A WORLD OF ABUNDANCE

by Eric D. Butler
One could not describe the famous British novelist Charles Dickens as a devout Christian. But he did depict the spirit of Christmas, while his famous character Scrooge, with his meanness of spirit, reflected that Pharisaism which has increasingly blighted the true spirit of Christianity, which is one of generous giving based on the belief that God's Universe is one of abundance. Christ said that he had come in order that the individual could enjoy the life more abundant. As the author of Social Credit, C.H. Douglas, said, the destruction of the flower of Christian Civilisation was the "terrible efficience" of Pharisaism in the modern industrial system.

The very culture of Western man is being eroded by the stress of a soulless efficiency, which makes genuine conservation increasingly difficult. The "waste society" is not only one in which material things are wasted, but there has been a wasting of the things of the spirit. Instead of Christmas being a time for simple gifts reflecting the original spirit of Christmas, it is now geared to a production system, which desperately seeks to meet the demands of debt finance. While Church leaders verbally complain about the "gross commercialisation" of Christmas they avoid any reference to that blighting influence of debt finance. Christ's warning that it was impossible to worship both God and Mammon is either ignored or misquoted.

It was that great Christian apologist and master of the use of paradox to illuminate truth, G.K. Chesterton, who observed that the plight of the world was the only hope of the world. The plight of the world is the result of man turning his back upon those absolutes, which were the foundations upon which Christian Civilisation was built. But these absolutes still remain and regeneration is possible by returning to them.

A starting point for the regeneration of Christian Civilisation is an acceptance of Truth, of Reality. There must be reassessment of what is called science. The famous and widely respected mathematician and philosopher, Alfred Whitehall, said that Christianity is the mother of science because of "the medieval insistence of the rationality of God". That gave men "the faith in the possibility of science". They could confidently expect to find out about the world by observation and experimentation.

The true scientist does not believe that he is God, creating Truths, but that he is the discoverer of Truths, which already exist. The early scientists had yet another impetus: The Bible taught mankind to have dominion over Nature, which was part of God's creation. They therefore believed that by investigating God's creation, they were doing something worthwhile.

Nature existed to serve the individual. The development of an elevation of Nature into an end in itself is an extension of those Eastern religions, which see creation as an extension of the essence of God. Sir David Kelly, in his classic work The Hungry Sheep, observes that most Eastern religions are religions of pessimism. Eastern religions believe that any examination of Nature is an investigation of God Himself. Or they see Nature as full of gods or spirits, with the result that all investigation is taboo. Stagnation continues.

Christianity teaches that the world was created by a rational God and there is a total break between God and creation, God is infinite, created things are finite. The coming of Christianity gave man a hope and unleashed creativeness in all its forms. It was a religion of hope based not on a blind Faith, but on discovered Truths. The Christmas Season is an appropriate time to contemplate these and associated matters. God's world is one of abundance, material abundance, spiritual abundance, an overflowing abundance of Truth in all its manifestations. Man has yet to discover the full implications of Christ's advice concerning Love.

SEASON'S GREETINGS

THE INDONESIAN TREATY IN PERSPECTIVE

by David Thompson
The fact that the Prime Minister knew that his new treaty with Indonesia was unlikely to be universally popular is underlined by the secrecy with which the negotiations took place. It is a most significant treaty for a variety of reasons, but in view of Mr. Keating's attempt to re-orient Australia as "a part of Asia", it is in this context that the treaty is most significant.

The most enduring agreements between nations are obviously those between nations in which the basic social elements are held in common. This is hardly the case with Indonesia. Australia is basically a European country, with English almost exclusively spoken. It is a 'first world' nation with a heritage of representative government with a Christian background made up of a relatively small population in an urbanised setting. By contrast, Indonesia is a military dictatorship in which freedom of the press is unknown. It is an economically poor Muslim nation of about 170 million rural based people of an unmistakably Asian orientation. Our resources are different, our cultures, languages, political systems, climates, and races are all distinctly different. The only thing we have in common with Indonesia is the accident of geographic proximity.

Few Australians remember - if they ever knew - that an earlier Asian agreement in which Australia was involved was the Five Power Defence Arrangement with Malaysia, New Zealand, U.K. and Singapore. This was formed as a result of Indonesia attempting to re-draw its borders with Malaysia, in Indonesia's favour. The purpose of the agreement was to protect Singapore and Malaysia from Indonesia. Since then, Indonesian territorial ambitions have been demonstrated with the Timor annexation. This is still a quite legitimate cause for distrust of the Indonesians.

Quite understandably, the A.L.P. "left" is most uneasy about the new Indonesian treaty. Former Whitlam Minister, Mr. Tom Uren, is scathing about the new relationship. "I see explosive complications for Australia of belligerent Indonesian militants continue their atrocities against the West Irianese, and the future border implications with Papua New Guinea," he said. "My concern relates to the Indonesian Government restricting their citizens' human rights, a free press and free trade unions."

ASIANS DON'T REGARD AUSTRALIA AS 'ASIAN'

While Mr. Keating and Foreign Minister Gareth Evans do all in their power to re-orient Australia as "a part of Asia", our Asian neighbours do not regard Australia as an Asian nation, and never have. This was highlighted by the Malaysian Prime Minister Mr. Mahathir, yet again at the end of the Association of South East Asian Nations Conference last week. Mr. Mahathir said: "There may be a time perhaps when Australia is so identified with Asia that we have to accept it as an East Asian nation But at the moment, Australia forms a continent of its own - the continent of Australasia, so obviously it is not of east Asia...."

Mahathir said that Australian participation in the east Asian region might come when Australia itself was more Asianised: "… possibly with more Asians settling in Australia, maybe the proportion might be 70 percent Asian 30 percent people of Caucasian origin... perhaps that's when there will be no problem at all." In view of the above comments, which are known to reflect widespread Asian views, it is impossible to deny that the Australian Government has deliberately adopted an Asian bias to the immigration intake in recent years. We quite deliberately discriminate against European migrants - particularly those from Britain.

As a pre-election ploy, the Keating Indonesian treaty is something of a master stroke; not because it generates widespread support in Australia, but because it portrays the Prime Minister as a strong leader, prepared to lead rather than tag along, as Mr. Howard has been forced to do. Howard, desperate to appear as pro-Asian as Keating, has abandoned his role as Opposition leader, and has failed to enunciate the discomfort with this treaty that many Australians share. He has again been outmaneuvered by his political master, Paul Keating.

The one person who is still capable of making this Treaty, and the Australian orientation with Asia into an election issue, is Graeme Campbell. He is the only politician who has dared to point out that Australians were not consulted about Asianisation. In retrospect, it is now obvious that even Mr. Keating could see that Campbell had to be dealt with before the treaty was announced if his influence was not to become an embarrassing pre-election catalyst for resentment about Asianisation. In this, Mr. Keating seems to have miscalculated, as the Campbell influence is even stronger following his alienation from the A.L.P.

For Indonesia, the treaty problem provides a diplomatic lifeline in circumstances that were becoming increasingly uncomfortable. The Americans have been vocally critical of the Indonesian annexation of East Timor, particularly in Congress. They have scaled down their involvement in military training for the Indonesian armed forces, until the Indonesian forces are more involved in training with the Australians than any other country. A treaty negotiated with Australia, a "respectable" western U.S. ally, who can still open doors in Washington, is most useful to Indonesia. Apart from this, President Suharto obviously sees Mr. Keating as being good for Asia, and is keen to see him re-elected as a political statesman and strongman.

The great unspoken influence behind the Indonesian treaty is the emerging military presence of China. Although neither Keating nor Evans will admit as much, the Indonesian treaty is the first premium on an insurance policy against growing Chinese influence. The Chinese interest in the Pratley Islands has shaken much of Asia. As China, a traditional land power, increases its maritime capability, the U.S.Japanese alliance becomes increasingly significant. But the stability of American influence in Asia is now doubted, with the failure of the U.S. to successfully resolve the Vietnam War, and American withdrawal from the Philippines. What if America abdicates again when China begins to assert itself'?

Australia's best defence prospects are not with the United States (although the U.S. is invaluable) nor with Indonesia or any other Asian nation. Our best defence prospects begin in Australia. Our defence capability is woeful, because we have permitted it to run down. It must be restored to add military credibility to any sensible diplomatic initiatives we might mount.

If we are (correctly) worried about China, then our best answer after the military priority is to see that we are economically independent from China. Rather than permit Australian industry to be demolished by cheap Chinese labor, we should move to place a priority on enhanced Australian industrial capability. If we depend on Chinese, Malaysian, Filipino or Indonesian imports, then no military effort towards defence is possible anyhow.

KALGOORLIE DUMPING: IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE

(from News Weekly, 16/12/95)
The dumping of the Member for Kalgoorlie, Mr. Graeme Campbell, by the Federal Executive of the A.L.P., is like a replay of what happened to another Labor Member for Kalgoorlie, Victor Johnson, in 1957. The consequences to the A.L.P. at the next Federal election will predictably be similar to what happened to the A.L.P. candidate for Kalgoorlie at the Federal election in 1958.

In the 1955 elections, which devastated the Labor Party, Johnson defied the trend and won Kalgoorlie with 61.1% of the vote. In the 1958 elections after Johnson had been refused endorsement, the A.L.P. candidate for Kalgoorlie, Fred Collard, polled only 44.4% of first preference votes, the Democratic Labor Party won 11.9% and contrary to all expectations the seat was won by an unknown Liberal. The same could happen in 1996.

It is worth recalling the treatment meted out to Victor Johnson by the A.L.P. Executive in 1957. Following the disastrous consequences of the split in the Labor Party in 1955, Cyril Chambers, the Member for Adelaide and former Minister for the Army, and Victor Johnson, the Member for Kalgoorlie who had held the Interior portfolio in the Chifley Government, attacked the leadership of Dr. Evatt.

In August 1957, Chambers issued a statement, which said that the Labor Party would not win an election while Dr. Evatt was Leader. Victor Johnson responded to this and the Kalgoorlie Miner of August 14th, 1957, published a front-page article on the affair. Johnson was then 67 and had devoted the greater part of his life to the Labor movement as an organiser and State Secretary of the Australian Workers Union before winning the seat of Kalgoorlie for Labor in 1940.

He issued a further statement on August 21st. It was a slashing attack on Evatt's leadership. He said, "Evatt started to disintegrate the Labor Party from the time he accepted leadership after the death of Ben Chifley." The public statements of Chambers and Johnson were a damning indictment of the leadership of the Labor Party. It also showed that a totalitarian attitude existed and what would happen in the Parliamentarian Party. At the next Caucus meeting on August 26th, Chambers tabled a resolution of no confidence in Evatt's leadership, which had no chance of success. Neither of Evatt's rivals, his deputy Arthur Calwell nor the ambitious Eddie Ward was prepared to contest the leadership and other members who had previously echoed the same criticism sat shamefully silent.

This remnant of a once great party had miserably faded to rise against a deranged egotistical leader whom nearly everyone privately disowned, but against whom only two would speak publicly. That was later to prove costly. Graeme Campbell may not be the same sort of Labor man that Victor Johnson was nor has he fought for the same principles as Johnson did, but his ruthless dumping by Prime Minister Keating and the Federal Executive will have similar electoral consequences for the A.L.P. in Kalgoorlie and elsewhere as in 1958.
Brian Peachey was the W.A. State Secretary of the D.L.P. from 1957 to 1964.

IS SEX WORK A 'REAL JOB'?

TIME AGAIN FOR A REAL PEOPLE'S BANK

from The Courier (Ballarat), 7/12
"I write in response to the letters of Ron Fischer, 'Decline of the family farm' (The Courier, Sept. 15), and John Parkin, 'Need for policies to support family farm' (The Courier, Sept 21).
"Ever since the Catholic Bishops' statement 'Common Wealth For The Common Good' (91), research and deliberation by Priority for People (formerly the Economic Workshop Group), affiliated with the Ballarat Council of Churches, has pointed us in similar directions. "Their letters resonate deep chords in the Australian psyche, the dream of 'mateship' and a 'fair go for all', particularly the 'battler from the bush', as the response to the Channel 9 Farm Hand project indicated.
"A centre piece of that dream was to build up our 'common wealth' in Australia through a 'people's bank' - The Commonwealth Bank (C.B.A.).

"My wife and I have been exploring retirement villages in this and other cities. This made us ask what money value we put on such things as the beauty of walks around Lake Wendouree, or the Botanical Gardens, or the fact that Ballarat is rated number one city in Australia for hospitals, health and aged-care? These are the 'common wealth' of all who live in Ballarat!
"Founded in 1912, between 1912 and 1923, the C.B.A. financed World War I, the Transcontinental Railway, and infrastructure for primary industry: more than 700 million pounds at 0.7% interest, for 0.02% profit. Profits aren't needed when building 'common wealth', with our collective collateral! But the C.B.A. was strangled in 1923 by a pincer movement of the Bruce-Page conservative government and the (strike?) action of the private banks, which refused woolgrowers credit until the Government gave them the powers over credit issues that they wanted. 'The C.B.A's. role was emasculated, becoming just another private bank. The woolgrowers' banking costs more than doubled in 1924. Not pretty reading but true!

"How many extra billions have Australian taxpayers paid in interest to banks for subsequent infrastructure ('common wealth') developments like Premier Kennett's freeway-link project! "Interest in foreign consortiums will be included in our road tolls, the 'foreign debt truck' will have another load, our local 'Snowy Mountains' type experts will remain unemployed, and our Australian sovereignty (control over our own destiny) will be reduced yet again. It's a mug's game!
"Banks the world over are now focused upon the profits that come from backing the consortiums operating within the global economy, not upon service to local communities.

"No doubt Don Argus (National Australia Bank) would call this and your editorial (Courier, August 29) bank bashing, as he did Treasurer Willis' call for low cost banking for pensioners (August 30). "And it is, because banks now assume their position of privileged power 'as of right', and feel free to invest in tax havens off-shore, subtracting from our 'common wealth'.
"'The Lord loves justice and equity.' So did Australians, but we've lost the plot, the concept of common wealth'. Let church people follow their Lord and help Australians recover it.

"Something much more than a one-off Farm-Hand is needed. 'Isn't it time for us all to dream again of another 'people's bank'? 'The Constitution provides for it. Members of all political parties should be asking: 'How can we get this concept back onto the political agenda?' So many of Australia's current economic problems could thus be alleviated."
(Rev. A. Wright, Priority for People, Ballarat)

BUSINESS OF CHARITY

CAN'T DISMISS IT