Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

19 July 1985. Thought for the Week: "Since probably the majority of people are at heart religious, but terribly confused, a religious revival is entirely possible, given conscious and informed leadership. Evangelists quickly get large followings, but they do not challenge with correctly informed authority the totalitarian precepts, which now inform governments everywhere. The Church should once more put the fear of God into politicians. I do not doubt that the totalitarians in so-called free countries have a greater fear of genuine religious revival than of anything else on earth. But the overtly totalitarian countries have no such fear, for they have the secret police.... "
B.W.Monahan, in Mystery, Magic, Music and Metaphysics


The future of Australia depends upon how the growing rural crisis is resolved. As pointed out by the League of Rights over many years, there is a long-term strategy behind the destruction of independent farmers throughout the Free World. In a special videotaped address in Echuca, Victoria, on Monday of last week, Mr. Jeremy Lee, National Secretary of The Institute of Economic Democracy, and author of the revealing book, Australia's Looming Farm Disaster ($5 posted) outlined a programme of survival, one which was warmly received by those present at the meeting.

Mr. Jeremy Lee outlined the following "minimum" list of policy objectives on which there should be no dissent, and which would also earn considerable support from other sectors of Australian society:
(1) A reduction in fuel prices to the level proposed by Mr. Hawke in his campaign speech before the 1983 election. The price of Super petrol was then 42.13 cents per litre, and the price of diesel 33.22 cents per litre in 1982-83. The fuel increases in the first six months of 1985 constitute the equivalent of a $22-per-week cut in income for Australia's 170,000 farmers.
(2) A reduction in Local Government rates. Rates in Australia now average approximately $150 per head, or $600 for the average family of four. Primary producers carry a disproportionately high share of the rate burden because rates are a property-based tax although Local Government services are increasingly divorced from the land.
(3) Removal of Sales Tax from all agricultural machinery and spare parts. If there was any case for Sales Tax at all - and there isn't - it is only in the field of luxuries. In Australia, Sales Tax now directly adds $4.7 billion directly into prices. The biggest slug is at the farm gate.
(4) Removal of all those indirect taxes, which can be seen to be interfering with Supply-and-Demand.
A recent A.B.C. "Country-Wide' programme argued that Australia's dairy surplus figures provided justification for the elimination of another 3,000 dairy farmers. Yet, between the pitifully small price that the dairy farmer receives for his produce, and the retail price for the same article which is high enough to reduce considerably per capita consumption of the same product, lies the fact that over 53 taxes are loaded into the final price of a litre of milk. Is it "over-production" or "under consumption"? We will never know until those taxes are reduced or removed.
(5) The provision of long-term low-interest finance for all farmers, available for both debt reconstruction and future capital expansion. Australia's rural debt is now well over $6,000 million. In 1970 it was $600 million. An average interest rate of 15 percent means an interest bill to rural industry of $900 million, or almost $5,300 per farm. Every 1 percent reduction in interest rates saves Australia's 170,000 farmers approximately $60 million, or about $350 per farm. If Australians of Aboriginal background can obtain loan money for 4½% interest, and Third World countries can obtain "soft loans" from the International Development Association without interest and with up to seven years' grace before repayment of principal, long term, low-interest finance can be made available to Australia's primary producers.

Mr. Lee went on to outline a non-party strategy whereby Australia's primary producers could start to generate a political force which in essence would require all candidates to enter into a firm written contract with their electors, assuring them they would pledge themselves to work and to vote for the type of financial programme outlined. Mr. Lee warned that if primary producers did not use their votes constructively, they were doomed.

The President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr. Ian McLachlan, had given a lead following the Canberra rally, by stating that in future the farmers would be looking closely at all political parties and candidates. A statement that aroused the ire of National Party leader, Mr. Ian Sinclair.

(A videotape of Mr. Jeremy Lee's Echuca address may be obtained from Mr. Ian Roberts, Hopetoun, Victoria, for $30 post free. Highly recommended for playing to meetings of farmers and their friends.


From the March, '85 Newsletter of the Australian Civil Liberties Union:
"If the Bill of Rights becomes law, it would effectively transfer legislative powers from Parliament to the judiciary, and would centralise more power in Canberra. It would also lead to endless litigation from which only lawyers would benefit, and cause uncertainty about citizens' rights. "A major worry about the Bill of Rights and the proposed offence to incitement to racial hatred is that the empire-building bureaucrats of the Human Rights Commission, who have often shown little regard for civil liberties, would administer the proposed legislation.
"Officials of the Commission, who have been described as 'zealots' by Professor Chipman, could call any citizen before them to answer questions or produce documents under threat of three months' jail or a $1,000 fine. People who give misleading information or 'hinder' the Commission face similar penalties.
"The proposed Bill of Rights, which is based on an international Covenant agreed upon by United Nations members, most of which are military dictatorships, is not appropriate for Australian conditions. As the Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, said: 'if society is tolerant and rational, it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it.'"

The above letter has been sent to the Prime Minister, Mr. R. Hawke, Similar letters have been sent to the various State Premiers, the media, and the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The 1985 edition of "Your Rights", the annual publication of the Australian Civil Liberties Union is available from all League bookshops. Price: $4.00 posted.


Whilst the Federal Liberal Opposition is dickering around with the I.D. Card issue, (perched right on top of the fence to wait for clearer voter intentions on the matter) - Mr. Hassell, Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, has nailed his colours to the mast. Mr. Hassell stated (Western Mail 4/7) that it would be unconstitutional to make people use identity cards. He added 'I would refrain from using one (I.D. Card) till I was prosecuted, and then defend the prosecution.'

In Western Australia the State Presidents of both the Young Labor and Young Liberal Movement have joined together to condemn the proposed national identity card scheme. Both Leaders stated that whereas tax evasion and social security fraud were serious problems they did not justify the infringement of civil liberties. Regrettably, we have no confidence that the High Court of Australia would uphold the sovereignty of the individual with respect to the I.D. issue. It did not uphold the sovereignty of the States on the matters of the Koowarta decision, nor again the Franklin Dam decision. The Murphy affair could possibly alter the overall situation, as this could produce ramifications, which we cannot even now foresee.

Whilst on this matter, we briefly comment that we are in agreement with Professor Colin Howard, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Melbourne, who stated on an A.B.C. News or Current Affairs session that Justice Lionel Murphy should promptly resign irrespective of any outcome of an appeal, if sentence is passed. The reason? The damage of doubt already brought upon the High Court of Australia, on which there should not be the slightest suggestion of any impropriety. Against this, the Socialist ideologues have put in their oar, before any sentence is passed; and before any appeal; to throw doubt on Australia's judicial processes. The salvation of a brother radical Socialist is uppermost in their intent: the maintenance of the integrity of the Law comes a very poor second.


(July 1st): "While the (N.Z.) League of Rights has, as yet, heard nothing more from the Race Relations Office or Human Rights Commission, concerning the book-banning issue, the New Zealand Herald for June 27th, reports that a Christchurch bookshop is to be prosecuted by Race Relations for selling books which allegedly incite racial hatred. The Herald names the two books as "The Hoax of the 20th Century" by Professor Arthur Butz, and "The International Jew" by Henry Ford. We understand that the proprietor of the bookshop in question has previously offered to remove the books from his shelves if any part of their contents can be found to be incorrect. It seems the "Thought Police" are more interested in political expediency than establishing truth. As an interesting footnote to this issue, the books in question are apparently available from University libraries. Are the books to be removed from there?"


The following letter was published in The Age Melbourne, July l3th, over the name of a "Raymond Watson" of South Yarra, Vic.
"What is the point of the Minister for Immigration, Mr. Hurford, commissioning a survey of Australians' attitudes towards immigration intake levels? (Most Believe Migrant Intake Too High, The Age, 6/7) if he is going to reject totally the outcome, i.e. that the majority surveyed, including no doubt many recent migrants, believe the projected intake levels are far too high? "He hasn't even bothered to make a politician's promise to review them in the light of the findings.
"Neither the Liberal Party nor the Labor Party has been prepared to ascertain the views of the electorate on immigration levels in order to formulate their immigration policies. "Sure, both parties are prepared to use the issue to cause 'flak' while in opposition, but Australians - apparently the majority of them too - are given no referendum or electoral opportunities to express their concern about the immigration intake levels while this bipartisan approach is stubbornly clung to. "Perhaps the point of the survey for Mr. Hurford was only to access how big a job he has to force us to conform to his views. This is evidenced by his remarks.
"The survey showed him that 'immigration was not as popular as it should be'. Rather than reacting to the survey results by taking a second look at the immigration intake levels, Mr. Hurford believes he has 'a duty to change these perceptions'. "Has anybody 'proved' that current immigration levels 'do not' affect unemployment levels? "If the majority of Australians are in fact incorrect in their attitudes towards immigration levels, Mr. Hurford has to show us with hard facts and figures, and also convince us that he would be prepared to change his policies if they are totally out of step with the electorate's wishes."
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159