PRIME MINISTER HAWKE'S FASCIST PROGRAMME

Prime Minister Bob Hawke says that his "Summit" Conference starting on April 11th will provide "an historic opportunity to set a new course for Australia". Mr. Hawke is correct in the sense that what he is proposing is the open abolition of representative responsible parliamentary government.

During the latter stages of the election campaign former Liberal Minister for Defence Sir James Killen said that the Labor Party's accord with the Trade Union movement on a prices and income policy was a serious threat to the Westminster type of government, in that the government of the day could not legislate in certain areas without the agreement of a non-parliamentary organisation. What Sir James had to say was true as far as it went. But we point out that in the words of a distinguished Australian Sir Marcus Oliphant former Governor of South Australia that representative government in Australia has been replaced by an "elected dictatorship". And that dictatorship has been subservient to an even worse dictatorship that of Finance.

Sir James will recall how as Minister for Defence he pleaded that military defence had to be subordinated to the "fight" against inflation. As we have consistently pointed out that "fight" is doomed unless the treacherous policies of debt finance are tackled. As Federal Treasurer Mr. John Howard capitulated to the non-elected Reserve Bank bureaucrats, but Mr. Hawke now proposes to take the process of government by non-parliamentary organisation much further.

As the new Prime Minister has constantly made reference to his expertise in the field of economics, we would have thought that Mr. Hawke knows what is the basic cause of the deepening economic crisis and the policies necessary to start removing that cause. If his Big Business friends like Sir Peter Abeles also know the answers then why is a "Summit" Conference necessary? The "Summit" will in fact be a skilful public relations exercise designed to claim a "consensus" support for a programme which Mr. Hawke is determined to try to impose upon the Australian people.
The "Summit" is designed to be the forerunner to the establishment of a National Economic Advisory Council which will be advising on how to advance the concept of the central planning of the Australian economy.

As a declared supporter of "democratic socialism" from way back, Mr. Hawke is familiar with the view of the better informed Socialists that so far from Big Business being antipathetic to Socialism, the bigger Big Business grows the more it becomes collectivist. Mr. Hawke's many big Business friends clearly have no fear of Mr. Hawke's "democratic socialism" or his support for a Socialist Republic Australia. Mr. Hawke has already made it clear that he is not going to challenge financial orthodoxy.
His prompt decision to devalue by 10 % as recommended by the same financial "experts" who advised Mr. John Howard and Mr. Fraser was a reaction to the flood of foreign capital out of Australia and the carefully fostered myth that if international speculators move figures from bank ledgers in Australia and place them in ledgers in some other country, the Australian economy must suffer and that interest rates will go up.

As we have constantly pointed out; unless foreign financial capital is required to import equipment or technology; it is unnecessary for the development of Australian productive capacity. The rest of the world could sink beneath the sea tomorrow without in any way affecting Australia's real credit, its productive capacity. While devaluation gives a short-term benefit to exporters; it means that nationally a nation has to export more production for the same amount of imports. It is an inflationary policy as Mr. Hawke will discover.

Those international speculators who shifted credits out of Australia before devaluation made a nice "killing" of 10%. It would be interesting to know the identity of those who sent credits out in such a big way before Mr. Hawke's devaluation. Already Mr. Hawke is shifting his position with comparatively few people recalling how their Prime Minister is manipulating the podia to disguise what he is doing. Aided by the disclosure that the Liberals had seriously underestimated the Budget deficit; Mr. Hawke has been able to start preparing electors for the reality that those firm election promises he did make will now have to be postponed. He has done this in such a way that like his devaluation move he can present himself as "responsible".

Perhaps his major policy shift is the announcement that the "wage pause" may have to stay until the end of the year. An endorsement of the same policy accepted by the Fraser Government. With no prospect of inflation even being reduced. This means a further erosion of consumer purchasing power with serious effects for industry.

In announcing his continuation of the, "wage pause", Mr. Hawke attempted to neutralise any possible criticism by claiming that he had been making this claim right throughout the election campaign. There is no record of Mr. Hawke having said any such thing during the election campaign. Just as the crisis produced by the Fraser Government paved the way for the Hawke election victory. Now Mr. Hawke is seeking to exploit that crisis to advance his grand design through the, "Summit". The essence of what Mr. Hawke is proposing has a disturbing similarity to the Fascist Corporate State concepts of Mussolini who replaced what representative government the Italians had with government by councils allegedly representing the different sections of society.

Perhaps it is an indication of the shape of things to come that Mr. Hawke is going to use the very parliamentary chamber where the elected representatives of the people meet to pass legislation, to conduct a "Summit" of non-elected representatives of corporate groups. Electors who voted for Labor Party candidates with the belief, or hope, that a Hawke Government must be an improvement on a Fraser Government, are in for some rude shocks.

THE OPEC DILEMMA

THE FARCE OF FOREIGN AID

MR HAWKE, POLITICAL ZIONISM AND THE SOVIET

"The Australian Jewish News", strongly pro-Zionist in its editorial of March 11th is most eloquent concerning the virtues of Australia's new Prime Minister Mr. Bob Hawke. Upon his election Mr. Hawke received a telegram from his friend Mr. Isi Leibler President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry from Jerusalem. Mr. Mark Leibler Victorian State Zionist Council President joined in the eulogies of Mr. Hawke, expressing the hope that Mr. Hawke will usher in "a new era of social and economic progress".

Students of Australian history will be astonished to learn from Mr. Mark Leibler that the late John Curtin "contributed to a forward moving multicultural society through his immigration and ethnic affairs policies". Mr. Mark Leibler presumably has not heard of Labor's Minister for Immigration, Mr. Arthur Caldwell, who stoutly defended Australia's traditional Immigration policy.

Much has been made of Mr. Hawke's visit to Moscow on behalf of Soviet Jews. There is not one iota of evidence to suggest that Mr. Hawke had the slightest effect on the Soviet's policy of letting Jews leave the Soviet in accordance with long-term arrangements between the Soviet and Political Zionism. (This matter is dealt with in Eric D. Butler's "Censored History" $1. posted from all League bookshop). But incidents during Mr. Hawke's 1979 visit to the Soviet leave many vital questions unanswered.

Hawke's official biographer Blanche D'Alpuget reveals the shattered state of Hawke as he flew into Rome from Moscow. Mr. Hawke's friend, Mr. Isi Leibler is quoted as saying that Hawke's emotions were "completely smashed in". Blanche D'Alpuget quotes an Australian diplomat as saying, "Hawke was trapped between two powerful forces - the KGB and international Zionism which in the Russian mind is a huge and powerful adversary". If Mr. Hawke's behaviour in the Soviet Union allowed him to be compromised by the KGB as suggested by some it would perhaps explain his rather muted criticism of the Soviet Union even in spite of his professed concern about the plight of Soviet Jews.

From Hansard

Senate (December 2nd): World Heritage Properties Protection Bill: Senator Shirley Walters (Lib.-Tas.);
"It might interest honourable senators to know that yesterday an advertisement was placed in three Tasmanian newspapers - the Mercury the Examiner and the Advocate which reads: 'If legislation now before the Senate is passed the control of our South West will rest not with Tasmania but with unknown persons outside Australia. We call upon Labor Senators to vote against this Bill which opposes the wish of the Tasmanian Parliament and People'.
"That advertisement was authorised by HEAT which is a well-known organisation that supports the Hydro-Electric Commission. "....the advertisement appeared in the newspapers yesterday. Today one day later I have received in my office nearly 700 (seven hundred) signatures on the cut out advertisement. I was telephoned by my secretary and asked: 'what will I do with them? They have just poured in. They have been brought to me and they are still coming in'. "I instructed my secretary to send to Senator Grimes all those signatures requesting Labor Senators in this States' rights House to vote against this Bill. That is what the Tasmanian people are asking them to do. It might interest honourable senators to know that we had received nearly 700 (seven hundred) signatures by 4 o'clock. I do not know what the number is now. That number came in one day.."

Senator MacGibbon (Lib.-Qld.) World Heritage Properties Protection Bill (December 2nd):
".... the Bill provides that anyone can bring proceedings before a Federal Court. As Senator Harradine so accurately observed, there would be nothing to stop someone in California, Moscow, or Paris bringing an action against a State government before the Federal Court under the terms of this Bill". "...My advice is that the Bill was drafted by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Conservation Foundation has lobbied members of the Parliament to have the Bill passed."
"I do not suppose it is treasonable for people outside Parliament to write legislation, but I think the point should be noted by the Senate that the Bill does not originate with the Australian Democrats, although quite clearly it has their full support."

Senator Missen (Lib.-Vic.):
".... I will refer to a letter, which, I think, many honourable senators received today from the Australian Conservation Foundation. Mr. Murray Wilcox Q.C., its President, is a man of great knowledge of constitution areas. I think that he had quite a deal to do with the drafting of this Bill. (our emphasis)

Senator Shirley Walters (Lib .-Tas.):
.... . Senator Evans, through his attempted interjection, has already said it is not a States House and never has been since -

Senator Evans (A.L.P.-Vic.) and the new Attorney General in the Hawke Labor Government:
"Since 1901".

Senator Walters:
" - since 1901, since the beginning. He believes it never has been a States House. Long before Senator Evans came into this chamber we heard from the Opposition that this place ought to be abolished. It was part of the Australian Labor Party's platform. If I remember correctly it was Senator Evans who said: 'we ought to cut that out of our platform because it is not too popular with the electors. So let us just keep it in the background. Let us not have it as part of our platform, or not the written part anyway. Let us just keep it in the background. We have found through experience that this is not too popular with the people electing us'.
"So Senator (Gareth) Evans is certainly not for a States House. Senator (Michael) Tate (A.L.P.-Tas.) seems to be the person on that side of the chamber who is closest to being a States member, but he does not have the gumption to cross the floor. He does not have the courage of his convictions and he only talks about it.
"Then we have the newcomers, the Australian Democrats. The first time they have the opportunity to make any sort of State comment, what do they do? They caucus and they forget that this place is a States House. They have absolutely no intention of including States rights in any action in the Senate and they have started off making that completely clear…"
"The issue now is on the sovereign right of States to do what they like with their own property. It would be like Tasmania saying: 'We want the Yallourn Valley to be part of the national heritage. 'We do not want you to use your natural resources; we are going to abolish all that. We have as much right in the Yallourn Valley as you have'.
"Tasmanian senators in this place could then make some representations to the effect that the Yallourn Valley or the Cooper Basin gas fields in South Australia be taken over for people to wander through without picking leaves but doing as they like. Let us not say that States rights are not important."
".... I do not ever want to hear again lawyers such as Senator Evans and Senator Missen or others talk about human rights. They talk about human rights in relation to freedom on information, family law, abortion and any subject we like to imagine. But in talking about human rights as it relates to this Bill (World Heritage Properties Protection Bill) all we get from the lawyers in this place, such as Senator Tate, Senator Evans and Senator Missen is; 'Well, really the constitutional rights might be a bit trampled on in this Bill. It might not be perfect, but after all we cannot be seen to vote against it'. "This is the sort of thing we get from these honourable senators who are supposed-to wear on their sleeves their belief in human rights. They wear this on their sleeves with absolute hypocrisy." (our emphasis)

DAM INTERFERENCE
The following letter was published in the Geelong Advertiser (Vic.) Jan. 29th; over the name of Neil G. McDonald.
"There's too much interference in an issue which should concern only Tasmanians. "The sovereign rights of Tasmania are the same as any other State in Australia. Whether their electrical power needs are best served by a dam or another method is not within the technical scope of the average citizen. On the recommendation of experts, the construction of a dam has been twice endorsed by Tasmanian electors. If a mistake is made, it is the responsibility of only Tasmanians alone.
"Once the principle of outside interference is practiced, there can be no stability anywhere. What is to stop eight hundred millions of Chinese from outvoting Australians on their preference for chopsticks at the dinner table? Or the Russians could outvote Egypt and have the pyramids and the Sphinx exported for road metal.
"Most Australians had previously never heard of the Franklin River - and its untouched beauty is beyond their future tourist plans. Only a few hardy anglers and curious adventurers are likely to be attracted to its white waters and shrub decked cliffs. "Dams can be much more accessible to family holidaymakers. Parks and gardens replace inaccessible forest. There is nothing unattractive about Eildon, Kiewa, or Warragamba.
"When a few individuals can adopt a massive label such as the World Heritage Society, they take upon themselves power without responsibility. There is much to do within each member's own area, which deserves a greater priority.
"Let the Geelong glow worms, attracted to the aims of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, become involved in the local scene. "May they probe into the incongruities of Fluoridation, and investigate if the findings of Glen Walker's book - "Fluoridation: Poison On Tap are worthy of the concern and support of Victorians.
"If our energetic youth wish to flex their immature political muscles, they may be able to contribute some assistance to the recently formed 'watchdog' - the Geelong Region Electors' Action Association. There are plenty of local issues, which need young crusaders - not, for example, to take unemployment and Fluoridation at their immoveable face values. Forget Tassie's worries - help make Geelong a better place in which to live".