DEREGULATION OF BANKING URGENTLY NECESSARY

by Eric D. Butler
Even before the programme to internationalise the world's banking systems was set in motion, it was a common saying that "When the U.S.A. sneezes the rest of the world catches a bad cold". Those endorsing this allegedly profound economic wisdom have observed, correctly, that the Great Depression of the thirties was triggered off by the 1929 Wall Street crash. But those who slavishly accept the view that a nation like Australia is at the mercy of international forces beyond its control merely display an appalling knowledge of history.

Following the First World War, the British people, who had borne much of the brunt of the fighting during the First World War and allegedly helped to make the world "safe for democracy", were humiliated by the imposition of grinding depression conditions. The British people were told by the representatives of the International Debt Merchants that they had "to pay for the war".

But at the same time a different type of financial policy was being pursued in the U.S.A., one, which resulted in the greatest upsurge of economic activity, yet experienced by any Western nations. One result of the different economic conditions in Britain and the U.S.A. was tens of thousands of skilled British engineers and toolmakers encouraged to migrate to the U.S.A. Crushing taxation crippled the development of the British car industry.

Generally unknown today is that when the Australian private banks started to impose a restrictive credit policy in Australia following the First World War, the same type of policy imposed in Britain, the Commonwealth Bank stepped in and let it be known that it would expand credit creation to offset any threat of depression conditions. The private banks were forced to reverse their restrictive policies.

During the Great Depression, when the representatives of the International Debt Merchants, Sir Otto Nieymeyer and Professor Theodore Guggenheim Gregory, arrived to tell the Australian people they had to suffer a major reduction in their standards of living, the only political leader to protest was N.S.W. State Labor Premier J.T. Lang. Lang suggested that the Debt Merchants should suffer the same reduction in the standards of living they demanded for the Australian people. Lang even attempted to use the N.S.W. State Savings Bank to help farmers and homeowners. He was destroyed by the representatives of the debt system.

The lessons of history teach that nations, which have surrendered control of their banking systems to international bankers, do not have genuine independence. A recent press report quotes Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the American Federal Reserve System, as having said that the 1987 stock market crash in the U.S.A. had brought the world closer to an "historic monetary collapse" than anyone thought. Allegedly it was only the action of the Federal Reserve, which prevented a complete collapse of the world's monetary system. Such a collapse clearly threatens today. What Australia desperately requires is a set of patriotic Australians who will take steps to bring monetary policy in Australia under the control of the elected representatives of the Australian people.

REITH CONTINUES TO PROMOTE C.I.R.

Melbourne Liberal Party frontbencher Mr. Peter Reith is continuing promotion of the Swiss system of initiative and referendum in Australia. In an intelligent attempt to achieve cross-party support for 'C.I.R.', Mr. Reith has secured the support of commonsense Democrat leader, Senator Cheryl Kernot for his campaign for initiative and referendum. The Democrats have previously sought to have a form of initiative and referendum legislation passed in the Senate, with little success.
Mr. Reith has taken his campaign another step, by seeking out groups that have been campaigning on initiative and referendum, and inviting some of them (so far with the exception of the League) to a conference in Canberra later in July. We may yet see the emergence of an amazing and rare spectacle: a constructive proposal coming from the Parliament with support from a number of different political groupings.

Mr. Reith has previously produced a very good "Green Paper" on initiative and referendum, which he has made available. (Copies from his office: (059) 793 188.) He has also taken part in the production of a new video on C.I.R., "Aussiepoll", which was produced by the Gympie (Queensland) lobby group. In this video, Reith was joined by A.L.P. Member for Kalgoorlie, Mr. Graeme Campbell, and Professor Geoffrey Walker of Queensland University. Mr. Campbell, although originally a strong critic of initiative and referendum, is now campaigning on the issue himself. We understand Campbell will also be addressing Reith's C.I.R. conference in Canberra late in July.

After the leadership re-alliances in the Liberal Party, we asked, "Why should we trust Mr. Reith's motives" for campaigning on C.I.R.? Reith now begins to answer this question himself, by gradually building a coalition of support for C.I.R. across party barriers. This is impressive politics, although cynicism where politicians are involved is only just beneath the surface. However, Reith uses this very point when promoting C.I.R., noting that Australian politics have become stricken with the "cancerous growth of cynicism and a sense of alienation for many citizens ... I do not believe Australians are apathetic by natural disposition. I think our apathy is a product of the system". He promotes C.I.R. as the answer.

While a growing number of individual politicians now favour C.I.R., only the Democrats have emerged as an entire party with elected members supporting it. Reith points out that C.I.R. is strongly opposed by National Party Leader, Mr. Fischer, and that the A.L.P. is also opposed to it. Reports indicate that the A.L.P. argues that C.I.R. could result in legislation to bring back the death penalty, or ban Asian immigration. This is a revealing position, as it implies that the A.L.P. already knows that there is strong support for the death penalty under certain circumstances, and that Asian immigration is massively unpopular - even among some immigrant groups themselves. It also implies that only politicians should make the difficult decision, and that the electorate should only be trusted with voting for politicians!

AUSSIEPOLL - C.I.R. information and training video available from all League Book Services: $25.00 posted. Highly recommended.

PRINCE CHARLES AND THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

As the documentary on H.R.H. The Prince of Wales has yet to be screened in Australia as we go to press, we shall confine ourselves to only basic observations. The first is that given the corrupting nature of the press (as Malcolm Muggeridge pointed out) it was always a highly risky business for the heir to the throne to have submitted himself to this process. Although still a lengthy television presentation, there were many more hours of film that was obviously edited out. As Professor Geoffrey Blainey comments, much material that may have cast Charles in a better light was "cut out for the sake of brevity and bite". However, even the republicans in Australia seem to agree that the personal problems of the Royal Family are a secondary issue compared with the constitutional issue in this country.

In a statement in the House of Lords in December 1992, Dr. John Habgood, Archbishop of York, said: "From a legal viewpoint, marital status does not affect the succession to the throne and hence the title of Supreme Governor (of the Church of England). The monarch is supreme governor of the church by virtue of being sovereign. There is no other legal requirement."

ABBOTT MAKES A POINT

In a hard-hitting address to the National Press Club on June 29th, Liberal backbencher Mr. Tony Abbott made a number of telling points about the Royal revelations. In particular, Abbott highlighted the strength and versatility of the institution of monarchy. "All human beings are getting themselves into strife all the time; it's just that when the Royals make a mistake it is on the front pages of newspapers around the world... We are talking about institutions, not individuals.... the beauty of our system of constitutional monarchy is that it protects us against the frailties and fallibilities of individuals. L am sure there are lots of Labor Party supporters who are utterly dismayed by the activities of Brian Burke and John Bannon and Joan Kirner but it doesn't stop them voting Labor; it just makes them more determined to get better Labor politicians...."

Whatever else the television documentary reveals, it appears that The Prince of Wales, despite the difficulty of the job, is determined to be King, and to serve his people as well as he is able.

FRASER-HAWKE SLANGING MATCH OVER SOUTH AFRICA

Press competition especially in the print-press, is such that much is made of even the mildest of events. For example, last week the A.B.C. made much of a report that yet another prominent Liberal had defected to the republican cause. It turned out that a woman on N.S.W. Premier John Fahey's staff- previously quite unknown - had revealed republican sympathies. The constant stream of sensationalism has so thoroughly desensitised us that hardly any notice was taken of reports that finally leaked out about the behaviour of Australia's official observers at Nelson Mandela's inauguration.

The spectacle of former Prime Ministers Hawke and Fraser shouting obscenities at each other at a reception was so embarrassing to Australian diplomatic staff that apparently no reference was made of it even in diplomatic reports to Australia. Reports indicate that a drunken Bob Hawke's contribution to South African financial problems was to advise prospective Finance Minister Derek Keyes to set up a totalisator (gambling) system. For his part, an enraged Mr. Fraser is reported to have offered more perceptive suggestions. He warned about economic advice to South Africa by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and offered the view that it would be very dangerous to abandon existing protection for domestic industry.

Since South Africa has had the ultimate protectionist policy forced upon it by the banking groups - trade boycotts - the domestic economy has diversified enormously. This nation was virtually forced to resort to a policy of self-sufficiency for nearly a decade, and now finds itself in a better position than most Third-World countries. Perhaps it is quite true, as many have suggested, that Mr. Fraser has become more of an asset in retirement than he ever was as Prime Minister. The same cannot be said for Mr. Hawke.

SANTAMARIA ON TARGET AGAIN

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE

THE TIES THAT FLEX

from The Australian, July 4th
Malcolm Turnbull's article on the Constitution (The Australian, 29/6) reveals a great difference between him and the Prime Minister. Mr. Turnbull's information is, for the most part, strictly accurate. Yet they are of a kind, for each exhibits an unscrupulous determination to distort 'facts'.

"Of course the 1901 Constitution included provisions which asserted the right of the British Parliament to legislate for Australia. Of course it maintained the right of the British government to disallow Commonwealth legislation. How could it be otherwise, given that the Australian drafters had absolutely no intention of seceding from the Empire or trying to destroy it? "Mr. Turnbull shows he is aware of this. Its significance is uncongenial to his purpose, however, so he affects amazement that the delegates took their stand 'freely, and unashamedly'.

He shows himself aware also that the maintenance of a central authority (without which the Empire would have ceased to exist) had long co-existed with colonial self-government and with as much autonomy as the colonies wished to assert. "He strives to divert attention from this lest we get the idea that freedom, not constraint, was of the essence of Australia's situation in the Empire. He would have us believe therefore that the Colonial Laws Validity Act was an instrument of oppressive control. In fact, its purpose was to clarify and extend colonial legislative power, not restrict it.

"He refers strangely also to the developments of 1926-31. That they 'occurred without any change to the text of the Constitution' again suggests something which would do harm to the Turnbull doctrines were he to recognise it. That is, under our system it was and is possible to arrive at a new constitutional state of affairs by alterations of practice, with or without the assistance of a statute or two. Thus did responsible government evolve, that unwritten something which so troubles the spell-it-out republicans.

"Thus it was also that the meaning of 'the Queen' changed. Mr. Turnbull and his cohorts abhor British authority. Yet they wish to get rid of the very institution, which enabled sovereignty to be relocated in this country instead of in London. Mr. Turnbull's own account shows that it was not by distancing the monarchy but by drawing it closer that Australia became independent of the British state.

"Taking Turnbull and Keating together, we have a pretty clear indication of the kind of constitutional education which the Government intends the Civics Expert Group to prepare.'' (Bruce Knox, Lecturer in History, Monash University, Clayton, Vic.