THE BATTLE AT ST. ARNAUD

If a vote had been taken at the conclusion of the debate between Dr. Ken Coghill, representing the Victorian State Government on Aboriginal Affairs, and Mr. Eric Butler, held in the St. Arnaud Town Hall on Tuesday, April 10th, Dr. Coghill would have been lucky to have obtained twenty votes out of the packed audience. One got the distinct impression that Dr. Coghill was performing primarily for the ABC television cameras.

After presenting the usual plea that present Australians should make some atonement for the alleged sins of Australia's pioneers of 100 or more years ago, and claiming that land rights would enable people of Aboriginal descent to live independently and free themselves from welfare, Dr. Coghill launched into a smear of the League of Rights. At one point he invited members of the audience to look at the books on sale and to see for themselves how the League was anti-Jewish. The cameras swung into to film the books. But as Mr. Butler replied, Dr. Coghill obviously did not know what he was talking about. He had never read the books to which he referred, otherwise he would have known that two of the major books being promoted by the League were by Jewish authors. He referred particularly to "The Zionist Connection", by the distinguished American Jewish scholar, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal.

As confirmed by the tape recording of Dr. Coghill's remarks, on at least three occasions Dr. Coghill claimed that private property was not under threat by the Victorian Government's land claims legislation. Mr. Butler had referred to the far-reaching claims by Mr. Stewart Murray, Chairman of the Victorian Land Council. Dr. Coghill dissociated himself from Mr. Murray's claims, but did not tell the audience that already he had helped to force one farmer off his property at one of the centres under claim by Mr. Murray.
The news only broke the following morning, when well-known journalist Mr. Tom Prior carried a full page story in the Melbourne "Sun" of how Dr. Coghill had personally visited the Field family at their property at Condah, near Heywood, in the Victorian Western District, telling them that it was wanted for an Aboriginal tourist centre.
Mr. Ken Field and his wife were deeply upset about the bureaucratic "strong "tactics used. The land the Government claimed was bought by Mr. Field's father Edgar James a soldier settler and former Tobruk Rat at public auction in 1959.

If the Field story had been available at the St. Arnaud debate, Dr. Coghill would have not dared to have made his outrageous claim that no private property was threatened. Mr. Butler informed ABC Nation Wide of the Field story the following morning after the St. Arnaud debate and suggested it was highly relevant. With feeling running high in the Western District, it may have been significant that Dr. Coghill cancelled a scheduled meeting with Colac Councillors.

Premier John Cain tried desperately to "play down" the Field affair, with Dr. Coghill providing a classic example of double-talk by claiming that the Field Family had voluntarily sold their property to the Government, but then confirmed that the Government would have considered compulsorily acquiring the land if an agreement had not been reached.

Two days later, on Friday, April 13th, Mr. Tom Prior delivered another body blow to Dr. Coghill with a "Sun" story of what one of Australia's most distinguished soldiers of Aboriginal background, Mr. Reg Saunders, thought about the treatment of the Field Family. Mr. Saunders pointed out that he had grown up with members of the Field family at Condah missionary centre, and had served in the Middle East with Mr. Ken Field's father. He had some scathing remarks about how Ken Field and his young family had been treated. It was not a good week for Dr. Coghill or the Victorian Government on the land claims issue, now reaching explosive proportions as more Victorians grasp the revolutionary implications of the Aboriginal land claims involvement.

There were many highlights during the St. Arnaud debate, but the most devastating was Mr. Butler's reply to the young farmer who indicated that he suffered from a guilt complex because his forbears had obtained property for very little and that this had been passed to him. "Surely today's Aboriginals were entitled to something?" Mr. Butler said he rejected the idea of retrospective guilt, but that if the questioner felt as he indicated, he suggested that there was nothing to stop him immediately cutting off a part of his family property and giving it to some group claiming to be of Aboriginal descent.

On the eve of Dr. Coghill's projected visit to Colac, he issued another smearing attack on the League of Rights, while the week ended with Jewish Liberal MLA, Mr. Walter Jona, writing a silly nonsensical letter to "The Age" Melbourne. With reasonable radio reports of the St. Arnaud debate, the League could not complain about lack of publicity last week. But as we go to press the television programme "Nation Wide" has not been shown. Arrangements have been made for it to be video taped and we will be commenting next week. In the meantime the League is intensifying its campaigning programme.

BRIEF COMMENTS

The arithmetic of the latest wage increase authorised by the Arbitration Court is basically simple. It is estimated that the national wage bill will increase by approximately $6,000 million. But the wage earners will not get the $6,000 million because of moving into a higher tax bracket. Employers generally will have to borrow from the banking system to pay the $6,000 million, which is created in the form of bank credit. Employers will be expected to pay back the $6,000 PLUS interest. Total prices will therefore have to be increased by at least $6,000 million PLUS the interest. But the wage earners will probably only receive, at the most, after taxation, $4,000 million. Those who can do simple arithmetic are in the position of being able to predict with complete certainty that under present financial policies, increased wages merely aggravate the deepening finance-economic social crisis.

The overwhelming majority of the estimated quarter of a million, who took part in last weekends "peace marches", are not Marxists. They are in favour of peace, as are at least 98 percent of the people, not only of Australia, but of every other nation. But behind the peace movement are the Marxist manipulators who are waging their own type of war, which has as one of its objectives the weakening of the non-Communist world.

On the fourth anniversary of "independence" for Zimbabwe, previously known as Rhodesia, what was once a prosperous, stable country, sinks ever lower into tribal killing, a growing break down of law and order, and a continuing white exodus. The notorious North Korean Fifth Brigade continues its slaughter in Matabeleland, and Comrade Mugabe has again attacked the Roman Catholic Bishops who have charged that Fifth Brigade troops have committed atrocities against civilians, including killings, torture, rape and beatings. One of the most ominous developments is that the Chief Justice of the High Court has left the country to live in Jamaica. He is a black! In the meantime we note not the slightest sign of repentance from the Frasers, Peacocks and others who participated in the betrayal of Rhodesia.

Prime Minister Bob Hawke's political adviser, Mr. Bob Hogg, has been attending a conference in Israel on "alternative lifestyle" schemes. Mr. Hawke strongly supports the establishment of Israeli type kibbutz settlements in Australia and there are reports of a draft for a new Labor party employment policy that would institutionalise the kibbutz concept. Israel is a parasitic state, which depends upon massive international economic and military aid to survive, mostly from the U.S.A. It has one of the highest inflation rates in the world and has nothing to teach Australia. Socialist collectives offer no solution to Australia's problems.

The much-publicised economic "recovery" in the United States has been the reflection of an expansion of the credit money supply. But like all drugs, debt financial policies produce serious side effects. As the inevitable inflation increases gained momentum, so the "experts" quickly started to cut back on credit creation. Interest rates have gone up. Now the headlines state that the U.S. economic recovery is "faltering". The Hawke "recovery" is similar to the American. Treasurer Keating talks confidently of what is going to happen in 1985. But it will be a different story next year. That is why Mr. Hawke is having his early Federal Election, almost certainly in December.

Following Zionist leader Isi Leibler's support for the Hawke Government's "Asianisation" policy, a letter in "The Australian" made the excellent suggestion that Mr. Leibler should advocate that the bulk of Asian refugees be re-settled in Israel. Israel could thus demonstrate to the world that it is humanitarian and also how to create a successful multicultural society.

From Hansard
Human Rights (Questions April 2nd; Senator Nick Bolkus (A.L.P. - S.A.)
... I refer (the Attorney General) to the calls by the Human Rights Commission ... for legislation to outlaw the dissemination of race hatred propaganda....

Senator Gareth Evans
The views of the Commission have already been forwarded to me and made available generally in the report it made last year on the problem of race hatred propaganda, which report contained proposals for amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act to cover incitement to race hatred and racial defamation. These proposals are presently under consideration by the Government, as I have indicated previously in this place, in the context of the review of human rights legislation generally, and the Racial Discrimination Act, in particular, presently being conducted by a departmental task force....
"I make the point finally, as I have on previous occasions, that this is not an easy one to resolve because of the fundamental tension here between the principle of free speech and expression on the one hand, and on the other, the right of all individuals to live in a harmonious society free of prejudice and persecution. I am not sure how the balance can best be struck; it may be by some extended civil remedy and group defamation, but this is the kind of thing to which the Government is giving close consideration…"

Our comment is that it is utterly impossible to legislate on attitudes! The individual cannot be forced to like or dislike races, individuals, things, by passing a law. All this can do is restrict freedom of the individual's right to free expression if punative provisions are included in any legislation. The League of Rights believes that, realistically, societies strike their balances organically and naturally over a period of time. If these balances are disturbed, e.g. by a forced multicultural/multiracial policies, then inevitable tensions appear quite rapidly, as the night follows day. It is then that the "silliness" of the Socialists/Humanists takes over to "deal" with these tensions, by passing laws to "make" everyone like everyone else; even to the extent of putting people in jail!
Future historians will shake their heads in dismay and disbelief when they ponder and write on the idiocies of politicians in the late Twentieth Century.

Senator Fred Chaney (Lib.-W.A.)
.... "I ask him (Senator Gareth Evans) to assure the Senate that in any consideration the Government gives this matter there will be no attempt to reduce the freedom of the people, such as Professor Blainey to raise what are significant questions of public policy and issues such as our immigration policy, and that very careful attention will be given to the need to ensure freedom of speech on these important matters".

Senator Gareth Evans
.... "One can only get to first base in justifying legislative sanctions of any kind against such expression if they are of a peculiarly extreme kind and constitute something in the nature of incitement. Even then there are legitimate arguments as to how far it is proper for legislation to go. It may well be that it is better to place the emphasis on trying to develop education on these matters in the community and sensitivity to the issues involved by means of other than legal ones....

We believe that Senator Evans and his fellow Humanists are on the horns of a dilemma. They are determined to stamp out criticism of, for example, the "glorious" multicultural society, but fear a backlash if their proposed restrictive legislation is rejected by the community. They are trying to "Softly, Softly, Catchee Monkey". Massive brainwashing campaigns, at the taxpayers' expense, will not "make" John and Mary Smith (is it "sexist" to place John first?) accept and like anything they instinctively reject. We recall the words of the great Jan Kossuth; religious reformer: "The instinctive feeling of a great people is often wiser than its wisest men".

Oath of Allegiance
Notice of Motion by Mr. Michael Hodgman (Lib. -Denison); Representatives, April 2nd
"That this House condemns the Prime Minister for apparent double standards and hypocrisy, in that in 1983 he publicly swore an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 2nd, Queen of Australia, in the presence of the Governor General and while being televised throughout the nation, yet now is supporting Government legislation to remove references to the Queen from the oath of allegiance in all future Australian citizenship ceremonies".

Australian Flag
Notice of Motion by Mr. Max Burr (Lib.-Wilmot) Representatives, April 2nd
"That this House condemns the Australian Labor Party for displaying the Australian Flag on its party symbol while at the same time working vigorously to change the design of the flag".

Mr. Allan Rocher (LIB.- Curtin) Representatives, April 2nd
"... Nowhere in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill is discrimination more evident than where it seeks to relegate, in Clause 12, the oath of allegiance to second place after, and only as an alternative to, an affirmation...."