THE POLITICS OF HATRED AND CONTEMPT

by David Thompson
It appears quite clear that Prime Minister Keating is a much more dangerous man than his predecessor, Mr. Bob Hawke. Keating's determination to strip away the Australian cultural heritage without regard for the views or feelings of others becomes clearer every week. But the Prime Minister's contempt for ordinary Australians was nevermore obvious than in his pre-election promises, which must have been made in the certain knowledge that they could never be delivered. The tax cuts in particular, but also such sweeteners as dental care for the aged, must have been promised without any intention of being delivered, because either the election would be lost, or the issue could later be 'fudged'.

Keating's evident hatred for the British core of the Australian heritage is also further emerging. This was demonstrated in an incident in the Sydney Town Hall last year, during the celebration of the anniversary of the battle of the Coral Sea. RSL President Brigadier Garland had proffered Keating a gift of the Australian flag, which Keating rejected, telling Garland that it wasn't his (Keating's) flag, and that Garland should give it "back to one of your pommy mates". When the incident was raised in Parliament by Mr. Fischer, the Leader of the National Party, Keating then proceeded to denigrate Garland and the RSL as being "too fond of things British".

Such contempt for those who maintain a loyalty to our cultural roots was further demonstrated by Keating's selection of only those with clear republican sympathies for his Republic Advisory Committee. Having offered the States the choice of the last two members of the Committee, Keating pointedly rejected perhaps the most eminent of any of those eventually chosen - Professor Geoffrey Blainey. The reason is simple - Blainey is a monarchist. Nominated by Jeff Kennett, the Victorian Premier, Blainey is on record as saying, "I support the existing constitutional arrangements until I am persuaded there are better ones. I'm not in favour of any change on the existing arguments. The world would be changing every day if you accepted change just for the sake of change..."

The eventual selection of the final two members of the Committee by Keating, rather than the States, was a calculated insult in every way. He selected two declared republicans, Dr. Glyn Davis, a political scientist from Queensland, and Miss Naomi Dougall, a NSW solicitor. Both are in their thirties, and clearly have little or no understanding of, or interest in, the role of the Crown.

KEATING'S HIDDEN AGENDA

In an attempt to mislead Australians about his ultimate objectives, Keating has declared himself a "minimalist": that is, favouring only minimal constitutional change to achieve a republic. But this is clearly only a stratagem to achieve the necessary referendum victory for change. Keating's savage attack on the Senate as "unrepresentative swill" last year reveals his true position. Professor Blainey accuses Keating of hiding his true views because of the inevitable public backlash they would cause. "He's certainly not a minimalist," said Blainey. "He wants very substantial changes to the Constitution" (The Australian, 27/5/93).

It is clear that Keating would like to see the Senate swept away completely, and perhaps even the States. He certainly resents the potential for the States to restrict the centralisation of power in Canberra! Even Keating's undertakings to the revolutionary "aboriginal" movement for reconciliation and a treaty with Australia appears to have been undermined. As the reality of the Mabo decision from the High Court becomes clearer, the Government is vacillating about its support for the judgment. Keating's evident tacit support for the Northern Territory legislation designed to minimise the effect of the Court's decision has enraged the aboriginal lobby. They also catch the whiff of betrayal that is the inevitable consequence of Keating's cynical manipulation of every possible interest group in order to maintain power.

THE ECONOMIC DISASTER

The manipulation of issues such as the Crown, the flag, and the aboriginal issue, unquestionably divert attention from the ALP's achilles heel - the disastrous state of the economy. When the Auditor General listed the Government debt at $169 billion, and criticised the handling of the debt as unprofessional and irresponsible, and warned that the Government might not be able to meet its obligations, he was savaged by the Treasurer, Mr. Dawkins. The moment of truth for Keating and the ALP must come in September, when full budgetary implications of a burgeoning deficit are exposed. It is most convenient that the Republican Advisory Committee must report on its preferred model for a republic on September 1st, and that the full implications of the Mabo decision will then be debated. As Geoffrey Blainey points out, such issues can distract us from the economic disaster. Says Blainey: "If Mr. Keating really believes in Australian independence, he should be doing something about foreign debt."

THOSE ROYAL PHONE-TAPS

We reported in January that there were serious questions about the authenticity of the leaked "conversations" of both the Prince and Princess of Wales with their alleged "lovers". We reported that the retired bank manager who claimed to have recorded Princess Diana's conversation maintained that the published version differed from the version he recorded, was said to have taken place on a day other than the day he recorded it, and was "part of a sinister conspiracy", Mr. Cyril Reenan claimed that the tapes had been substantially edited, and that he had been "set up".

We now note a report from "The Observer", the world's oldest Sunday paper, that a language expert claims that the tapes are fakes: "Scientific tests commissioned by The Observer conclude that the transcripts, claimed to be of secretly recorded conversations involving the Prince and Princess of Wales 'cannot be accepted as authentic ....' The analysis was carried out by Andrew Morton, a forensic linguistics expert from Glasgow University - and unrelated to his royal author namesake." It appears that Professor Andrew Q. Morton is the expert who found discrepancies between former Prime Minister Holt's written diaries and public addresses.

It is obviously impossible to assess the authenticity or otherwise of these "tapes" for ourselves. However, authentic or not, the questions remain; who could have taped such conversations, and why were they not released until three years later - just at the time that the Royal Family and the Monarchy were under maximum pressure from the pro-republican press, like Murdoch's tabloids? Is there any wonder that some people entertain "conspiracy" theories?

REPUBLICANISM WEARING THIN

Meanwhile, we detect a distinct slowing of the republican thrust toward the "inevitable" republic in Australia. Although the press is largely monopolised by a republican editorial position, we note that in almost every paper the letters to the editors are running strongly against the republican "tide".

In lieu of any real opposition from the Liberals to a republic, a kind of 'grassroots' opposition is developing, led by such people as Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Bruce Ruxton, and those involved with the Australians For Constitutional Monarchy. This has received substantial comfort from isolated journalists who courageously pound away at the basis for any constitutional change. Last weekend, a feature article appeared in the "Sun-Herald" (Sydney) by Robert Darrach, listing 20 reasons "Why We Won't be a Republic".

The republican position is also being undermined by events - particularly overseas. The Pakistani republic's power struggle reached almost comic opera proportions last week, when the Supreme Court reinstated the Prime Minister and Parliament. The Prime Minister, Mr. Sharif was sacked by the President, after a two-month power struggle, in which Mr. Sharif sought to rob the President of powers. The Parliament was also dissolved, but now will reassemble to debate a no confidence motion in Mr. Sharif!

In Uganda, a tribal kingdom is about to be reinstated by popular demand after nearly 30 years. Dates have been fixed for the coronation of King Mutebi, and the Ugandan Government has agreed to the restoration of three other former monarchies because it is anxious to preserve national unity after decades of war and oppression under the likes of Amin and Obote. The suspicion is growing in Australia that if he can hijack the Reserve Powers of the Constitution, Mr. Keating could transform himself into Australia's Idi Amin.

THE CENSORSHIP OF DAVID IRVING

Zionist attempts to prevent Australians from hearing what British historian David Irving has to say are proving counter-productive. It is clear that the Zionist strategy has been a major mistake, resulting in millions of dollars worth of free publicity for Irving. As Irving's legal advisers investigate an appeal of the Federal Court decision that upheld the Immigration Minister's refusal to grant Irving a visa, the Irving video simply floods out into the lounge rooms of Australia. It should be noted that the original Zionist objections to Irving's presence were that he could incite civil unrest in Australia. They claimed that Irving's message was freely circulating with his books; there was no impediment to free speech. But newspapers are questioning this "line".

The Newcastle Herald (21/5/93) asks: "Who would have caused that violence, Mr. Irving or those opposed to him? The reaction of some of Mr. Irving's opponents to proposed screenings this week of a video in which he expounds his views suggests that they would have been the most disruptive force... The Zionist position on free speech also seems to be shaky.

Mr. Mark Leibler, President of the Zionist Federation of Australia, says, "I believe that Irving's video should be banned. This has nothing to do with free speech. . ." Leibler is quoted by the Sun-Herald as saying that the video "contains the ravings of a neo-Nazi agitator" and that "Australia is no place for the peddling of Irving's sick, racist hate propaganda". Perhaps Mr. Leibler has not seen the video - his description does not fit Irving's "Search for Truth in History" at all. Or perhaps Mr. Leibler has seen the video and decided that he knows what is best for Australians!

DANGER IN A UNITARY SYSTEM

from Herald-Sun (Melbourne), May 31st
The advantages claimed by Norm Whinney (Herald-Sun, May 17th) for a single unitary system of government for Australia are more apparent than real and carry serious dangers. "Comparison with countries like Britain which has only one central government show there is no saving - Britain's cost of government is actually higher than Australia's as a proportion of GDP.

"Government services still have to be administered in each geographic area whether there is one parliament or several. "Australia is so vast we need regional governments to keep decision making and administration responsive to the people they serve. "Equally, we must avoid the dangers of the concentration of political power. "What we must have is a sensible principle for deciding which sphere of government does what. "We need to accept that government decisions and administration should be located at the most local level consistent with the overall interests of Australians. "Local decisions for local government, regional matters like police under state control, and national issues such as telecommunications decided federally - with proper arrangements for coordination and co operation.

"With thought, we can make much more worthwhile improvements to our system of government, rather than through a simplistic, knee jerk decision to abolish state governments." (Ken Coghill, MP, Werribee, Vic.)

NOTE
Dr. Ken Coghill is an old critic and detractor of the Australian League of Rights. Nevertheless, what he says about the value of State Governments and the dangers of political centralisation are correct enough. All remarkable, as he was a Minister in the Cain and Kirner State (Victoria) Socialist Governments!

BRING BACK FREE SPEECH

SOCIAL MISCHIEF MAKING

from The Australian, May 31st
The speech by Ian MacPhee to the Bureau of Immigration Research Conference in Brisbane (The Australian, 26/5) is deserving of comment from me in two respects. "First, he claimed that the anti-republican stance being taken by people like me would be likely to divide Australia between those of so-called Anglo-Celtic background and the rest. "It is hard to imagine a more offensive and inaccurate claim. "If there is division in the Australian community on the issue of a republic then responsibility for that division can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of those who began the republican push and, in particular, those pro-republicans such as Mr. Keating, who have based some of their arguments on rather crude anti-British spite.

"It is a strange twist of logic to be accused of causing division when one defends the status quo in response to the arguments of those who themselves have created the division in the first place. "It is akin to a person under physical attack being accused of fighting simply because he has sought to defend himself.

"Also, Mr. MacPhee's remarks completely ignored the fact that not all Australians of British descent oppose a republic. "Equally, he did not seem to appreciate that there are many Australians of non-British descent who are quite happy with our present constitutional arrangements.

"The second inaccurate reference to me by Mr. MacPhee was his absurd claim that my comments on multiculturalism and immigration in 1988 cost the Liberal Party the Victorian State election held that year. "I completely reject that claim which, of course, has not been backed up with any skerrick of evidence. "The major reason the Liberal Party narrowly lost that election was the absence of a coalition between the Liberal and National Parties. "As a consequence, the then Labor Government successfully exploited alleged disunity between those parties to their great electoral cost. "It remains, of course, quite ironic that the later formation of a successful coalition between the Liberal and National Parties in Victoria came out of negotiations I, as then Leader of the Opposition, commenced early in 1989 to achieve a joint Senate ticket between the Liberal and National Parties in that State."
(John Howard, Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, Employment and Training, Parliament House, Canberra)