MORE MABO MADNESS

by Eric D. Butler
With the feeding frenzy of a pack of hyenas, the mass media, with few exceptions, has responded to the High Court decision rejecting the West Australia's Court Government challenge to the Keating Government's legislation based on the first Mabo decision, by mounting a massive campaign against Premier Richard Court and his Government. Premier Court is correct when he says that the High Court decision supports the most far-reaching erosion of the Federal Constitution since Federation.

The High Court's original Mabo decision was criticised by a number of highly respected and responsible authorities. West Australia Labor Member, Graeme Campbell, was one of the most scathing about the High Court's Mabo decision, pointing out that the High Court was not some type of god whose edicts should not be criticised.

But perhaps the most telling criticism came from Australia's most distinguished historian, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who made the charge, amongst others, that the High Court judges were weak on the subject of history. He made the point that while there was a lot of quiet criticism by lawyers, they were loathe to be too public as one day they might be appearing before the Court. However, he quoted the opinion of Mr. Peter Connolly, for 13 years a Supreme Court judge, who concluded a 27-page analysis of the Mabo judgment by saying that the High Court had indulged "in sheer invention".

Professor Blainey has again rendered traditional Australia an outstanding service by refusing to join in the national campaign against Richard Court. He responded to the High Court's rejection of the Court Government's appeal by warning that Australia could be divided into two separate nations, with Aborigines owning more land than everyone else put together.

No responsible Australian denies that Australians of Aboriginal background have serious health and educational problems, but the Northern Territory provides striking evidence that the ownership of land has not solved this problem. The political activists, most of these only part Aboriginal, have skillfully exploited the situation to their own benefit and to further a long-term political agenda. None of the vast sums of money flowing to these activists is used to build hospitals or schools. Professor Blainey points out that the Native Title Act would not reconcile Aborigines with other Australians.

He could have added that the situation has all the ingredients of a type of civil war, with the rank and file of Aborigines being the main victims of a backlash. Already there is an anti-Aboriginal sentiment developing, particularly in rural Australia, which did not exist in the past.

Well-known activist Pat Dodson has responded to the High Court's rejection of the Court Government's case by lodging a number of claims on behalf of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. These include guaranteed seats in Federal Parliament. The Council also recommended giving official recognition to the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Straits Islander flag, and the shifting of Australia Day because January 26th was not accepted by the Aborigines.

Professor Blainey is right: Australia is on the road to a divided nation. Premier Court of West Australia should be given every support by all Australians who want to prevent the destruction of traditional Australia.

DAVID THOMPSON'S W.A. ITINERARY

PRESS RELEASE FROM WESTERN AUSTRALIA STATE DIRECTOR
AUSTRALIAN LEAGUE OF RIGHTS

HAS THE KEATING GOVERNMENT A LAND CONTROL AGENDA?

David Thompson, National Director of The Australian League of Rights, will be highlighting the significance of the recent High Court ruling on the Commonwealth Native Title legislation in a lecture tour of Western Australia. The decision has been described by Premier Court as the 'most significant stripping of power from a State by the Commonwealth since Federation'.
David Thompson will outline the totalitarian nature of the Keating Government's legislation programme, which transfers more and more power to Canberra, making it increasingly difficult for electors to control their affairs. Will we see increasing control by the Canberra bureaucracy in land administration in the same way it has increased its control over Agriculture, Education, Transport, and Local Government?

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO SECESSION? These and other questions will be discussed by David Thompson.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Over the years the small Australian National Socialist Movement has attracted a number of pathological types who can always be relied upon to damage a basically sound cause. Last Saturday in Melbourne the National Socialists staged a public protest against the Federal Government's Race Hatred legislation, scheduled to be debated in the Senate this week. Did those responsible for this protest by an estimated 37 people really believe that such a protest would have the slightest effect on Senators' voting intentions? Or was it someone's intention to stage such a rally knowing that it would certainly result in a counter rally by Jewish demonstrators? If that was the intention, it was highly successful with the T.V. cameras ready to record a violent confrontation which large numbers of police were required to control.
Zionist spokesmen have seized upon this affair, and alleged attacks on Jewish properties, as evidence for the need for the Anti-Hate legislation. The police have no evidence to confirm Zionist allegation that attacks on Jewish properties are racially motivated. The League of Rights deplores all acts of violence, which only serve to prevent civilised debate concerning Immigration and associated issues.

* * * * * * * *

A good cartoonist gets an important message across with a minimum of words. "Jeff on Sunday", in the Melbourne Herald-Sun of March 19th, shows a dejected looking Aboriginal couple and their baby responding to the High Court ruling on Mabo: "Well, at least that should eliminate poverty among lawyers...."

* * * * * * * * *

"Budget cuts will be tough," reads the headline to the latest statement by Federal Treasurer Willis. This is all part of the "softening up" tactics of the Keating Government. Eventually it will be seen that the much-publicised "cuts" will not be as horrendous as being suggested.

* * * * * * * * *

The "inevitability" theme is now being orchestrated on the Monarchy issue. Even National Party leader Tim Fischer has allowed himself to be placed in the position where he is joining a false debate concerning whether in a Republic the President should be directly elected by the people, or by Federal and State Parliaments. Also caught offside, Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett has now come back by insisting that the Liberals are "solid" on the Monarchy. It is simply not true that there is complete unanimity on the Monarchy issue in the Liberal Parties. In a tour of country Victoria last week, Premier Kennett is quoted as having said that while he remained "fundamentally" a Monarchist it "was inevitable the republic debate would gather strength and that change might be appropriate".
If the Liberals are genuine in their defence of the system of Constitutional Monarchy they will mount a full-scale campaign explaining exactly why the retention and strengthening of the Constitutional Monarchy is essential for Australia's future.

SOME CHIEF MINISTERS SHOULD READ THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

The Northern Territory News of March 14th carries a report that the Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, is inviting armed forces from our Asian neighbours to come to the Northern Territory to train independently of Australian armed forces. Mr. Perron is reported as saying that the N.T. facilities available included the existing port, Delemere bombing range near R.A.A.F. Base, Katherine, and land, sea and air space.

The Australian Constitution, part 5, Section 51, Clause 6, sets down that the (Commonwealth) Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: - "The naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth."
Defence (of Australia) is a Commonwealth responsibility, as agreed by the States at Federation. Mr. Marshall Perron should read the Australian Constitution, and look after his own area of responsibility, the Northern Territory.

ULTIMATE POWER

DRY RUN

FOR HARRY, SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORD