MULTICULTURALISTS DISPLAY THEIR VENOM

by Eric D. Butler
Both during and after the Federal elections, the multicultural zealots have made clear their deep concern about what they correctly perceive are clear signs of a growing revolt against the whole concept of multiculturalism. The multiculturalists fear, with good reason, that numbered amongst the Coalition Members are a number who are extremely critical of all aspects of what Independent M.P. Graeme Campbell describes as the "multicultural industry". The re-election of Campbell, with a sweeping majority, is seen as a major disaster, which could trigger off even greater disasters.

The Financial Review regards developments so seriously that in a major editorial in its issue of March 5th, entitled RACISM THE WORST PART OF ELECTION, called for firm action by the new Prime Minister, John Howard. After referring to the massive electoral support for Pauline Hanson, Bob Katter, Graeme Campbell and others, the Financial Review comments "an even bigger effort needs to be made to overcome the deep-seated racial prejudice which obviously exists in parts of Australia".

A much wiser person than the writer of the Financial Review, the great Edmund Burke, observed that prejudice is often the wisdom of the unlettered man. As C.H. Douglas said, a basically homogeneous society can, given time, solve its problems. The fragmentation of the homogeneous society through multiculturalism makes it increasingly difficult to solve problems and creates the conditions in which subversive activities can flourish.

The Financial Review, one of the bibles of the multiculturalists and economic rationalists, goes on to make the ominous comment that "Mr. Howard should rethink his opposition to the previous Government's Racial Hatred Bill. While there are legitimate reasons for questioning aspects of that legislation, the bill as a whole has the potential to stand as a symbol of this country's official rejection of racism in all its manifestations." John Howard is warned that unless he makes "the task of building social cohesion in a multicultural society a major responsibility, the racist overtones of the next federal election could be even worse than the last".

As Professor Geoffrey Blainey said on the eve of the recent election, the double standards and hypocrisy of prominent "anti-racists" has led to an explosive situation where minority groups feel that they can make the most outrageous charges against representatives of the majority of Australians. Such representatives can be termed "red-necks", "neo-Nazis" or "extremists".

During the election campaign the self-righteous and self-opinionated Gerard Henderson, who has weekly columns in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, was complaining that the statements by Bob Katter and other Nationalists meant the National Party couldn't "shake (the racist) smell". Obviously the electors in the electorates being contested by these "racists" don't read Gerard Henderson's columns and proceed to elect them with big majorities.
This led to another wringing of hands by Henderson, who charged that "intolerance" was making a comeback, stating, "Outside the ranks of the Coalition's leadership, Graeme Campbell, Bob Katter and Pauline Hanson are the star performers of the campaign".

It is perhaps too much to expect the Hendersons and others, including Robert Manne of Australia's leading literary magazine, Quadrant, to display a little humility and attempt to discover why, when given the opportunity, Australians are increasingly rejecting multiculturalism. It would be instructive to hear the explanation by these pseudo-moralists why large numbers of Aborigines in Campbell's electorate vote for him. And why the big Aboriginal vote for Bob Katter. And are the electors, most of them working class, who voted for Pauline Hanson, and suffering from the effects of economic rationalist policies, the right to say that they feel that they are being discriminated against in favour of a minority, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

Australians, still predominantly Anglo-Saxon Celtic, as pointed out by Graeme Campbell, are a basically tolerant generous people. They support the traditional "fair go" for all Australians, irrespective of their backgrounds. As pointed out by genuine Aborigines, men like the Rev. Cedric Jacobs; it is the very welfare system being lavished upon them by white do-gooders, which has done so much damage to the Aboriginal people.

It is the Graeme Campbells who have warned against the basic causes of racial and other frictions throughout Australia. Unless those basic causes are dealt with constructively, any attempt by John Howard to heed the advice of the Financial Review is going to lead to more social friction. It is legitimate to ask are their groups promoting even if only indirectly, such friction in order that further doses of totalitarianism can be administered to the long suffering Australian people.

COURAGE REQUIRED TO REPRESENT UNPOPULAR VIEWS

by David Thompson
The proposal by Queensland Aboriginal groups to attempt to pursue the newly elected Independent Member for Oxley, Pauline Hanson, over her comments concerning Aborigines simply threatens to intensify the backlash against 'political correctness'. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service proposes to have Hanson hauled before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and to investigate the possibility that a formal complaint under the new racial vilification laws might be successful.

It is ironic that it is the very principles upon which the Human Rights Commission was supposedly based, to which Pauline Hanson appeals in her comments concerning Aborigines. She points out that it is a denial of such principles as equality of opportunity that produces special privileges for people on the basis of their racial background; that Aboriginal people could qualify for benefits unavailable to non-Aboriginal people. Hanson places her critics, Aboriginal and others, in difficult position by pointing out that she is not motivated by hatred, but is merely telling the truth.

The legislation, which provided the basis for the Human Rights Commission, is the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act. Some lawyers, politicians and constitutional authorities point out that regulations and Acts of Parliament like the Native Title Act contravene the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act because they legislate to offer privileges to some sections of the community on the basis of race, culture, etc.

CAMPBELL STEPS IN

Upon hearing that Pauline Hanson was being hounded by press and minority lobby groups, and had actually gone into hiding in fear for her security, W.A. Independent M.P. Graeme Campbell took the unusual step of sending a member of his staff to Ipswich to assist her. He defended her comments on Aboriginal privileges, saying that they were not "racist". "Political correctness has gone mad," said Campbell. "She was attacking the Aboriginal industry, which is what I have been doing for years, not the Aborigines." (Sunday Times, 10/3/96)

The possibility that Campbell may form some sort of Parliamentary alliance with Pauline Hanson in Canberra is certain to provide further cause for heartburn for Prime Minister Howard. The fact that the Liberal Party's disendorsement of Pauline Hanson was a massive error of judgment, and that the issues she raises have received massive attention and public support, is a source of considerable embarrassment for the Liberals. If Hanson and Campbell are able to support each other by seconding each other's motions in the Parliament, the Coalition may be forced to take part in some extremely interesting Parliamentary debates.

ABORIGINAL LEADER HOLDS LABOR ACCOUNTABLE

A W.A. Aboriginal leader, Mr. Ken Colbung, claims that the Labor Government was partly to blame for "increasing racism because of a perception that Aborigines occupied a favoured position in Australian society. In his remarks, Colbung perhaps unconsciously supports Pauline Hanson's contentions, for which she has been the target of abuse from Queensland Aborigines.

In a report in The West Australian (5/ 3/96) Colbung is quoted as saying "Mabo has become the crucifixion place for Aboriginal people". "I think the backlash is bigger than I've ever seen it. It's going to stick for a long time because native title has turned the tide against us." Colbung also noted that the Labor Government's failure to keep a tight rein on spending, and Aboriginal people's reluctance to speak out on a lack of financial accountability had allowed abuses in Aboriginal organisations to go unchecked.
He said non-Aboriginal people had been afraid to discuss abuses openly for fear of being labeled a racist.

Pauline Hanson is the victim of the circumstances described by Colbung. As she speaks out about the disparity in benefits available to different racial groups, she is, in effect, representing the views of responsible and moderate Aborigines. Radical groups and the politically correct press are hounding her, not the vast majority of grassroots Aborigines.

W.A. LIBERALS RENT BY DIVISION

THE NEW LIBERAL REPUBLICAN SENATOR

Further signs that the W.A. Liberals are losing their political grip; include the endorsement and then the election of an avowed republican, Dr. Alan Eggleston, on the Liberal Party Senate ticket. Eggleston now intends to lobby other Liberals in the Federal Parliament, in an effort to form a Liberal Party republican group. He intends speaking to Senator Baden Teague, and the Minister for Finance, Mr. Fahey, both of whom are known to have republican views.

It is perhaps significant that supporters of the deposed former Senator Noel Crighton-Brown were attempting to have Dr. Eggleston replaced as the third nomination on the Liberal Senate ticket with Michael Huston, the former Liberal M.L.A., who was defeated by Independent Liz Constable in the State seat of Floreat in 1991. It appears that Dr. Eggleston's nomination was seen as a victory for the 'moderates' of the W.A. Liberal Party.

If the 'moderates' in W.A. reflect the same philosophical position as the Liberal Party 'moderates' in the eastern States, then this is a sure sign that the W.A. Liberals are also in advanced stages of decay.

SUMMARISING THE 1996 ELECTION

Most profound statements are short and to the point. Perhaps the best summary we have yet seen of the reasons for the result of the 1996 Federal Election was encapsulated in a letter to the Editor of The Australian (Tuesday, March 5th)
"Mr. Howard, congratulations. We don't want leadership. Don't lead us, push us or force us; instead, represent us, consult us and listen to us. Please remember the words of your speech about serving the people of Australia. We elected you to implement our will, not yours."
Andrew Calvin, Gladesville, N.S.W.

It should be noted that Gladesville is almost entirely within the electorate of Bennelong, for which Mr. Howard is the elected representative. We hope that John Howard has not only read this letter, but clipped it out of the newspaper, and pinned it on his shaving mirror, as a daily reminder that the downfall of his predecessor was almost certainly an unattractive combination of personal self-importance, delusions of grandeur, and complete indifference to the genuine will of the Australian electorate.

WILL MR. KEATING TAKE THE 'PARIS OPTION'?

Having resigned the leadership of the Labor Party, the humble back-bencher, Mr. P.J. Keating, Member for Blaxland, is not expected to ever grace the portals of his back-bencher's Parliamentary office, dutifully prepared for his resumption of duty in representing the electorate of Blaxland, while in Canberra. If a humble backbencher's office is a little too humble for Mr. Keating, we can expect a fulfillment of the rumours already circulating, that Mr. Keating is about to retire from Parliament.

But just a minute. Did he not only recently re-apply to his constituents for the privilege of representing their interests for a further three years? What became of such a noble ambition to serve his fellows? The prospect of a by-election in Blaxland is both a judgment on the arrogance of the career politician, and a testament to the corruption of the political process, in which the voter himself becomes an (almost optional) accessory to the ambitions of those who lust for power over him.
The fact that some consideration has been given to the possibility that a defeated Kim Beasley, a refugee from his marginal W.A. seat of Brand if he loses it, could be a candidate for Blaxland, simply underscores the entrenched attitudes of contempt for the electorate.

But Blaxland will not be the only electorate to have premature by-elections inflicted upon it. The move from State politics to the Federal arena by the former N.S.W. Premier, Mr. John Fahey, will also require a by-election for his State seat of Southern Highlands. Apparently Mr. Fahey's candidature for Southern Highlands less than 12 months ago was conditional upon him winning the State election - a condition that was never communicated to his unfortunate constituents at the time.

In Western Australia, the State seat of Kalgoorlie will also require a by-election, as a consequence of the Member for Kalgoorlie, Mr. Ian Taylor, suffering a sudden attack of further political ambition by contesting the Federal seat of Kalgoorlie for the A.L.P. against his (former) mate, Mr. Graeme Campbell. The fact that Mr. Taylor himself had previously conceded his unsuitability for pressure politics in leading the A.L.P. in opposition in W.A., and had announced his plans to represent the State seat of Kalgoorlie only until the next WA. general election, now seems almost entirely calculated to confuse his own long-suffering constituents.

And what about Mr. Goss in Queensland? Will he serve his constituents, or follow Mr. Keating, and take the "Paris option"? Perhaps the Victorian voters might consider asking their candidates for election to the State Parliament, following Mr. Kennett's very premature desire for their approval of his style of government, for a guarantee of tenure, should they be kind enough to choose them to serve Victorians?

MR. KEATING'S GOLDEN HANDSHAKE

If Mr. Keating should decide to abruptly depart the political scene, he will not be consigned to penury. Having been in the Parliament for 27 years, Mr. Keating qualifies for an annual pension of around $142,000, unless he opts to take a lump sum of $700,000, and a reduced annual entitlement of $71,000 - for life. Not a bad retirement plan, considering that Mr. Keating enjoyed a Prime Ministerial salary of $198,000 per year, and free rent!

But this is not all. As well as his pension - not means tested at all - the former PM. and his wife Annita are also entitled to free first-class travel in Australia, a staffed office, and a Commonwealth car and driver - for life. And the Australian voters took such determined steps to be rid of P.J.K.! Apparently to no avail.

Contrast the above largesse with the retirement plan of the former Independent Member for North Sydney, Mr. Ted Mack. Mr. Mack resigned from the N.S.W. State Parliament in horror when he learned that if he stayed in office for a day longer, he qualified for nearly $1 million in retirement benefits. Having turned his back on this, Mr. Mack was persuaded to run for the Federal seat of North Sydney, a 'safe' Liberal seat occupied by frontbencher Percy Spender, which Mr. Mack won.
Having served two terms as the representative for North Sydney, refusing invitations to speak outside his electorate in order to better serve his own constituents, Mr. Mack has just retired. He is presently engaged in preparing his family home in North Sydney for sale, the proceeds of which will become Mr. Mack's 'pension' - after buying himself a modest home in the country as he believes befits a humble servant of the public.

LANGER AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

The Australian Electoral Commission has admitted that the electoral laws will need to be "clarified" in view of the strong public support for an "illegal" voting system - the 'Langer vote' where the voter refuses to distribute his preferences to those whom he does not support by voting 1, 2, 3, 3, 3... for the House of Representatives. The full bench of the Federal Court has ordered Albert Langer's immediate release after agreeing that Justice Beach of the Supreme Court was correct to convict him of contempt of court, but disagreeing with the severity of the 10 week sentence.

Langer had refused to cease distributing brochures, which showed how to put the major parties equal last, and effectively boycotting them completely. However, the Electoral Commission has released some extremely interesting figures on the number of those who refused to allocate preferences when casting their vote on March 2nd.

In 1993 7,325 voters refused to distribute preferences, but in this election the figures jumped to 42,363. In our view this is a most significant development. First, this means that nearly six times as many voters deliberately voted against the major party groups, using a system that is not very well known, and in the face of Electoral Commission intimidation.
Second, the number of this type of vote was recorded by the Electoral Commission, after the polling booth staff had correctly ruled such voters valid.

Why does the Electoral Commission want the law changed - to make a 'Langer vote' an entirely valid vote? Probably not. It is much more likely that the Commission wants to stamp out the 'Langer vote' and force Australian voters to distribute preferences, even to those candidates whom they abhor. Bureaucracies always exhibit totalitarian natures, and this is a prime example of it.

THE ALP CHANGES ITS TUNE ON THE ROLE OF THE SENATE

There are signs of an interesting and subtle change in the Labor Party's position on the Senate. Under Mr. Keating, who called Senators "unrepresentative swill", the A.L.P. was committed to the abolition of the Senate. However, now that the Coalition has an unassailable majority in the Lower House, the A.L.P. is perhaps beginning to discover that the Senate may have a legitimate role after all!

The A.L.P. campaigned against the partial sale of Telstra, and were quite scathing about the Coalition proposal. It is not clear why they took this position, since they have flogged every public asset that they dared. Perhaps it is simply that the Liberals thought of it first. Nevertheless, the only hope of preventing a Telstra sell-off is in the Senate. The Labor Party will be happy to campaign vigorously with the Democrats and the Greens to frustrate the will of a "popularly elected government" if it means defeating the Coalition. How the electoral worm has turned!

There is immense public disquiet about the sale of Telstra, and if it were not for the "Keating factor", this was one issue that could have caused the defeat of the Coalition yet again. We predict an intense campaign coming up.