|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
19 May 1967. Thought for the Week: "Hitler will never smash the British Empire but our socialist-minded bureaucracy will."
Dennis Wheatley, in "Traitors Gate."
A "NO" VOTE NEEDED FOR BOTH QUESTIONS IN THE REFERENDUM
The Commonwealth Government in the referendum on May 27 is asking for a simple Yes or No to the following two questions.
1. Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled: "An Act to alter the Constitution so that the number of members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the number of Senators?"
2. Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled: "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any State and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population?"
Most of the argument advanced in favour of increased
representation in the House of Representatives is based upon the concept
that increased population demands increased representation in the popular
chamber. There is the added inference that the House of Representatives
is the most important institution in Parliamentary system and the business
conducted there is vital to the welfare of each of us above that which
is dealt with in the Senate or in other Parliaments.
If it was the purpose of our Federal Representatives
to act purely as Social Service workers looking after complaints regarding
pension or tax anomalies or being used as the avenues through which
grants to education, roads, hospitals, etc., is obtained the argument
could be sustained, but purely on the basis of upholding the socialist
structure which has already been erected.
When the present government was originally elected in 1949 one of the promises which figured prominently in its election propaganda was "to remove the burden of government." It was intended to curb the growing bureaucracy and return to the States their rightful taxing and financial powers. The Liberal Party at that time rightfully recognised that these factors were destroying individual liberty and making Australians a race of mendicants to the central authority. It is this usurpation of power, which is the cause of the breakdown representation.
The individuals to whom Australians should be directing their queries in regard to social problems are those parliamentary representatives who are better placed to know about and deal with community problems, our State Parliamentarians. In Australia the place where reforms in representation should take place is in the local and state government spheres. As population expands and the strains of representation begin to tell, new shires, cities and councils and above all new states are needed.
This referendum, which seeks to concentrate increasing growths of central control at the centre, is a further attack upon the genuine basis of freedoms. and another part of the process of whittling away our constitutional rights. Against this fundamental issue even the argument of the D.L.P. against breaking the nexus (the Constitution lays down the principle of the House of Representatives and the Senate having a two to one ratio of representation. The D.L.P. stand to gain electorally if the Senate is enlarged with the House of Representatives) is not of great importance.
The principle Australian electors must consider first on May 27 is that of concentrating additional power at the peak of our governmental structure which is already top heavy.
THE ABORIGINAL QUESTION
It is proposed in this proposal that two provisions
of the Constitution be altered, which makes explicit references to people
of the Aboriginal race. One provision is quite harmless and it is doubtless
that those pushing for the proposed alterations could care less. That
is the proposal for alteration of Section 127 of the Constitution, which
if altered will make it the responsibility of the Commonwealth to include
the Aboriginals in any census. At the moment it is merely the question
of compiling the figures available from six separate states to give
the same result.
Inherent within this proposal is the exploitation
of the Aborigines not for their genuine welfare, but as the raw material
in the political warfare, which is using the race question to destroy
If everything, which is said by the proponents
of this change, were true, the Northern Territory, which is administered
by the Commonwealth, should be a shining example of the benefits derived
from such a proposed change. But this is not so, in fact the lack of
state sovereignty is a strong argument advanced by the indigenous inhabitants
of the Northern Territory for the lack of progress in all directions
in this their State.
The American situation has a parallel for Australians
in this case if we can learn from it. The more political power can be
concentrated at one central point instead of being dispersed the more
it is open to corruption by petty tyranny. Just as in America where
it was the forces behind socialism, which brought through the "Civil
Rights" bill a greater concentration of power at Washington, so there
are similar forces in Australia working to use the Aboriginal for the
same end in Australia.
The April 19, issue of Tribune carried a special supplement calling for full rights for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. The articles contained the usual charges of exploitation oppression and discrimination. The same theme is taken up by those organisations purporting to speak for the Aboriginal. But Australians should not be misled by emotional arguments into accepting constitutional changes, which have far reaching implications.
Sir Raphael Cilento, one of Australia's greatest
authorities on the problems of race, gained a deep political insight
into the international forces operating within the U.N. seeking through
the use of racial minorities the destruction of national strengths.
Sir Raphael has warned repeatedly of the proposal to establish an exclusively
black state incorporating the north of Australia and the Torres Strait.
Already moves have been made to "appeal to the United Nations" against "discrimination" by the Queensland Government. But the UN must deal with the Australian Government, and while the Commonwealth has no constitutional rights in dealing with the Aboriginal their hands are tied.
The importance with which key figures, agitating the race question place on this referendum can be gauged by the remarks of Mr. Charles Perkins before he went off to America to confer with Dr. Martin Luther King and Stokely Carmichael, leading revolutionaries in the explosive race agitation in America.
In The Age April 12, Mr. Perkins addressing university students claimed racial riots were a possibility of the situation of the Aborigines if it didn't improve, "If the May referendum fails, anything could happen."
Millions of pounds of taxpayer's money have been spent to improve the lot of the Aboriginal. That he has not achieved the same general standards followed by the whites is no reflection on a proud and unique race. That much of his culture and tribal structure has been destroyed in the clash between two civilizations is true. The differences will only be reconciled by time and patience. But the policies, which form the guidelines of such progress, must come from sources, which are intimately aware of the problem. This is more likely to come from the States where there is a closer association between interested parties than from the Commonwealth operating from the ivory tower of Canberra spending vast sums of the taxpayer's money on all sorts of nefarious schemes.
The development of irresponsible spending by government as it becomes more and more centralised is most graphically illustrated in the so called "Civil Rights" movement in USA where militant organisations actually are subsidised by the government. Common sense as well as a genuine desire for the real welfare of the Aboriginals should persuade Australian electors in the best interests of their country's future to Vote No to both proposals on May 27.
DID YOU SEE?
Those "brush" collisions between Soviet and USA
destroyers in the Sea of Japan, and U Thant's hysterical forecast of
a third world war, i.e. the "hot" variety.
The attack on the Australian League of Rights
by two university papers On Dit and Farrago, (Adelaide
and Melbourne respectively,) as racists, extremists, and anti-semitic.
That Britain set no special conditions when formally
applying to join the Common Market, The Australian, May 12.
ON TARGET BULLETIN
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|