THE 'AUSTRALIA FIRST' CAMPAIGN

by David Thompson
As the sabotage of Australian industry becomes even clearer, with massive unemployment being one of the results, growing resistance to the "level playing field" is building up. At one time, those who questioned the 'rationalist' economic dogmas were contemptuously regarded as economic morons, who still thought the earth was flat. Reality is an effective disciplinarian, and practical people who are genuinely frightened at what they see happening to Australian industry are refusing to be intimidated by ideological dogma. Mr. Rhys Jordan, the Manager of Public Affairs for the Chamber of Manufactures in N.S.W. points out that manufacturing is not competing on an international level playing field at all - it is struggling up a cliff face! He said: "We need to abandon this level playing field concept and start taking some lessons from the people who are getting it right around the world. If they (government) don't, they will preside over the destruction of the manufacturing sector in this country - there is evidence of that..." Mr. Jordan observed the loss of 140,000 jobs in manufacturing since June 1989, and companies such as Nissan, Edgell, Pacific Dunlop, Birdseye, I.C.I. and Duracell have concentrated on expanding overseas rather than producing in Australia. He called for more government incentive in manufacturing.

THE ASIAN EXAMPLE
While economic rationalists insist that any industrial protection is a mistake, other countries (as Mr. Jordan implies) feel no such qualms. Mr. Gregory Clark, an academic living and teaching (economics) in Japan, notes: "Apart from Hong Kong, which relied on exploitation of cheap labour for 30 years, every Asian economy has relied on heavy government intervention and, in most cases, heavy protectionism. "The lesson of Asia is that interventionism and protectionism can succeed if they are part of an intelligent industrial strategy. "If even the Americans and Europeans realise they have no real chance of competing with Asia and no choice but to use tariffs, anti-dumping and import quotas to force the Japanese and other Asians to build import replacement factories, how can anyone expect Australia to make it in Asia?"

BREAKING THE POLICY STRANGLEHOLD
Both Government and Opposition have locked themselves into an almost identical policy position; the elimination of all tariffs by 2000, and internationalising the Australian economy. The deregulation of finance was an essential pre-requisite. This industrial strategy has been accepted because the only alternative to the "global market" (economic self-sufficiency) has been abandoned as 'politically incorrect'.
It must be stressed that no amount of voting at elections can change the policy objective of the "global market" - both Parties are committed to it. The only practical answer is to campaign hard to force one side to change. This requires a well-organised, well-funded, limited objective campaign. This campaign now appears to be emerging in the form of the "Australia First Campaign". The slogan for the Australia First Campaign is "Save our Farms, Factories and Futures". An Executive Committee has been chosen to direct the campaign from a General Committee, comprising nine positions; three each from unions, farmers and the business sectors. Campaign managers for the Executive Committee are the Australian Association of Independent Businesses, the group that recently successfully managed the campaign for "Friends of Compass". The Coordinator for the A.A.I.B. is Mr. Robert Hawks (note the spelling), with whom we are impressed. The present programme of the Australia First Campaign, is to establish Electoral Sub-Committees in each Federal Electorate, which reflect the cross sectional representation of the three major interests - farmers, unions and business. This is presently going ahead.

AUSTRALIA FIRST STRATEGY
The strategy to be employed is to campaign to give expression to the growing rejection of "the global market" in each electorate, and force the Parliamentary representative to take the message to Canberra irrespective of which Party he belongs to. The following is the Australia First policy statement:
"Undoubtedly the flood of cheap subsidized imports are destroying our factories and farms, creating massive unemployment and destroying our future and the future of our youth. Clearly, tariffs, import quotas, subsidies and health standards are some of the options available to government; others may be included. We will not be sidetracked by entering into the debate on which particular policy or policy settings should be utilised in particular industries. There is an abundance of politicians, advised by an army of bureaucrats and consultants whose job it is to implement the policy of the people. If they are unable or unwilling to do so, then let them be stood aside and replaced by those willing and able to enact the will of the people."

An audited campaign-fighting fund has been launched, with a target of $10 million to fight the campaign. It is expected to raise this among manufacturers, farmers, and the factory employees. In fact, a considerable number of unions have already given support for fund raising on the shop floor. Expressions of support have been received from many key sectors, including chambers of manufactures, trades hall councils, trades and labour councils, rural action groups, "Bankwatch", several farmers' unions, etc.

THE ROLE OF THE LEAGUE
The result of the League's long-term grassroots campaigning has helped to lay the groundwork for such a campaign as this. It is groups like the League who paid no attention to being "politically correct', and warned that the 'level playing field' and the global market were disastrous for Australia. It is due almost solely to the League of Rights that in rural Australia there is a general belief (if not genuine understanding) that the credit creation mechanism provides nations like Australia with genuine creative opportunities.

The League's part in the Australia First Campaign is to recommend it to our supporters, and advise on strategy. We bear in mind that this is a limited objective campaign. Maximum energy from a range of diverse groups can be focused on the one important issue: to break the trade policy stranglehold exercised by the political parties.

After World War II, C.H. Douglas frequently remarked that there was effectively only one political party - the party of finance. Australian politics reflects this. Mr. Keating's A.L.P. has faithfully followed the international financial programme from 1983. The Coalition, under Dr. Hewson (educated by the "party of finance"), is quite willing to do the same. The G.S.T. is a creature of the I.M.F.
If Australia is to remain a sovereign nation, then the Australian people must exert their sovereignty themselves. This campaign provides a mechanism to do so. The Australian League of Rights supports the "Australia First Campaign".

CAMPAIGN ADDRESS: P.O. Box 372, Box Hill, Vic., 3128. Phone 008 815 741.

A NEW THREAT TO AUSTRALIAN SOVEREIGNTY

Eric D. Butler sends the following from W.A.
The West Australian Labor Government has announced that it will defend in the High Court a challenge by three Kimberley Aboriginal groups concerning a vast tract of land in the State's North West. The basic issue involved is not merely another land rights claim: it raises the more fundamental question of Australian sovereignty.

The Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Tickner, has tended to try to "play down" the matter, suggesting that the chances of the High Court challenge being successful are "purely speculative", and that "Most people are just getting on with their lives", including the current landowners in the Kimberley.

But the West Australian Pastoralists and Graziers Association, representing the landowners, does not see the situation like this. The President of the Association, Mr. Tony Boulltbee, has strongly praised the W.A. Lawrence Government for not shirking the responsibility "to defend the sovereignty of the Kimberley". The Kimberley case is the result of the far-reaching decision by the High Court on June 3rd (the Mabo case) when it was ruled that the inhabitants of the Murray Islands in the Torres Strait had title to a land over which they had a long and indisputable historical association.

A key factor in the case was that the Crown had at no time acted to terminate the Islanders' tenure. It is argued that an enormous area of the north Kimberley, taking in 4,000 kilometres of coastline, was not discovered by the British and that Captain James Stirling had claimed sovereignty over the Swan River colony and adjacent islands, not over the Kimberley.
While the High Court is not bound to use the historic Mabo decision as a precedent, it is theoretically possible that a High Court might rule in favour of the Aboriginal groups claim in the Kimberley. But such a decision would, of course, be virtually a decision in favour of a sovereign Aboriginal nation.
While it is at present unthinkable that any Federal Government would agree to the surrender of any Australian territory, what of the future?

One of the most disturbing features of the Kimberley case is that Prime Minister Paul Keating backed the Aboriginal groups application for legal aid funding. Rosemary O'Grady, an Adelaide solicitor representing the Kimberley groups, has been quoted as saying that she had been advised by Mr. Keating to apply to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands Commission for money as it is estimated that costs will be up to $10 million. The Pastoralist and Graziers' Association President correctly points out that if the report concerning the Prime Minister is correct, Australian taxpayers will be paying the bill for both the challenge and the defence of their sovereignty.

A long drawn out case before the High Court must be regarded as the beginning of a campaign with international implications, with Australia challenged in the United Nations. Already there have been mini invasions of Australia's north by an assortment of boat people. An increasingly destabilised world has seen mass movements of large numbers of refugees. Highly populated Asian nations might well argue that Australia has the capacity to absorb these refugees. International pressure might well be increased through the United Nations.

The coming Kimberley case in the High Court is directly related to the question of Australian sovereignty. Only an economically strong well-defended nation can protect its sovereignty against all challenges. The treacherous policies emanating from Canberra must be strongly repudiated. A start can be made at the next Federal Elections.

BRIEF COMMENTS

The War Crimes trials continue to run into problems. Last week Adelaide magistrate David Gurry spent little time in dismissing the charges against Mikoday Berezovsky, an Adelaide pensioner, ruling that the prosecution had failed to provide adequate evidence to justify a committal for trials. It is high time that the disgraceful war crimes saga was brought to an end with a saving of millions of dollars for the Australian taxpayers.

There has been much ado about the latest low inflation figures, Prime Minister Keating is glowing with pride. What Keating and his advisers have demonstrated is what every student of debt finance has pointed out for years: under present financial rules the inflation rate can only be forced down by wrecking the economy, creating massive unemployment and furthering social disintegration. Any stimulation of the economy can only result in renewed inflation. What is required is an increase in the money supply without increasing financial costs. New financial credit direct to individuals without being paid through industry is the simple answer.

If bigger populations - "bigger markets" - are the answer to the problems destroying Australia, then why is the American economy in such a parlous plight? The latest information shows that in spite of all the talk about an economic recovery, the problems of the U.S.A. are even greater than those of Australia. Bigger is not necessarily better.

It is encouraging to note that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Frank Little, has joined in the growing volume of protest against the proposed anti-vilification legislation. Archbishop Little said that racial and religious vilification were better dealt with through discussion, conciliation and education. A law with heavy criminal penalties could drive racism and religious vilification underground or make martyrs of racists. In a Common Law country like Australia, there was adequate protection of the natural rights of all individuals. A healthy society requires free and open discussion.

THE U.S.A. POLITICAL CIRCUS

With prominent Jewish leaders now openly supporting Democrat candidate Bill Clinton for the American Presidency, President George Bush has every reason to be worried. It would appear that Zionist strategists feel that George Bush has now served their purposes and that Clinton offers better prospects for the future.
Those Australians who watched the hoop-la associated with the Democrat convention in New York are surely entitled to ask what advantages does a Republic system, even if American, have over a Constitutional Monarchy. The Republicans have yet to stage their circus, which will be followed by a Presidential campaign, which now that Ross Perot has withdrawn from the contest, will in all probability attract little more than 50 percent of the American electors to the polls.

Unless George Bush can arrange some dramatic event, which will take the minds of Americans off their depressed economic conditions, the odds now strongly favour Bill Clinton becoming the next President of the United States. What might be anticipated from a Clinton administration? There will be an attempt to re-stimulate the American economy with bigger deficit budgets, this in turn increasing the inflation rate, while there will be enormous pressure for greater protection of American industries.

It has been the Bush Administration's failure to provide more protection for America's secondary industries, which has lost Bush considerable support among traditionally Republican electors. In a desperate attempt not to alienate the strong Republican support among American primary producers, the Bush Administration has gone out of its way to assure American farmers that it supports a continuation of the strong subsidy and other support policies.

In spite of all the misleading comments by National Farmer representatives, and others, the long drawn out Uruguay conference on General Trade and Tariffs, has ground almost to a halt. Isolation is a deeply rooted tradition in the U.S.A., one, which even the internationalist Roosevelt, had the greatest difficulty in shifting. He was only successful when he provoked the Japanese militarists into the attack on Pearl Harbour. His successors, both Republic and Democrat, were able to sustain internationalist policies, while the threat of International Communism was maintained. But the collapse of International Communism and depressed domestic economic conditions have seen a re-emergence of American isolationism, as witnessed by the dramatic support for Republican candidate Patrick Buchanan with his bold America First policy in early primaries he contested. Australians concerned about the future of their nation should take careful note of what is happening in the U.S.A. The only realistic policy for survival is Australia First.

OUR CHILDREN' S RIGHTS BEING TRAMPLED IN CULTURAL CRINGE

from The Age (Melbourne), July 24th
Soon after the disappearance of two Australian children, Iddin and Shah Gillespie, I remarked to friends that it would only be a matter of time before the Foreign Minister, Senator Evans, released a public statement regretting that the Australian Government could do nothing, and that we needed to approach the issue with a great deal of caution, and sensitivity to cultural values. "Senator Evans has not let me down. "There is no doubt that, at least in the lexicon of the Foreign Minister, approaching an issue with caution and sensitivity means permitting the rights of Australian citizens to be ignored. In Senator Evans's almost obsessive need to be seen as the statesman of the Asia/Pacific region, he is, yet again, eager to demonstrate his fawning compliance to the cultural dictates of other nations, even when they trample on our own.
"Senator Evans may one day attain his cherished ambition to be acclaimed as the major figure in the forging of links between Australia and Asia. Statues may well be erected in his honour in Asian capital cities. His head may well be minted on their coins. But, sadly, he will not be remembered as the staunch champion of the rights of Australians, particularly the most vulnerable, the children." (Frank Derriman, Ascot Vale, Vic.)

Our Comment
Senator Gareth Evans is the same man, who wrote some years back, that children should be "protected" from the influence of Christianity. He is a humanist: indeed, was "Humanist of the Year" not many years ago. His idol/hero was the late Judge Lionel Murphy; need more be said? As an atheist, he has no values/standards to uphold, and is (happily, he possibly maintains) bereft of the encumbrance principles. This, we believe, goes a long way in explaining his behaviour. Happily for us, he may well be swept from Australian political influence in a few months from now.

VILIFICATION LAWS A SIGN OF FAILURE

IMMIGRATION ISSUE IS ONE THAT NEEDS SCRUTINY