and the African countries have no such concern. The Communist countries by reason of the mental perversion that afflicts them. The African countries by the fact that the last thing they want is to be having any respect for human rights. Also, none of such countries have judiciaries capable of enforcing the provisions of such Covenants. I have a list of the member countries of the U.N. up to the end of 1980, with the inclusion of Zimbabwe. There are 151 (one hundred and fifty one) of them. Of these, only a dozen are Rule of Law countries with judiciaries independent of the Executive. So the adoption and ratification of these U.N. Human Rights Covenants would result in nothing else than a hilarious international paper chase.
"There is an extremely objectionable clause in the International Covenant on Civil and Cultural Rights and that is that countries accepting it have a duty to spy on other countries that are not carrying out its provisions and to report the results of that spying to the U.N. It is likely that African countries would prefer to spy on countries, their neighbours, who are carrying out their undertakings.
"There is a peculiarly insolent provision in the International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights. It is Article 50, which says: 'The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions.' One supposes that the academic bureaucrats of the U.N. are so used to seeing governments grovel before them that they can say whatever they wish to say.
"Stephen J. appears to have arrived at the opinion he did by permitting his indwelling personal views of what has been called immanent justice to come before the strict requirements of the positive law. This is a besetting sin that often awaits judges to trip them up. But what is disturbing in this racial discrimination case is that he induced three other judges to follow him. The High Court is obedient to its own decisions and will be obliged to accept the view that the Commonwealth Constitution can be amended in a manner not provided for in the Constitution itself.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Former Australian Test cricket captain, Mr. Richie Benaud, has opposed sending a young Australian cricket team to Zimbabwe, drawing attention to the deteriorating security situation, with white farmers being murdered, and escalating tribal tensions. The tour is going ahead, primarily because of assurances from Australia's diplomatic representatives in Zimbabwe. Mr. Benaud claims that young Australian cricketers are being put at risk to further Australia's diplomacy concerning the "Third World". Writing in "The Herald", Melbourne, of March 22nd, Mr. Benaud asked, "Why on earth should they (young Australian cricketers) be condemned to undertake the tour to a strike-torn country just because it happens to be a good thing to do - and that to decline the tour would upset the Zimbabwean Government?" The Hawke Government has, like the Fraser Government, urged that the tour go ahead. We sincerely hope that Australia's young cricketers return safely.

Addressing a series of post election meetings, Mr. Eric Butler has been predicting that Mr. Hawke's long-term strategy is, if possible, to stage an early election next year, using a double dissolution not merely to consolidate his position for a further three years, but also to gain control of the Senate. Mr. Butler's predictions have now been supported by Canberra reports that Mr. Hawke will stage an election for the House of Representatives at the same time as the required Senate elections.

The Franklin Dam issue is moving inexorably towards escalation into a full Constitutional issue on States Rights. Council elections in Strahan (Tasmania) in the last few days amount to yet another endorsement, by Tasmanians, of the building of the Franklin Dam. The three sitting councillors were all beaten by Dam supporters. The Chairman of the Organisation for Tasmanian Development (Mr. Kelvin McCoy) said: "It should now be clearly understood by the Prime Minister that the majority of Tasmanians have again clearly demonstrated their support of the Gordon power development stage two.
"Premier Gray now has the strongest mandate of any Premier in the history of this nation to proceed with a development, which is clearly the wish of the majority of the Tasmanian people. "Tasmanians at federal, state, and now local government have clearly voiced their wish. "Quite obviously, the people of Strahan have had enough of the Conservation Movement. We would like to see more letters supporting the Tasmanian Government, and the key underlying issue - support of decentralised government - (State Government) in the press. There are not enough appearing at the present time, and we have the strongest case: viz. support of decentralised government of democracy against the Big Government of the Socialists, Communists, and One Worlders.
We again remind supporters that governments can only increase their powers at the expense of the individual. The more power a government acquires, then the less power has the individual. The Socialist ideologues (there are plenty of them at Canberra) want Big Government, by faith! It is like a religion with them: they have been sold the Big Government faith, which they believe must have the power to cure all ills. They are misled. Big Government can only mean small individuals, without the power to defend themselves against the continuous encroachments of the 'Power State'.

The ideologue editorialists of The Age (Melbourne), commonly known as "The Spencer Street Soviet", because of its consistent Left-wing views, have gone right off this planet. In the Editorial of March 24th, we read this: "On March 5 the majority of Australians voted to have the Franklin saved. The fact that Tasmanians voted against the national tide is not the point. The southwest wilderness area belongs to the nation and the world. By insisting otherwise, Mr. Gray is out of step and out of touch".
We remind supporters, also, that office-bearers of the Australian Conservation Foundation are monitoring the metropolitan and regional press, and responding to pro-Dam letters - as is their democratic right. Supporters should know that the League of Rights is generally quite sympathetic to the Conservation Movement so long as vital constitutional and political principles are not endangered.
Commonwealth intervention over the Franklin Dam issue does endanger such a vital principle: that of decentralised government. As a matter of fact the Deputy Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Mr. Doug Hill, is to address the Melbourne Conservative Speakers' Club on Thursday, May 5th. This arrangement was made well before the Dams issue escalated to the stage, which it has now reached. This issue has naturally been discussed since with Mr. Hill, whom, we felt, might be embarrassed by speaking from our platform (more pro-Tasmanian Government than pro-Dam itself) but the mutual assessment was that the Dam was one issue only, and that there was much of interest in the other activities of the Australian Conservation Foundation about which we should be acquainted. Mr. Doug Hill will be assured of a polite, courteous, reception by his audience made up, generally, of League of Rights supporters.