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

7 October 1988. Thought for the Week: "The retreat of the world from Christian Civilisation is going back to an incident in the life of Christ. Metaphysical values must have personal exponents to be effective in the world: the conflict of values finds its expression in the conflict of men. Christ found it necessary to drive the moneychangers from the Temple, and that is precisely the contemporary necessity..."
Dr. Bryan Monahan in "An Introduction to Social Credit."


Victoria is the heartland of Fabianism in Australia. It was in Melbourne that Prime Minister Bob Hawke gave his famous address to the Centenary Dinner of the Fabian Society (1984). The Victorian Cain Government is a carbon copy of the Hawke Federal Government: increasing central planning goes hand in hand with the encouragement of Big Business.

During the election campaign, Premier John Cain stressed the flurry of economic activity, the Melbourne skyline dotted with cranes. This activity is the result of a massive increase in debt. Victoria is now the most debt-ridden State in Australia. And the manner in which this debt has been injected into the Victorian economy has favoured Big Business. As we go to press, the final result of the Victorian elections is in doubt. But should the Cain government survive, it will be by the smallest of majorities. However, a Cain government's power will be severely restricted by the increased anti-Labor Opposition in the Upper House.

In spite of all the brave words, the Fabians have suffered a set back. What has been demonstrated once again is that the Fabian type Labor parties, both Federal and State, have developed a new electoral base. They are regarded favourably by many of the representatives of Big Business, while a new middle class has emerged, consisting of many groups who are directly or indirectly employed by government. There are all the new social welfare workers and similar people. Traditional Labor supporters have been alienated, but find that they have nowhere to go because of the failure of the Liberal-National party Opposition to present policies with which they can relate.

It is no secret that the Labor strategists in Victoria regarded Liberal leader Jeff Kennett as their greatest electoral asset, some expressing the view that Kennett has been worth five seats for the Labor party. While Jeff Kennett's managers managed to programme the Liberal leader to avoid the type of gaffes for which he is famous, Kennett's record reveals him to be a man without a coherent philosophy. He was at one time in favour of Council Amalgamations, he was weak on the gun control issue, and attempted to distance himself from John Howard when the Federal Liberal leader stumbled into the immigration issue. Kennett also expresses support for multiculturalism. Should Kennett find himself Premier with a Coalition government and a very small majority, we have the gravest doubts about his capacity to shift Victoria off the course on which it is held by the Fabian dominated bureaucracy.

In summary, the best possible result could be the continuation of the Cain government with a reduced majority, confronted by an Opposition dominated Legislative Council. This result should end with the Liberal party removing Jeff Kennett in favour of a new leader who can get the Liberal party back to the fundamental principles upon which it was first established.


The League's 1988 National Weekend started with the background echo of a new attack on the League in the Federal parliament. One media headline referred to a call for a Royal Commission into the League. We understand there will be further parliamentary attacks this week. Every event, stating with the National Secretariat meeting of the League last Friday, was an outstanding success. In a statement issued to the National Action Conference on Sunday, October 2nd National Director Eric Butler said that the League was planning ahead in depth, and having played a major role in the defeat of the Hawke Government's referendums, was now planning to launch a national campaign on the immigration issue. Eric Butler referred to the statement by C.H. Douglas, that as long as a nation remained basically homogeneous, it could, over time, solve financial, economic and other problems. Douglas had also referred to the nature of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples being such that they were the greatest barriers to the establishment of the Monopoly State.

The League's national campaign on immigration would be launched early next year and be continued right through to the next Federal Elections. The New Times Dinner was an inspirational feast. The National Seminar was well attended with high quality Papers starting with that of the Rev. Dr. David Mitchell, followed by Mr. Jeremy Lee and Canadian Patrick Walsh. The Seminar was taped, both audio and video, and these tapes are available. Large numbers were sold at the Seminar. The Action Seminar lifted the intensity of League Work to a new intensity. Book sales for the weekend were massive. Representatives from all States returned back to their States to further expand the activities of the League.


"Mr. Kerin, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, delivering the Roy Milne Memorial Lecture to the Australian Institute of International Affairs in Hobart on September 21st warned that Australia's relationship with Asia could be damaged for generations by the Federal Opposition's fewer Asians immigration policy." - Professor L.J.M. Cooray, in "Letters", The Age (Melb.) Oct. 3

The pronouncements and opinions of Professor Cooray, a Professor of Law at Macquarie University, Sydney, should always be featured. Professor Cooray was well in the van in the battle of the Australian electorate against the Bill of Rights, the I.D. Card, and now his great powers of analysis of key issues are focused on what has become known as "the Immigration Debate". Professor Cooray firstly asks, "How can a proposed policy which has not been implemented cause damage for generations?" Mr. Kerin, of course, was expressing an opinion in line with official Fabian Socialist policy, and not necessarily stating a fact. He points out, as we have written in these pages on many occasions, that some Asian nations have far stricter policies on immigration than does Australia. In fact, many Asian nations, we feel, consider Australia a "soft touch" with respect to foreign immigration. It is virtually impossible for a European to become a citizen of Japan, or China.

The Professor points out that, also, severe restrictions are imposed by many Asian nations on work permits for Europeans. The Asians have little or nothing to complain about as regards Australia's "immigration debate". There is no "debate" in those Asian nations: Europeans are not wanted. Finito! Professor Cooray mentions that some Asian governments are concerned about their own brain drain to the Western world, including Australia. Therefore, they should welcome, with this in mind, the tightening of Australia's immigration laws.

The now publicised comments which Mr. Bill Hayden, former Foreign Minister, made about certain Asian leaders can give an insight into the Australian Hawke Government's real attitudes towards same. What have been disastrous for Australia's best interests in the area of foreign affairs have been support by the Hawke Government for the Communist government in Vietnam, and hostility to the new administration in Fiji. These observations make up the main thrust of Professor Coorays message to The Age. These comments would not, we think, be in line with the editorial policy of The Age, so we must give credit where credit is due, and give the Letters Editor of The Age our commendation, on this occasion.


"...By getting a few supporters promoted, and by apparently curbing somewhat the power of his opponents, he has at least bought himself some time in which to strive for better results. Peter Reddaway, British Soviet expert, in The Age (Melb.) October 3.

The short answer is that nobody in the West knows what is going on. For all we know the "restructuring" in the Politburo, and the consequent minor earthquakes right down through the Cosmic Bureaucracy of the Soviet Communist apparatus, might be an enormous charade. The Russians hug to their disinformation, a powerful weapon in their continuing pursuit of psycho-political warfare against the West. We'll buy the "scenario" that Mikhail Gorbachev is in trouble with the more "traditionalist" Politburo comrades; that he knows that the best defence is offence, and that he is buying time. Peter Reddaway's analysis seems pretty credible to us. But Gorbachev faces a Herculean task in getting the Soviet economy out of the doldrums, and inspiring some initiative into that sick monster. The system, itself, won't allow it.

Individual initiative cannot surface, let alone drive, under the dead weight of bureaucracy, where, for example, there is long chain of stifling officialdom between decision (policy) and implementation (administration). It may take years for a dam, or a factory to be constructed even after the decision has been taken by the relevant Ministry. The decision has to work through the near endless machinery of officialdom. Approval from Moscow here, guarantees of supply and development there, security clearances from the K.G.B. somewhere else. Rivalry between departments back stabbing of one set of officials by another set of officials in another Ministry. The possibilities for sheer inefficiency are mind-boggling, how is Gorbachev going to sweep all this away? The mind of the hardnosed businessman efficiency expert of the West can't begin to grasp the mess that is the Soviet's economy.
Electoral comment authorised by E.D. Butler, 145 Russell St., Melbourne.


"R.H. McGeoch, College of Law Past President, Law Society of N.S.W. The Weekend Australian (Sept. 24-25)
"Since you published my letter this week (20/9) regarding the Comissioner of Taxation, I have watched closely his responses and read with interest part of the text and quotations of a speech he gave this week in Brisbane. "Obviously, he has a distinctly different view of the rule of law than I do - the rule of law being that fundamental principle under which we all live and in Australia thus far we have been taught to abide by.
"The Commissioner in his speech encourages compliance with the law and in doing so warns of the consequences if we as taxpayers do not comply. On its face, these remarks show an adherence to the rule of law. "But let us examine his remarks more closely. He said 'I am bound to apply the rule of law as I see it.' If this remark is to be accepted, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Federal Parliament and the superior courts of Australia have become superfluous.
"The Commissioner of Taxation is bound to apply the law as pronounced by the legislature and courts, and not as he sees it. "There are numerous examples where he has in fact ignored the law as pronounced by courts - the doctrine of legal precedent is an integral part of the rule of law and in my view the Commissioner in this regard has shown a distinct propensity to ignore that doctrine. Taxpayers must abide by the decisions of the courts and so, too, should the Commissioner. "The fact that a decision of a court is on appeal is no ground, within the rule of law, to ignore its decision until the appeal is known. The contrary is the case - its decision is to be followed and applied until it is overturned.

"I am aware of instances where in the face of a Federal Court decision in favour of the taxpayer, the Commissioner has continued to assess other taxpayers where the principles of the decision clearly apply - such behaviour is not adhering to the rule of law. "The Commissioner is reported to have said that he intends to launch prosecutions in respect of arrangements that in his view are not within the spirit of the law even if the arrangements are within the letter of the law.
"Is this a new theory of the rule of law, for it is quite unknown to me. To raise a tax assessment might be one thing but to 'prosecute' taxpayers (which implies criminal behaviour) pursuant to a notion of the spirit of the law is simply dangerous legal nonsense.
"Finally, may I add that Australians thus far have been taught to respect the freedom of the individual, the pursuit of enterprise and the rule of law? For the Commissioner of Taxation to publicly denigrate the freedom of an individual to pursue 'wealth protection' is to advocate a doctrine totally foreign to me and I hope all Australians."

From Hansard

Dr. Harry Edwards: Reps. August 24 (Lib.-Berowra, N.S.W.)
"... Today the taxpayer is paying 22.8% of his income in. tax. In March, 1983, when this Government came to power (A.L.P.O.T.) that figure was 17.5%. So it has gone up from 17.5% to 22.8%. In the present situation the average taxpayer pays 40c for every extra dollar he earns. The fact that 40c tax is paid for every dollar earned increases the average rate, and that is what is contributing so substantially to this Governments vast revenue harvest. It is referred to a bracket" creep, and that bracket creep brought in about $1.5 Billion of additional revenue in 1987-88… " ... Over this coming year the average taxpayer will pay in the order of a least $900 in extra tax - $18-$20 a week. That is an increase of nearly 14% over 1977-88, and it will end up making the average rate of tax about 24%. Compare this, as I said, with the level in March 1983 of 17.5%... "... The actual total projected increase in income tax on individuals, mainly pay as you earn taxpayers, is $5,694 Million. That is the projected increase from ordinary PAYE taxpayers. The Treasurer then has the gall to come here and trumpet forth a projected surplus in this Budget, an excess of the revenue over the expenditure he proposes to make of $5.5 Billion. The increase in the tax burden of the PAYE taxpayer is $5.7 Billion. The trumpeted surplus is $5.5 Billion. Who is paying for it? Mr. Webster "The ordinary taxpayer. Dr. Harry Edwards: "Yes - the ordinary taxpayer. We end up with a situation where by the end of this coming year - that is, the end of 1988-89 - the average family will require about $56 a week to restore its real disposable income to the March 1983 level. Thus has this Labor Government savaged Australians' living standards

Reps., August 24: Mr. Hawke to move "That this House -
1). acknowledges the historic action of the Holt Government, with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor Party, in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia policy;
2). recognises that since 1973, successive Labor and Liberal/National Party Governments have, with bipartisan support, pursued a racially non-discriminatory immigration policy to the overwhelming national and international, benefit of Australia; and
3). gives its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian Governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly, be among them."

Mr. Peter Reith (Liberal Party, Flinders, Vic. & Shadow Attorney General) asked the Attorney General, upon notice, on 17th February 1988:
"What have been the total costs up until the most recent date for which figures are available, for the (a) review of material relating to the entry of suspected war criminals into Australia, and (b) Special Investigation Unit?"

Mr. Lionel Bowen: "The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As at 10/6/88 - (a) $177,131 and (b) $1,296,840.

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159