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

22 September 1995. Thought for the Week: "The natural tendency of all government is to increase its own power."
Lord Bryce in Modern Democracies


by Eric D. Butler
When the history of Australia is written, a special chapter will be required to outline the contribution of the Victorian Kennett Government to the attempted destruction of democratic government. It is ironic that Premier Kennett has recently been in Greece receiving the plaudits of the Greeks because of his strong support of the large Greek community in Melbourne. It was the Greek civilization, which gave the world the term "democracy", originally meaning "the will of the people". The basis of Greek democracy was the small city States, local government. But in Kennett's Victoria, local government has been wiped out as part of a grand plan, which is now emerging into the open.

Originally Jeff Kennett sought to soothe the fears of Victorian electors by stating that as soon as possible self-government would be restored to the people; that they could elect Councillors for the new amalgamated Councils his officials were creating. In the meantime his appointed Commissioners (Kommisars) would "reform" the State. But Jeff Kennett revealed his innate itch for more power when he suggested that the Commissioners administering Greater Melbourne were doing such a good job that they should be allowed to carry on with their work. It was encouraging that a storm of public protest forced Jeff Kennett to back away from his proposal.

But now Kennett's top bureaucrat and "adviser", Ms. Proust, whom Kennett has warmly praised in the past, has suggested in a speech delivered last week that there were grave dangers if democracy were returned to Victorian Municipal Councils. Her words should be heeded by all who value freedom: "Democracy is always a risk". Why is it a risk? Ms. Proust fears that it might undo the Kennett Government's hard work in re-shaping local government over the last two years. "A lot of the reforms could be undone by the same sorts of people who were there before coming back and trying to undo reforms."

Ms. Proust, like Premier Kennett, conveniently overlooks the fact that "the sorts of people" she obviously despises, were elected by their fellows to represent them. Who, and what does Ms. Proust and her fellow planners represent? Premier Kennett has shed some light on this question by revealing that his Government plans the establishment of a trade bloc between Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

Liberal Premier Brown of South Australia is attempting to impose Council Amalgamations upon the South Australians. Behind this is the concept of Regional Planning eventually eroding the remaining powers of the States. Jeff Kennett is too shallow to understand that his grandiose planning will eventually contribute to the establishment of a totalitarian Australia in which not only Municipal Government, but also State Governments will be swept away.

South Australians and Tasmanians should take careful note of what is happening in Victoria, where it has been demonstrated that any government elected with too big a majority is a deadly danger to genuine democracy.


Mayor Peter Davis of Port Lincoln, South Australia, has become the centre of a political storm, which reveals the depths to which the opponents of the League of Rights are prepared to sink. Mayor Davis is receiving magnificent local support as witnessed by a flood of letters in the local Port Lincoln Times.

Responding to Senator Bolkus's outrageous action in stripping Peter Davis of Citizenship Award Rights he has written a challenging letter to the Attorney General, Michael Lavarch, concerning the Minister for Immigration's action. Peter Davis enclosed a copy of a letter dated September 14th, 1965, by the then Attorney General, B.S. Snedden, in which the League is described as "a reputable organisation". Mr. Lavarch is asked to carry out a similar investigation to that conducted by Attorney General Snedden "and report back to me and the Australian community. I ask that you pay particular attention to providing evidence of the, quote, 'most meritoriously racist and anti-Semitic' organisation in Australia and, quote, 'self-avowed racist group'. The quotes are from your Prime Minister. 'Please expedite your investigation and report. Your response will be of interest to many people."

It certainly will. With TV7 of Sydney sending a team to interview Mayor Davis and the same channel seeking to interview Eric Butler, we can predict with certainty that another media anti-League of Rights "hatchet" job is under way. National Director of the League, Mr. David Thompson, has decided that in future no further TV interviews will be granted by the League unless conducted live.


We have to report that, as we go to press, there has been no response of any sort from Mr. John Howard, concerning the League's challenge for him to account for his attack on the League in the most dishonest and derogatory language. Such language is expected from the Marxists, Fabians and others of totalitarian bent (like the Prime Minister and the A.L.P. in general), but not from the Coalition Parties. Unless the Coalition Parties are also to be counted among the totalitarians now?

The Howard attack, which came in July, and again in August, has sent a few tremors through the Liberal Party, with those who have a good grasp of what the League stands for being appalled by the Leader of the Opposition's language. In a letter to Mr. Howard, the League's National Director, David Thompson, invited Mr. Howard to apply the same standards to his comments on the League that he is demanding from the Prime Minister over the Dr. Carmen Lawrence affair. Howard is insisting that Keating must demand that his ministers always tell the truth. Will Howard do the same about the League, or will he avert his face, and attempt to dodge the issue? Only time will tell, and we hope to be able to publish Mr. Howard's detailed answers to David Thompson's challenge in full when they are received.

For those who wish to read the National Director's challenge to Mr. Howard, the Thompson letter of August 25th has been published in full in this month's edition of Intelligence Survey. Send a donation to our Melbourne office for a copy of the September edition, or subscribe to Intelligence Survey: $20.00 per annum, G.P.O. Box 1052J, Melbourne, 3001.


by David Thompson
The incredible course of events surrounding the W.A. Royal Commission on the Easton affair, with Dr. Carmen Lawrence and the question of truthfulness at the centre of it, is worthy of some attention. Her evidence before the Commission is reminiscent of Mr. Allan Bond at a previous Royal Commission, when Bond is said to have answered "I can't remember" hundreds of times. Although the Commission is hearing evidence on other matters, the central question is whether Dr. Lawrence told the truth, or not, when she said that she had not seen the Easton petition before it was presented to the W.A. Parliament when she was Premier. It should be remembered that eight of Lawrence's former colleagues, seven of them former Cabinet Ministers, have testified that Lawrence was present in Cabinet when the petition was discussed prior to tabling it. Dr. Lawrence, in demanding that we believe her version of events, is implying that the other eight are guilty of either lying under oath to the Royal Commission, or of having amazingly similarly faulty memories.


Dr. Lawrence, who is being called the Teflon Lady to whom allegations of impropriety do not stick, has shown that she is determined to ride out the storm concerning her behaviour. Under immense pressure, even from within the A.L.P. to step down as a Minister, Lawrence has defied everyone, and so far prevailed. But her position is due to nothing more than the determination of the Prime Minister to save her. Why does Mr. Keating want to save Dr. Lawrence, and risk the odour of the Lawrence Affair muddying the waters of the next election campaign?

The A.L.P. has invested a great deal in Dr. Lawrence. She is regarded as enormously valuable to the Party, and perhaps the key to an A.L.P. electoral victory next year. Mr. Keating has taken enormous risks to ensure Lawrence's survival, including impugning the integrity of a Royal Commission in the most outrageous way, with the protection of Parliament privilege. Further, Keating has implied that even if Lawrence is found by the Commission to be guilty of lying to Parliament, that "a few fibs" are neither here nor there, and the finding would be treated with disdain.

Keating is counting on the cynicism of the Australian electorate to work in his own favour. He is depending upon the general consensus that politicians are naturally liars, as former Senator Richardson appeared to confirm in his memoirs, to produce the judgment that Dr. Lawrence has done nothing unusual. In doing so, Keating is demeaning the currency of politics still further, and lowering again the benchmark of political integrity expected by the public.

Keating has shown that as a politician he is prepared to risk all on his own political skills, to "go for broke". It is this factor, which the Opposition correctly fears could rob them of victory at the next election. The A.L.P. is risking much on Dr. Lawrence because it expects much in return. They expect Lawrence to appeal to women, even though in reality her feminine qualities are never prominent. Further, they expect her to appeal to feminists, who are quickly to portray Lawrence as a victim of persecution, not because she may be a liar, but because she is a woman.

The A.L.P. even expect Dr. Lawrence to appeal to the homosexual voter, and a proportion of the male vote because of her presentation of carefully contrived innocence, and outrage that her word has been questioned. But most of all, the A.L.P. myth makers want to present Dr. Lawrence as possibly Australia's first female Prime Minister. Against such expectations, what do a few little fibs matter?


The over-the-top outrage over French nuclear testing in the Pacific rests not upon dangers of the tests, but upon political one-upmanship, and press hyperbole. As yet, we still await a single study of an even pseudo-scientific nature to indicate what the health or other dangers of testing might be. The only studies, which have been published, indicate the reverse - that the tests are, in fact, relatively safe. Even the Government's own study, The Impact of Nuclear Testing at Mururoa and Fangatau concluded that there was practically no health risk to the Islanders. The International Atomic Energy Agency could find no measurable radiation dangers, and has said so.

In August, the ABC's Quantum programme had to concede that radiation risks were slight from a purely rational, scientific assessment. Where evidence of cancers, birth defects, and other health problems have surfaced, it is clear that these are the results of two factors. First, such records may only recently have been kept, and second, the lifestyle on the Pacific Islands has changed so dramatically since the 1960s. The smoking rate has increased enormously, and eighty percent of the food consumed in the region is now imported. The changes in diet alone could produce massive health problems never matched by influences of radiation.


It is clear that as a diplomatic exercise, the outrage directed towards the French by the Australian Government has become an embarrassing disaster. The Opposition must share the guilt for this, because instead of telling the truth about French nuclear testing, the Opposition leapt onto the anti-nuclear bandwagon in an attempt to siphon off a few of the "green" votes from the A.L.P. That is, instead of "opposing" a potential diplomatic disaster, the Opposition fostered it in a quite irresponsible way. In so doing, they have helped to align Australia with every revolutionary group in Polynesia who simply wish to destroy France as a colonial power irrespective of the huge sums of money France invests in the region annually.

The result of the knee-jerk reaction to French testing is that Australia has successfully alienated the one useful Western ally in the region, apart from New Zealand. Thus, the subversive "environmental" movements, like Greenpeace, which mainly reflect an anti-western totalitarian philosophy, have been handed a huge propaganda victory simply by appearing on the television screens in every Australian lounge room nightly as having taken the high moral ground against the "wicked French".

All we can hope for, is that Australia doesn't need to rely upon a Western alliance which includes the French for at least the next 10 years, and probably longer. It appears to be too much to expect the Opposition to resist the seduction of short-term superficial gains, and tell the truth when it is in the national interest to do so. They have helped to demonstrate to the Asians, as well as the Americans and the Europeans, that Australia is a highly unreliable ally.


The press attack on Mr. Peter Davis, Mayor of Port Lincoln, followed up by Senator Bolkus, for daring to support the League of Rights, continues to have wider repercussions. We expect this to be the case for some time with ratepayers in the South Australian peninsular area incensed that any popularly elected local Mayor should have to pass some sort of press test in political correctness to be acceptable to the likes of Senator Bolkus, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. If it comes to the point, Mr. Davis has at least as strong a "mandate" to represent local ratepayers, as Senator Bolkus has to represent South Australians.

The Davis affair has been discussed in other Councils in South Australia, and in one case where a Marion Councillor demanded a politically correct 'code of practice' for local government, his Council colleagues completely rejected the idea. According to the Guardian Messenger (13/9/95), Cr. Bruce Hull proposed a "racial vilification" section to such a code of practice, claiming that Mayor Davis' comments were "disgraceful", and implied that his support for the League was inappropriate. "If you hold a public office you should not take part in such activities," according to Cr. Hull. "It is just an atrocious activity to have in this State... like the Mayor of whatever city holding a debate on child pornography."

It is clear that Cr. Hull knows nothing about the League, and certainly doesn't know Peter Davis. Any suggestion that the League's programme could be compared with "child pornography" is too ludicrous for words. The fact that such nonsense receives any attention at all is a product of ignorance, and press bias. We suggest that supporters can help counter this with the use of our brochure The Australian Labor Party versus The Australian League of Rights.


The advertisement that was reproduced in On Target Bulletin (26/8/95) concerning Labor M.P. Mr. Graeme Campbell, has now been published in at least four newspapers that we are aware of. The response has been very encouraging. Supporters have welcomed the initiative, and others who support Campbell's position have come forward. One correspondent, from the advertisement published in The Land, wrote: "Enclosed is a cheque, etc. ... If you are conversing with Mr. Campbell, please convey to him our full support for his policies; out of all the politicians in Canberra he is the only man with the courage of his convictions. As an ex-member of the Labor Party I despise socialism, but if in today's circumstances Mr. Campbell needed assistance he would find many ethical Australians would come to his aid. May God bless his work..."


In his column in The Australian on September 1st, Mr. John Hyde made the case that "multiculturalism" might have been a good idea, but that it has gone wrong. He recalled that when he was young, there was concern about immigrant "wogs", and now about "slopes". And while in Parliament, be was "arraigned" by League supporters over his support for the refugee programme, and that the League claimed overwhelming support for opposition to the levels of immigration. Hyde commented that he addressed a number of League meetings on the issue, "without being contaminated", but dismissed the League as being "A nuisance to politicians; on the topic of money and credit it is nuts; and it is mildly racist. Nevertheless it has the right to express views that I and others think are wrong..."

Hyde then went on to concede, in essence, that the League's opposition to high levels of non-European immigration was simply ahead of public opinion by perhaps as much as 20 years. Hyde puts this down to the influence of multiculturalism on public opinion, and quotes Jerzy Zubrzycki's address to the Galations Group in late August. Zubrzycki, who could well be 'credited' with being the Australian 'father of multiculturalism", claimed that multiculturalism had been abused by politicians, and rather than producing social cohesion from diversity, had become a social and political disaster. The term "multiculturalism" should be abandoned, according to Zubrzycki.

In a sharp response to John Hyde's column, Rabbi Fox took him to task for having the effrontery to describe the League as "mildly racist". Fox made it clear that the Jewish community supported the multicultural programme, because the concept of ethnic integration meant the survival of Judaism as a separate ethnic/religious identity. Assimilation, on the other hand, would destroy Judaism within two to three generations. Rabbi Fox was scathing about Hyde's quoting a comment of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galations as "good anti-racist stuff": "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." This, according to Rabbi Fox, was a blatant form of cultural imperialism, unacceptable in the multicultural society.

As a response to Rabbi Fox, the League's National Director, Mr. David Thompson, offered the following letter to the Editor of The Australian, which, needless to add, did not appear:
"I take exception to Rabbi Fox's objection to John Hyde's description of the Australian League of Rights as 'mildly racist'. "Meaning what, exactly? Are we accused of hating Hyde's 'wogs' only a little? Or of hating his 'slopes', but not his 'wogs'? As a Christian-based organisation the League rejects hatred as a motivation for any activity or attitude. "In fact, we have the greatest sympathy for the migrant, thrust into what John Hyde apparently concedes is a situation of escalating tensions, if not conflict. It isn't the migrant's fault if Australia has a dopey immigration policy of encouraging migrants from backgrounds completely alien to our own majority cultural outlook, but he will become a victim of such a policy more than the rest of us.
"I also completely reject Rabbi Fox's charge that the League commits frequent 'acts of rabid anti-Semitism'. How? Are we accused of torching synagogues or desecrating graves? Of course not. But we do reject the need for racial hatred legislation as a form of totalitarianism, and question the motives of the Jewish leadership who support it. "The charge that the League seeks to persecute Australian Jews is beyond belief. But whenever the hand of Christian charity is extended to the Jewish community, their leaders like Rabbi Fox seem to bite it, and treat it as 'religious imperialism'. I sympathise with the Jewish community having to suffer such leadership, when in my experience they just want to be left alone like any other Australians.
"If being completely accepted into the Australian community, or 'assimilated', is a threat to the Jewish community, does Rabbi Fox have a vested interest in generating a 'persecution complex'?"


from The Australian, 8/9
"In your Editorial of 4/9, Support Gathers For A Republic, you claimed that the momentum for a republic has gathered pace and you referred to recent statements by a former prime minister and a former governor general as your evidence for that conclusion.
"You said that Malcolm Fraser, while maintaining a personal reluctance to embrace republicanism, had said that a republic was inevitable and right. You also said that Sir Zelman Cowen, while supporting the existing system of government, had endorsed the preferred model of the Government, namely, a president elected by Parliament rather than a popularly elected President.
"Given Malcolm Fraser's personal reluctance to support republicanism, and Sir Zelman Cowen's support for the existing system of Government, I fail to see how either of them could be cited as justification for your Editorial or its over optimistic heading.

In the interests of informed debate, I trust you will allow me to remind your readers of the views of another former prime minister, another former governor general, and the present Governor General.

"Bob Hawke has said that the well being of ordinary people would not he changed one iota if we became a republic tomorrow and has questioned the proposed presidency because a president would have a stronger base to be a willful beast than any governor general.
Sir Ninian Stephen has said that 'inevitably' in relation to a republic means some time within the next one thousand years.
Bill Hayden has said that the present system works well because a governor general in the role of head of State is aware of the restraints under which he must function, that a president would use the reserve powers more often than governor general because an elected president would have his or her own constituency and could appeal to that constituency and ignore the government of the day; and that Australia is already as free and independent of Britain as it could possibly be.

"In the light of these comments, perhaps we might now look forward to another Editorial entitled, 'Support Diminishes For a Republic'. 'It would also be good to have some explanation for the inference in your Editorial's final paragraph that the minimalist constitutional proposal represents enlightened debate while two or more constitutional proposals would represent personal and partisan hobby horses that would obscure the debate. If the so-called republican debate isn't a personal and partisan hobby horse, then I don't know what else you could call it."
(Sir David Smith, Mawson, A.C.T.)


from The Courier, Ballarat, 19/8
'The guardedness of your optimism on the jobs front (Courier, editorial, August 14) is fully justified. "With a jobless figure of 12.4% a drop of 0.04 of 1% is scarcely noticeable. "If your maths are better than mine you might care to calculate how many centuries it will take to wipe out unemployment in the Ballarat region at this rate. "Imagine the fellow who lost his job in the 'recession we had to have' wondering how long we will have to wait for the return of his dignity.
'The one thing that is absolutely certain today is that technology has enabled us to produce all our needs and wants with a much lower human input. 'Yet economists have not gained an understanding of this fact. Their plaything, finance, has become an impediment to living rather than the facilitator of commerce it was intended to be. 'The nation would be far better off if economists applied their undoubted talents to devising a means of equitably distributing our production domestically caused by overseas trade and floating exchange rates."
(Ron Fischer, Talbot, Victoria)


from Ballarat Courier, 11/9
'The family farm will inevitably disappear, giving way to large-scale corporate agriculture because of international competition and drought the head of the Anglican Church in the west of N.S.W warned yesterday.
"Bishop Bruce Wilson said the rural industry was facing dramatic changes. It was unavoidable country people, particularly on smallholdings would suffer. '"Those who are not big enough, not able to capitalise sufficiently, not skilled enough to implement new scientific methods or adapt to market demands are not surviving', Bishop Wilson said. "He said sentiment bound many farmers to the land when it might be more sensible to give up. 'Sadly, many hold on until all their equity is used up, hoping for a change in their fortunes, when it would have been wiser to leave with some assets intact,' he said. "But who can judge the family traditions, the friendships, the love of the land and all the emotions that lay behind such fateful decisions?"
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159