THE COMING AUSTRALIAN EXPLOSION

by Eric D. Butler
Desperate people often resort to desperate measures. If the desperate people are uninformed, their desperate measures generally result in policies of further totalitarianism. Napoleon offered "law and order" to a France devastated by the French Revolution. Hitler was born at the Versailles "Peace" Conference and offered "strong leadership" to a German population faced with Communist revolutionary forces, which flourished during the Great Depression.

Those responsible for the financial policies which produced the Great Depression have been succeeded by financial gurus who, like the Bourbons, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. The story is told of the Melbourne University student of economics who after many years returned to examine what was now being taught at the University. "I see," he said, "that you are teaching the same nonsense I was taught." To which an Economics Lecturer replied, "But we now have different answers with new terminology."
And so most of today's Australian economic "experts" support the Howard-Costello budget, backed also by the Reserve Bank which says that "The Federal Government's Budget strategy, along with fiscal consolidation, would promote economic growth and lower interest rates in the long term".

"Fiscal consolidation" is one of the relatively new buzzwords. But it means that the Australian community must accept "pain" now for the "long term gain", which allegedly will eventually come from "increased economic growth". But there are growing ominous signs that those responsible for the immigration and economic policies imposed upon the Australian people over the post Second World War years have created a deadly cocktail of explosive elements now coming to the fore.

Last Monday's Melbourne morning paper, The Age, carries several stories, which indicate that the recent storming of the Commonwealth Parliament may be but the harbinger of worse to come in the shape of widespread social disintegration. The Age front-page headline reads: REVEALED: RACISM'S UGLY RISE. The story starts, "Signs are emerging of a steady deterioration in Australia's race relations with experts warning that the nation faces growing social unrest and racial division." Studies reveal that there is widespread tension in the schools, with friction not only between English-speaking and non-English speaking students, but between the non-English speaking ethnic groups.

The Age report refers to "An emerging middle-class disquiet among Anglo-Australian parents as Asian children from business migrant families move into wealthier schools and surge to the top of the class. Some racial incidents are triggered by jealousy towards Asian students and their ability to study and achieve academically: Increasing tensions brought about by the reluctance of students (particularly girls) from Asian and Middle Class families to participate in school sporting activities".

The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr. Philip Ruddock, agrees that "racism" is growing, urging that people do not become "complacent" about the problem. He draws attention to the little publicised fact that the Government had announced in the budget that it would spend $5 million on an "anti-racism" campaign in 1996-97.

Long before Professor Geoffrey Blainey triggered off a national debate concerning immigration, the League of Rights was warning of the inevitable end result of a deliberate programme designed to create a multicultural society. But because it was not complacent about a problem, which has bedeviled every country where it has been attempted, it was smeared as being "racist". All those who have attempted to warn about the fallacy of multiculturalism, have been smeared as "racist bigots", or worse. Tragically, the chickens are now coming home to roost. Urging Australians to become more "tolerant" can have no real effect on the worsening situation.

Page 2 of The Age carries the headline, FACTORY WORKERS DOWN BY 20% IN EIGHT YEARS. This is the result primarily of the philosophy of "economic rationalism", supported by all the political parties. The Age story reads, "In theory new jobs spring up from the scorched earth left by tariff cuts, as the rest of the country benefits from the lower cost of protection. In reality, this has not happened. On the census figures, Victoria lost 26,500 or 27 percent of the jobs in its machinery and equipment sector from 1988 to 1995 even though the sector's exports trebled to $2.1 billion in that time."

Even Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett has become concerned about the growing threat to what is left of the Australian car industry. Car manufacturers have warned that if the objective of zero tariffs is achieved, the car industry will be wiped out. Perhaps Australia could then obtain cars from the new, rapidly expanding Indonesian car industry! The Indonesian Government bluntly says that it is determined to foster that industry with adequate tariff protection!
The Indonesian Government does not appear to have heard what Australian financial "experts" are saying: that there can be no retreat from Australia's policy of removing all forms of protection for its industries. Or, if they have, they are delighted!

The same Age, which has been in the forefront of fostering multiculturalism in last Monday's issue, ran an article by the Adelaide historian and economist Hugh Stretton, entitled THE ROAD TO ANARCHY. Stretton makes some telling points against "economic rationalism", suggesting that unless some basic changes are made, Australia could finish like Mexico. But all that The Age editorially can offer is some mealy mouthed comment about Australians nurturing their "tolerance".

The reality is that mainstream Australians were able to accept the massive post Second World War immigration because most of the immigrants were Europeans who were encouraged to learn English and to assimilate as quickly as possible. Most did this. But the situation was favourable for this type of development because there was meaningful economic activity for all. That is no longer the case. That is why Australia is threatened with growing social disintegration unless a new type of party emerges to face the realities of the situation.

Graeme Campbell is the only Federal political leader facing this question at the moment. Campbell has indicated that he is far from "complacent" about Australia's future.

DECENTRALISING ABORIGINAL FUNDING

by David Thompson
A recent report prepared by Dr. John Gardner-Garden for the Parliamentary Library reveals that more than $12 billion has been spent by the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs since 1968, which in today's values would exceed $16 billion, or $580 million per year. If estimates of 150,000 Australian Aborigines can be accepted, then this means that more than $3,800 per Aboriginal person has been provided every year since 1968. That is, approximately $68,000 per Aborigine, or a quarter of a million dollars for each family of four. And Aboriginal spokesmen like Pat Dodson condemns Australia for the conditions in which some Aborigines live.

What has happened to the money! Clearly, much of this money has been wasted, or spent in ways that do not permanently assist in housing, health and education for Aboriginal people. Much of it would have been spent on legal, administrative and archaeological pursuits that go to make up so much of the "Aboriginal Industry", rather than reaching those in real need. Dr. Gardiner-Garden suggests that funding might more efficiently be decentralised to regional authorities. But instead of using the existing "regional authorities", he suggests the setting up of new regional governments (The Weekend Australian, 31/8/96). He also emphasises that "indigenous control of funding is necessary for Aboriginal self-determination and reconciliation" since the mainstream welfare services lack the "cultural sensitivity" to deliver services successfully.

PRACTICAL PROPOSALS IGNORED

This appears to be the typical muddle when matters of policy and administration are confused. What is the policy objective of allocating distinctly Aboriginal funding as opposed to welfare services to any disadvantaged Australians? If the policy objective is to provide Aborigines with better housing, health and education, as the Minister seems to indicate, then let us do two things. First, let us discover whether this is what Australia's disadvantaged Aborigines really want. If this proves to be the case, as expected, then let us find the most efficient method of administering the policy.

Back in 1984, W.A. M.P. Wilson Tuckey proposed what is the best method so far of administering such a policy: through local government! This suggestion was taken up by Rev. Cedric Jacobs an Aboriginal Pastor in W.A., who once served on the National Aboriginal Conference. The proposal meets every sensible objective for alleviating Aboriginal poverty.

There are two reasons why Mr. Tuckey's and Rev. Jacobs' proposal was never properly examined.
1) It would mean funds were administered through the States, rather than the Commonwealth. That is, voluntary decentralisation is required.
2) The proposal undermines the Aboriginal revolutionary movement, which simply uses the funds, and manipulates the Aboriginal people for political purposes. As a result, any decentralisation of administration is strongly opposed.

Dr. Gardiner-Garden also addresses the problem of "who is an Aborigine"? He suggests either tightening up the "administrative definition" or abolishing it completely. Eligibility for special Aboriginal benefits would then depend upon demonstrating descent from traditional owners, responsibility as a custodian of Aboriginal heritage, etc.

The only answer to the continuing "problem" of funding Aboriginal welfare is to define the policy objectives, and then identify the most efficient form of administration. If the policy objectives are confused, as at present, then massive waste will continue, as will Aboriginal poverty.

Recommended reading: Healing a Divided Nation by Rev. Cedric Jacobs, $7.00, or $8.00 posted;
Hasluck Versus Coombs by Professor Geoffrey Partington, $15.00 or $18.00 posted; from League Book Services.

DEMISE OF THE MULTI-FUNCTION POLLS

The grandiose dream of a high-tech super-city, in which the world's best brains would come together to continue to push the limits of "leading-edge technology", appears to be another victim of the Howard/ Costello determination to fill the Budget's "black hole". Its projected Commonwealth contribution of $4.5 million has been cut to a final contribution of $1 million, and the technocrats are stunned. The South Australian Government, which has just committed another $30 million to the M.F.P., and seems to regard the project as a job-producing development project, is somewhat dismayed.

It was the League of Rights that drew national attention to the M.F.P. project in the last few weeks of the 1990 general election campaign. The late Jim Marsh, who had been picking up whispers of the hush-hush project for months, had suggested to David Thompson that research into the M.F.P. was justified. With its wide circle of extraordinary contacts, the League was able to publish a special edition of Intelligence Survey (March 1990) revealing the truth about the M.F.P. This excited nationwide attention, with Opposition Leader Andrew Peacock, in need of a campaign fillip, condemning the proposal for the M.F.P.

JAPANESE IMPERIALISM EXPOSED

Since at least 1987, Japan's high-powered Ministry of International Trade and Industry (M.I.T.I.) had been quietly planning the establishment of a "city of the 21st Century" as a Japanese scientific research centre, into which Western technological advances could be absorbed and developed. It is widely understood that the Japanese are not leaders in the field of technological discovery, which requires a certain type of lateral thinking, but have a particular genius for adapting new technology to specific needs. Such a new research environment could harvest the best technological ideas for the Japanese industrial system.
What was previously unknown, was the fact that the Japanese had selected Australia as the favoured source of this M.F.P., and had received support and co-operation from the Australian Ministry for Industry, Technology and Commerce, under the A.L.P's. Senator John Button.

As a South Australian correspondent points out, the initial idea for the Japanese super-city probably came from a proposal for Japanese geriatric resorts in Australia in areas like Queensland in the mid 1980s. The Chairman of the joint Australia-Japan Steering Committee for the M.F.P. was Mr. Will Bailey, Chief Executive of the A.N.Z. Bank. As the facts about the M.F.P. became known, a strong public opposition to the project developed. Even ex-patriot Japanese, like Professor Yoshio Sugimoto, Dean of Sciences at LaTrobe University in Victoria, was the first to describe the M.F.P. as a Japanese "trojan horse", and warned of the establishment of Japanese enclaves within Australia. Sugimoto subsequently shared a platform with David Thompson at the League's Murray Electors Association Regional Dinner in Shepparton in 1990.

There is no doubt that the M.F.P. represented a new form of Japanese imperialism, and was intended to be kept secret to prevent outraged opposition. As Will Bailey said in private, "It is necessary to control the consciousness of public and related organisations very carefully" But when the League shattered the deception, the grandiose M.F.P. began to unravel, until the head of the national steering committee, Mr. Denis Gastin, is now of the view that the project has "reached the end of the road". But not before over $100 million of State and Federal funds were spent on the M.F.P. If the same amount had been spent on scientific research and development in Australia, we could have been a much more industrially competitive nation.

Recommended Reading: We still have stocks of the March 1990 Intelligence Survey. Send a donation to any League Book Service.

THE POWER OF ONE

One of the basic teachings of early League of Rights training was summarised as follows: "The letter you write may not always have much effect. But it is certain that the letter not written influences no one."

Victorian League actionist Ron Fischer is a shining example of persistence and commonsense. Some of his letters turn up all over Australia. Some are not published. But who knows what influence they may have on an editor. Ron Fischer is a model letter writer because he does not attempt to say too much in one letter. He is succinct. Consider the following letter sent to a Victorian provincial daily.

"The diesel fuel rebate has a history which includes a degree of equity for farmers and miners. Mr. Beazley is off the planet when he links it with business assistance and rorts. It is not assistance to business, otherwise transport companies would qualify. When diesel fuel was originally taxed ostensibly to pay for the wear and tear on roads from diesel vehicles it was realised that many diesel machines were used in agriculture and mining without placing one iota of wear on roads. Thus it was equitable that this fuel was not taxed.
"Mr. Fischer, too, is out of kilter....Farmers did not receive $500 million although the Government might have sent them cheques for that amount. It was only their own money for which they had to wait for its return.
"Governments are in a bind so long as they persist in trying to function with taxation and debt (deficit budgeting) as the only source of investment funds. The Howard Government is thrashing around trying to fill an $8 billion black hole. If it increases taxes it stifles the economy. If it reduces expenditure on health, education or pensions it stifles the economy.
"The simple fact is that economic rules as they stand do not accommodate modern conditions. The money sum quoted by the Government is only a fraction of the total accumulated deficit approaching $200 billion. That money has been needed over the years to make the economy function - to give the unemployed, for example, some access to a living, no matter how meagre. To pull that safety net out now is the way to further social upheaval. Increasing taxation to fill out this need is denying reality. It is a matter of conjecture how long we can keep on denying reality in the name of economics, rational or otherwise."

PRAYER DISCONTINUED IN S.A. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

It has been a time-honoured tradition to begin Council meetings with prayer in most States, which reflects the Christian influence on the heritage of decentralised power and self-government. It is an acknowledgement that self-government can be just as tyrannical as totalitarianism unless the "rules of the universe" are understood and observed.

The resort to prayer is the deliberate seeking after Divine wisdom in the affairs of men. The state of the world shows that it is sorely necessary. But the Mitcham Council, following a decision by Mayor Joy O'Hazy, has discontinued the practice of prayer, because it was regarded as "an inappropriate way to start meetings in a multicultural community". Over the protests of at least one Councillor, the prayer has been replaced with a moment's silence, so that Councillors can "seek guidance prior to decision making". As a result of the decision, Councillors had received "a minor avalanche" of community protest, describing the move as "pagan, misguided and shortsighted".

CENSORING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION

In April this year the N.S.W. Government attempted, and failed, to find a way of censoring the "Internet", on which socially irresponsible material can be distributed without apparent control. But it appears that the N.S.W Government failed because it did not properly understand the nature of the technology. All technology has its vulnerable points.

One campaigner in California, Bradley Smith, maintained a home page under the title of Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (C.O.D.O.H.), which drew much criticism because Mr. Smith (his real name) wanted exactly what his home page advertised - open debate on all aspects of the holocaust. Eventually a way was found to deal with Smith and C.O.D.O.H. Every Internet subscriber has a "service provider" who physically connects a subscriber to the network. In the United States, Smith's service provider, Valleynet was bought by an east coast businessman. Smith was promptly disconnected. But Smith, who makes up in determination anything he might lack in resourcefulness, has found an Asian service provider, who couldn't care less about the holocaust, as long as C.O.D.O.H. pay their service fees! Smith is back in business.

Here in Australia, a slightly different strategy is being attempted. As a result of a complaint by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Internet site of The Adelaide Institute is being investigated by the Human Rights Commission, for allegedly having breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The Adelaide Institute is primarily engaged in debating the facts concerning the Nazi holocaust of World War II, and the alleged gassing of 6 million Jews. This is regarded as being in bad taste by many, and offensive by some. But as yet, bad taste and social offence (for which the Institute apologises) are not against the law. Perhaps the Canadian experience is relevant.

ZUNDEL INTERNET CASE

The August 1996 edition of Friends of Freedom, organ of the Canadian Free Speech League, issues the following report.

"The newest method of the censors of the Internet originating in Canada is being initiated by the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Race Relations. This body has laid a complaint about Ernst Zundel's web site before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that denying the holocaust is insulting to Jews. The problem is that the web site is situated outside Canada, and is not accessible except for a long distance call through an Internet provider in San Diego. "The argument can be advanced that Ernst Zundel's web site located in California is not a telecommunication system, subject to the jurisdiction of Parliament. No one so far has raised this issue and no government other than Germany so far has endeavoured to use this method to censor the Internet in another country.
"The implications of this become obvious when it is noted that the complainants don't have to pay anything, even if they lose and the target of this complaint, Ernst Zundel will have to pay vast sums to defend himself (which sums, even if he wins, he can never recover). So as the Canadian legal system goes, this is called fair game. This system has very little regard for freedom of expression.
"Once again Ernst Zundel becomes the focal point of a battle for freedom on the Internet and of a massive struggle over Canada's security system which if the truth be known has been operating as a political police for some time, manipulating parliament and the media and its purported targets for maximum budgetary effect.
"The two reasons why the C.H.R.C. has no jurisdiction over Zundel's California web pages are first that the C.H.R.C. has jurisdiction over telephones, not the Internet. The Canadian Human Rights Act (section 13) gives the Commission jurisdiction over hate messages 'communicated telephonically'. The Commission has acknowledged in the past that the Internet lies outside this definition.
"The second reason is that the C.H.R.C. has no jurisdiction outside Canada. The Commission has been quite successful in shutting down 'hate messages' being offered on Canadian telephone answering machines. It's a priority for them, and it's something they boast about in their annual report. However, what often happens is the messages simply move south of the border to the United States, where they are outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, but still accessible to Canadians, who only need to know which telephone number to call.
'This new case will be, once more a precedent setting case for Canadian, and probably world, law.

* The Adelaide Institute, P.O. Box 3300, Norwood, 5067.

BARONESS THATCHER REJECTS "EUROPE"

Former British Prime Minister Baroness Margaret Thatcher is reported to be preparing to leave the British Conservative Party over its pro-European policies. She is reported to be considering joining Sir James Goldsmith's Referendum Party, which is campaigning heavily against the Tories on Europe. Goldsmith, who is reported to be prepared to spend some millions of pounds of his own (considerable) private fortune on the campaign, has formed the Referendum Party to attempt to force the Tories to a referendum on European Union, which he strongly opposes.

Britain's The Guardian reports that Thatcher's possible abandonment of the Tories for Sir James has thrown panic through the Conservative ranks. It is widely known that Mrs. Thatcher has little confidence in the existing Conservative Party leadership. Although it was Margaret Thatcher as British Prime who herded the original pro-European legislation through the Parliament, she appears now to bitterly regret having done so.

Such can only serve as a warning for Australia, faced with the proposition for an Asia-Pacific regional economic community. Such "economic" communities almost automatically become "political" communities, as the British are discovering.