Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

24 March 1995. Thought for the Week: "Instead of being self-contained units, we are more and more becoming components of a function, masquerading as 'economics' but accurately described as 'full employment'. Five minutes consideration will convince anyone not mentally infirm that a policy of full employment means and can only mean, direction of labour. Combine that with egalitarianism, and you have the slave state - you cannot possibly have anything else."
C.H. Douglas (1948)

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

Date Town Details Friday March 24th: Conservative Speakers' Club (09) 574 6260 "Immigration: The Sleeping Election Issue"
Monday, March 27th: Moora (096) 549 030 Geraldton (099) 251 040
Tuesday, March 28th: Morawa (099) 715 042 Koorda (096) 841 237
Wednesday, March 29th: Katanning (098) 268 055
Thursday, March 30th: Albany (098) 447 389
Friday, March 31st: Northcliffe (098) 268 055 Busselton (097) 522 880

PRESS RELEASE FROM WESTERN AUSTRALIA STATE DIRECTOR
AUSTRALIAN LEAGUE OF RIGHTS

"University Students Victims of Attack on Free Speech
"The conservative League of Rights suspects foul play in a campaign to have League literature banned from the U.WA. (University of Western Australia) campus. "State Director, Robert Nixon, said, The League of Rights had not distributed the packages to U.WA. student clubs and associations and suspected some ulterior motive. Some of the material had been sourced outside the League.
To describe the alleged distribution of packages as an insidious attempt to infiltrate the University was clearly outrageous. "I have written to Professor Fay Gale, Vice-Chancellor of the University of WA. raising a number of questions arising from allegations by the Australasian Union of Jewish Students. These include whether the League is permitted to send material to university clubs and associations to correct the public record and to confirm that the University supports in principle the right of free speech and association in the quest to seek truth in history free from intimidation.
"It is reprehensible and totalitarian to suggest banning literature because it does not confirm the A.U.J.S. (Australian Union of Jewish Students) version of history. Fortunately, the passage of time is continually vindicating the League's position in the light of historical evidence.
"The banning of British historian, David Irving, from entry into this country, by the Keating Government, is a classic example of the intolerance of those who prefer to censor, rather than have opposing views responsibly discussed and debated.
"Racial vilification legislation is the unfortunate manifestation of the totalitarian approach to history, and the sledge hammer approach to improving community relations."
(Authorised by Robert S. Nixon, State Director for Western Australia, 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

from The Australian, March 17th
"The 'crucial choice' concerning the future of the Constitution is not, as Professor Winterton argues (The Weekend Australian, 11-12/3) over who or what we decide to call head of state and how that office is to be selected. The crucial choice concerns who or what we decide is the supreme source of political power; before any decision is made over the nature and relationships of the institutions of government and State, the people must decide in a referendum the answer to that question.
"The referendum should decide which of the following should be clearly and unequivocally defined as the supreme source of political power: the Crown; a president; prime minister and cabinet; parliament; the people. "All other constitutional arrangements must then be structured around the referendum's answer on this most vital of moral and constitutional questions. If those who hold the power to put referendums to the people refuse to honour the people's sole rights in this matter, the only conclusion is that they fear democracy and the moral issues which underwrite it."
(Patrick O'Brien, Department of Politics, University of W.A., Nedlands, W.A.)

DRY RUN

from The Australian, March 17th
"Now that the Prime Minister has received the blessings of the President of France (on an earlier overseas visit), and of the President of Germany (on his recent overseas visit), to the changes he proposes to make to Australia's Constitution and to our system of government, it is heartwarming to think that the Australian people might soon get onto the list of those to be consulted.
"The Prime Minister proposes to press on with his preferred option of having parliament choose the president for us, now that this method has the seal of approval of the German President. This is despite the facts that 92% of those Australians who favour a republic have said that they want to choose the president and that 52% of the republicans would vote against a republic if they were to be denied that choice.
"As the president would merely replace the Governor General, and would carry out the Governor General's constitutional duties and responsibilities, I should like to remind your readers of a proposal which I first raised through your Letters page (8/4/93). The present Governor General was then in his fifth year in office, and I invited the Prime Minister to trial run his preferred option by foregoing his right to nominate the next Governor General. I suggested the Prime Minister should invite Parliament to make the choice, and that he should undertake, in advance, to recommend to the Queen the appointment of the person chosen by Parliament.
"In the event, the matter was resolved by the present Governor General being invited to serve for an additional two years. It is now timely to renew my earlier suggestions."
(Sir David Smith, Mawson, A.C.T.)

FOR HARRY, SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORD

from The Australian, March 7th
"I was tempted to feel sorry for my former workmate, Harry Brandy, when I read how his challenge to the validity of the enforcement powers of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission had cost me in terms of my health, my reputation and my well-being....It has been a terrible ordeal!" (The Australian, 24/2). Tempted, that is, until I remembered that the incident which caused this mess and to which I was a witness, could have been settled five years ago with a simple apology.
"Although Harry may have suffered in the last 12 months since he made the decision to appeal the HREOC decision, perhaps he should spare a thought for the victim in this matter, John Bell.
"After all, had Harry been forcibly and publicly removed from ATSIC (Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders Commission ... O.T.) for psychiatric assessment and then been refused a public acknowledgement that the psychiatrist could find nothing wrong with him? Has Harry been arrested and removed from ATSIC's premises for using an office photocopier when on sick leave? Has Harry had his personnel file opened to others in strict contravention of Public Service and privacy rules, with the result that he was publicly humiliated and threatened?
"No, Harry, these things, which are all on public record (HREOC Determination G998 - 1993, dated 23/12/1993), have not happened to you. But they have happened to John Bell.
This is a classic case of the victim being victimised. Perhaps it is also another example of how ATSIC seems to have misplaced its priorities instead of getting on with the job of delivering services to Aboriginal people."
(Ian Maxwell, Calwell, A.C.T.)
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159