KEATING OUSTS KERIN AS LOW-INFLATION HERO

Former Treasurer Paul Keating yesterday claimed a large slice of credit for Australia's drop in inflation." - Herald-Sun, August 12th.

Now we know: the credit for Australia's 3.4% inflation rate is attributable to the Accord and the Keating economic policies. Paul Keating might just as well, whilst presenting himself with accolades, be given full credit for Australia's national 10% unemployment! This low inflation rate, the lowest for X number of years, will put Australia back in the Big Time. Just watch.
According to Mr. Keating Australia is back in the big league, along with Japan and Germany. Well, we say that this is bilge, rubbish. The real reason for the low inflation rate is the recession, and there are many reasons for the recession, most notably the astronomical levels of Australia's overseas debt, upon which we pay out X hundreds of millions in servicing fees, which are ultimately pushed forward into costs and prices.
The greed of the banks in the eighties, again, blew out costs and prices, as they (the banks) literally were throwing bank credit at almost all and sundry. They are now nursing their wounds, in the form of "non-performing" loans. They aren't throwing credit at all and sundry now, in August 1991.

The lower interest rates? Probably several reasons: a cautious move by the Reserve Bank to try to lessen the recession, and gently give some stimulus to the economy. Under the rules of the Money Game the Treasurer cannot drop interests rates too low, otherwise that foreign capital will "fly" elsewhere; not to Australia. Paul Keating is unsure concerning Australia's unemployment rate: he's not sure if it will worsen before improvement. We, ourselves, are quite sure. It will worsen before the arrival of any upturn. Paul Keating isn't sure about interest rates, either. They can always be brought down with realistic monetary policies, which the orthodox people would reject; but that's another story. Mr. Keating wants to "lock inflation in", and that will lower interest rates. Will it, indeed?

Our scenario is different: we have referred recently to the unemployment/inflation seesaw. It will operate in the future, as always. Unemployment UP/inflation DOWN and vice-versa. Why? Unemployment stems from reduced commercial/industrial activity; and that means reduced cash flows and reduced cash flows mean lower inflation. We say that inflation is a "symptom" of the "normal" operation of our modern finance economic system. We understand it in detail. History will decide who is right, and we claim that history is on our side. Yes, yes, the Communists used to claim that. But they were wrong, weren't they?

Property
We have mentioned in these pages only recently that there is a mini-recovery taking place in the private residential sector of the property markets. We predicted this months ago. We do not expect this to last: rather do we expect the residential property markets to tumble even further in 1992. We hope we are wrong, of course. What we believe is happening is that the banks are funneling credit for private housing from the commercial markets, which are in a state of collapse, into residential housing, but to highly approved borrowers. The estate agents are jumping up and down to "talk up" this mini-recovery, but many will be licking nasty wounds next year, if they are even still in the business.

Public confidence is all the go: all must believe that recovery is well under way, now is the time to buy; you may never have this chance again! Buy now. You'll probably be very sorry if you fall for the sales pitch. They don't know anything about the underlying factors steering the economy.

Consumption Tax
This is a really Big Deal! The President of the Victorian Liberal Party, Mr. Michael Kroger, judges the Victorian delegates' vote, over the weekend, for Dr. Hewson's consumption tax, as around "500 to 7". Does that make it right? Majorities who do not understand issues in detail are more often than not, wrong. The 493 Liberal voters were not voting on the "correctness" of the consumption tax; they were voting in favour of its implementation, correct or not. We are sure that Dr. Hewson really believes that his consumption tax will lift Australia's economy out of the doldrums, and he and his Liberal colleagues will try to "sell" it to the Australian electorate. We say he's on a loser.

The consumption tax has proved most inflationary in the U.K., Canada, and, more recently, in New Zealand. One sales pitch is that the consumption tax will "gather in" those taxpayers who are now escaping the taxman's net by way of various manipulations understood by clever accountants. Apparently all the loopholes have not been closed off, and probably never can be. The "rationale" seems to be that those smart enough to beat the tax system as it now operates will be "picked off" by the consumption tax on that new Jaguar, the pricey French costume for Madame, those extra bottles of Scotch for that important weekend conference, etc., etc. How about the consumption tax on Joe Smith's more simple needs?

It is not enough for Dr. Hewson to claim that less direct income tax will be claimed by the Tax Office: we say the ordinary wage and salary earner will be hit harder than he is being hit now. Mr. Eric Risstrom, of the Taxpayers' Association, has criticised the consumption tax strongly; and he has forgotten more about taxation that Mr. Peter Reith will ever know (Shadow Treasurer)!

Next Federal Election
First half of next year, 1992; more likely than not. Why? Really, the Labor chieftains might think it smart to go for an election to take advantage of the Liberals' plight, in selling their consumption tax. For heavens' sake: who wants another tax NOW? Another reason. Mr. Hawke could well knock off Paul Keating for keeps if he "led" Labor into yet another triumphant election: the all-conquering hero! AND, another election triumph for Hawke could well strengthen his chances of being appointed, or voted, Australia's first President, in 2001. He wouldn't be too old, then. The Scenario ahead: Our crystal ball isn't working at the moment. But, probably the 1992 Federal Election/probably an electoral win by the Federal Coalition - but a disappointing win/the entry into the Federal Parliament of a small number (maybe only 2-3) Independents.

THE ASIAN INVASION STEPPED UP

by David Thompson
According to a report released last week, the proportion of Asian-born people in Australia's migrant intake increased from 38% in 1988/89 to 47% in1989/90. These figures, released by the Bureau of Immigration.Research, simply serve to confirm the view that selective immigration now clearly favours Asians over European migrants, and that it is a result of a deliberate policy to change the demographic face of Australia going into the next century.
Within this Asian immigrant category, the largest group came from South-East Asia (Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines), but the North East Asian category grew most dramatically. North East Asian migration (mainly from Hong Kong, China and Taiwan) made up only 3% of the programme in 1981/82, compared with 14% in 1989/90.

Comments from ACTU Secretary, Bill Kelty, that Australia will inevitably become an Asian nation also confirm the charge that the ALP and others propose to set policies to see that this occurs. As with republicanism, there is nothing "inevitable" about the Asianisation of Australia in the absence of a policy for this to take place. Kelty and others openly declare this vision for the future of the country, as did Mr. Bill Hayden when he was in Parliament. It is quite acceptable for such people to declare their vision, but it is quite unacceptable that others are bludgeoned into silence with the charge that their vision for the future of the country cannot be declared because it is "racist".

THE COLONIAL CRINGE MENTALITY
Predictably, Kelty's comment, coinciding with the figures on the migrant intake, has sparked a strong response. The ALP backbench Member for Kalgoorlie, Mr. Graeme Campbell, who has already warned of Brixton style race riots, has described the Kelty comment "unmitigated rubbish", saying: "Australia is well regarded in parts of Asia precisely because it is not Asian. It is the non-threatening Western technology country ... Bill Kelty might like to see us as part of Asia, but I don't want my kids working for Korean wages. What Kelty is saying is that we are becoming a colony of Asia.' Others made similar comments, including Mr. Bruce Ruxton of the Victorian RSL, who called for a referendum on whether we should become an Asian country. Sydney broadcaster Mr. Ron Casey also rejects the vision of a Eurasian Australia: "I don't agree with that. I am not saying that I don't want Asian migrants, but I am against the presumption by leaders like Kelty that we have to become 'Asianised' politically to be accepted as trading partners. That is not logical, and is not on...

THE MULTICULTURAL PRICE
The financial cost of the effort to force multiculturalism on Australians has been calculated in a study of multiculturalism which one reviewer called "a scathing attack on the policy, unlikely to be matched in its ferocity for some time". This refers to Stephen Rimmer's book "The Cost of Multiculturalism". According to Mr. Rimmer, the exact cost of multiculturalism is unknown, because massive public opposition to the policy in the late 1980s forced governments to institutionalise it - "by formalising the power of the multicultural lobby to monitor and influence policy formulation and implementation within the bureaucracy. Thus multicultural policies are determined in an undemocratic and secretive manner, by hidden committees and organisations..."

In Brief

This letter sent to the Editor of Queensland Country Life by Mr. J. Lennie, of Toowoomba
"Rick Farley, in his letter to Country Life (July 11th) makes the most provocative assertion that is absolute bunkum, perhaps generated by the League of Rights, that the United Nations' Lima Declaration commits Australia to transfer our wealth to developing nations. "I would like to quote from a background paper submitted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Defence, which was investigating 'The Implications for Australia's Foreign Policy and National Security of Proposals for a New International Economic Order' in 1978: it said,
'Because it extends its aid almost completely in grant form (100% in recent years) Australia has had no difficulty in meeting and accepting any increase in terms targets. Australia accepted the Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Co-operation, but with certain qualifications. While Australia will assist in the acceleration of industrial development in developing countries, Australia believes that the related process of change in the developed countries needs to be gradual, as well as politically and economically manageable'.
"Presumably this means that Australia will close down its own industries gradually, rather than too quickly; but it confirms the fact that our industries will certainly be closed down, whatever Rick Farley might have to say.

"Just before the Melbourne CHOGM Conference the Australian Industries Development Association (AIDA) warned that, 'Australians should keep their eyes open to the real motives and substance behind much of the rhetoric of the North-South Dialogue' (Sydney Morning Herald, September 28th, 1981). AIDA pointed out that the lower protection for Australian industries would hand our manufacturing base over to China, Taiwan and Korea. This was mild stuff and made little sense to the man-in-the-street, and no doubt to Rick Farley, but at least it showed a growing awareness of what was in store for Australian industry under Malcolm Fraser's grandiose and un-Australian schemes.

"To quote from Mr. Neil Walford, Chairman of REPCO, 'Under present policies, the basic infrastructure of Australian manufacturing industry will suffer permanent damage. There will be no way in which the thousands so caused to be unemployed will ever again get jobs as long as present policies prevail. The dispersal of skills, the financial crippling of corporations, the conviction in the minds of businessmen that never again will they undertake the hazards of manufacture and the long term dedication it requires, merely to see their life's work overturned; all this means that the damage will be permanent'...
"I wonder what Rick Farley can say against the testimony I have presented here?"

A LIFE OF BLISS BEING SWISS

The two letters (below) are taken from The Australian, August 7th

"Your article No Time for Rights in a Land of Wrongs (The Australian 1/8) was possibly the most inappropriate contribution to the 700 years of the Swiss Confederation. Even Lobbecke's picture of a cuckoo clock was wrong, as such clocks come from Germany's Black Forest area. "The crux of the article saying that Swiss citizens' highest aim is to conform is exactly the opposite of the facts. While the majority of nations conform and readily hand out personal bank secrets to governments, the Swiss Government is not allowed to do so because the Swiss people believe that the right of the individual is more important than the demands of governments.
"While the rest of the world conforms in allowing ever greater disregard for law and order the Swiss do not tolerate such appalling lack of discipline from minority groups. "While workers throughout the world conform and go on strike without any consideration for economic consequences the Swiss workers do not. "While every new nation scrambles to conform and join the United Nations the Swiss people have voted not to do so. (Where else would politicians have to ask their constituents questions like that?)
"While not everything is perfect in Switzerland, it is ill-informed and highly offensive to call it a 'banana republic'. In 1967 when I emigrated to Australia this country's dollar was worth SFr5. Today the same dollar buys about SFrl.17. One may well ask which country has more 'banana republic' characteristics? The truth is that Swiss people have one of the highest personal savings in the world and Switzerland is generally the envy of most intelligent people." (Enrico Beratta, President, Chambers of Commerce Federation of NSW, Parramatta, NSW)

"The publication of Caroline Sinclair's article on the occasion of Switzerland's 700th anniversary is deplorable. Parochial lampoons are bound to poison the relationship between nations. The article also insults the intelligence of The Australian's readers. "Does the experience of small countries provide any interesting insights? Caroline Sinclair scoffs at Switzerland. She must either believe that the experience of small countries does not warrant a careful analysis or she may not be able to provide this analysis. "In fact, Switzerland and Australia face similar problems. Both countries belong to the rapidly shrinking group of OECD countries that do not belong to a major trading bloc. Membership in the EC (European Community .. O.T.) would threaten the unique Swiss brand of direct democracy and federalism (our emphasis .. O.T.). "How will the Swiss and the Australians deal with their growing international isolation? The Swiss may join the EC within a generation if the EC adopts the democratic traditions of Great Britain, and they may never join if the EC will be governed by an omnipotent bureaucracy. Indeed, the Swiss share Margaret Thatcher's reservations toward the current political institutions of the EC." (Ernst Juerg Weber, Department of Economics, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA)

FROM YOUR WILL BE DONE

by Arthur A. Chresby
We present the following from the late A.A. Chresby's magnificent booklet in view of the mounting attacks on the institution of the Monarchy

It is legally unchallengeable that the party system, with its direct and indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite illegally striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all their Constitutional and legal powers, i.e. the institution of the Monarchy, as a prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including the final party political control over the Armed Forces of the nation; a control which, at present, is legally vested in the Queen to ensure that, where directly expressed to her, the will of the people shall at all times prevail.
"In Chapter 3 it was stressed that Ministers of the Crown are not, and never legally can be, the 'Government' of the State or Commonwealth: that the Government was legally non-elective, and that an expansion of that statement would be given in this Chapter (5) ... "Both the written Constitution of the Commonwealth and the so-called unwritten Constitutions of the six Australian States vest the 'government' exclusively in the institution of the Monarchy, to be legally exercisable - in almost every case - by the Governor General in the Commonwealth and the State Governors in the States.

Note: The power of the State Governors has been virtually destroyed by the Australia Act, which all States signed and ratified, including non-Labor States at that time. We are as sure as we can be that the full reserve powers of the Crown, invested in the Governor General, are still operative. The master plan of the Fabians was, and is, to knock out the power of the Crown at State level, and then, to destroy it at Commonwealth level: it would be very difficult to perform this the other way around!.... O.T.

"Over the years the party system has cleverly hidden the fact that the people have the legal freedom at all times to express their will direct to the Queen, no matter what politicians and others may try to claim. "The Queen is the permanent 'government' with a perpetual mandate to govern according to the clearly expressed will of the people. It is obvious, then, that no political party can lawfully occupy the Constitutional seat reserved in perpetuity for the Monarchy, no matter what political scientists, textbook writers, academics, politicians, political parties and other theorists may claim."