|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
25 September 1998. Thought for the Week: "It is arrant nonsense to suggest that our present status as a Constitutional Monarchy affects our visibility as a nation, but the widening dichotomy between city and country, between the haves and the have nots and the division fostered by the policy of multiculturalism are most certainly all acting to break down national cohesion. This cohesion is vital for our economic future. Increasing foreign debt and foreign ownership, slavish adherence to United Nations Treaties, the adoption by all major parties of what is in reality a cargo cult mentality is that they believe that our salvation will come from somewhere else and that our future lies in becoming Asian, are fundamental threats to achieving real Australian independence."
Graeme Campbell, MHR, in "The Struggle For Free Independence"
WHAT TYPE OF TAX REFORMS?
by Eric D. Butler
John Howard's approach to taxation is revealing, rather resembling that of the traditional Labor politician who prefers to represent poverty rather than support policies, which would abolish it. The present taxation system is the inevitable product of the debt system. John Howard's slavish support of that system is a matter of record. This has led him in the past to support taxation policies, which today he would prefer not to remember. Does be remember trying to impose a tax on books?
Accepting party politics for what they are, John Howard no doubt genuinely believes that it is legitimate and ethical for him to attempt to defeat his Labor opponent Kim Beazley by stressing the fact that Beazley was a senior Minister in the Keating Government, and must therefore accept his share of responsibility for what previous Labor Governments did. But was not John Howard a senior Minister, the Federal Treasurer, for years in a disastrous Malcolm Fraser Government, one which today's Liberals prefer not to remember?
Although most of the seeds of internationalism had been sown in the Whitlam years, they were stimulated by the Fraser Government. The record shows Treasurer John Howard as a dedicated supporter of the first steps towards economic rationalism. He was an early supporter of the de-regulation of the banking system. One of his advisers was John Hewson, the man who eventually became leader of the Liberal Party and led it to a disastrous defeat, primarily on the issue of a Goods and Services Tax.
If veteran pollster Gary Morgan is correct, the GST will also prove fatal for John Howard at the coming Federal elections. But if John Howard loses Government on October 3rd, it will be primarily because of a general perception that the Howard Government's overall policies have been a continuation of the policies of the Hawke and Keating Governments.
The realists among the students of Australian politics, and the impact of the debt system, were not surprised when the Howard Government so enthusiastically embraced "globalism" as the inevitable wave of the future. As the League of Rights has been warning for over half a century, dogged adherence to the debt system makes increasing taxation, creeping inflation and centralisation appear inevitable.
It was a Liberal/National Party Coalition, which pioneered the rural revolution with the slogan of getting bigger or getting out. The present debt system makes it appear inevitable that Australia should attempt to solve its rural problems by tying the economy to the boom conditions, which were allegedly going to continue indefinitely. The programme of globalism had its roots in the policies being promoted by the international debt merchants and spread like a virus throughout the international bureaucracies associated with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
John Howard was an early victim of the
disease of globalism. When the
"world's greatest treasurer" Paul Keating returned from his
first visit to Wall Street, following the election of the
Hawke Government in 1983, and reversed himself on the subject
of allowing foreign banks into Australia, John Howard complained
about Keating taking his policy.
Historian Blainey had warned about the long-term destructive implications of the programme. With the aid of the media and the treacherous academics in the universities, Professor Blainey was viciously attacked and destroyed with him was any possibility of a rational discussion about immigration. Perhaps John Howard sensed that Blainey was not only right, but that there was political mileage in the immigration issue. The vicious campaign launched against Howard resulted in a retreat, conducted in such a way that it left no doubt that John Howard was not going to lead any campaign designed to preserve genuine Australian independence.
He came to office at the last Federal elections virtually crawling to the highly organised ethnic lobby, one that has been increasingly manipulated by the Zionist-Jewish lobby. Howard's well-known almost fanatical support of Zionist Israel will be found in his philosophical roots. Those roots emerged clearly during the national debate on gun controls. The subject of gun controls has received little or no mention during the present election campaign. But it is one of those issues, which have helped to badly erode rural support for the Coalition Government.
Mr. Tim Fischer's support for globalism and its destructive effect on Australia's struggling rural communities has resulted in a bitterness not often seen in rural Australia. It is not surprising that there is a widespread feeling among rural and regional Australia that there has been betrayal by those they felt they could trust.
John Howard and Tim Fischer are belatedly saying that they are now "listening". But the millions now being promised on the eve of the election were merely increasing the widespread cynicism now so obvious. If a Beazley Labor Government is elected primarily as a protest against what is seen as a betrayal by the Howard Government, this of itself will not solve Australia's basic problems. There is no evidence that a Beazley Labor Government would tackle the basic problems rotting away the foundations of traditional Australia.
The writer's view is that the best election result would be the defeat of the Coalition Government by a small majority, this resulting in a coalescing of all genuine nationalists behind a group of politicians determined to start immediately to restore Australia to its traditional roots. Once again the Senate may well prove to be the safeguard for the future.
When John Howard and his fellows criticise the Senate, they insult the Australian people. The Senate is also elected by the Australian people. In the main they are probably the most independently minded. Australia desperately requires such people at this time of great peril. For my own part, I have no faith in the John Howards of the Liberal Party. They have betrayed the trust of many of their fellow Australians and deserve to pay the appropriate political price. Their adequate pensions will ensure that they do not starve to death. Consider the plight of Malcolm Fraser, Keating and Hawke.
WILL THE SENATE HOLD THE LINE?
by David Thompson
Richardson's comment is most significant for several reasons. First, in the light of the threat to the Crown, it should be noted that hindsight is useless. If the republicans are permitted to demolish the Constitution, it is no good in the midst of a crisis in 10 years saying, "If only we still had the Governor General...." Richardson, who once led the pack in undermining the Senate - both by his own actions as a Senator, and his recommendation that it be abolished (after he left, of course) - is in the next breath going to be calling for the abolition of the Australian Crown.
Whether it is 10 years or whether it is a hundred years before the next constitutional deadlock occurs, the role of the Crown could again be crucial, as it was in 1975. All the smarties that claim that they know best and that the Crown is an anachronism could, in time, be forced into Richardson's position on the Senate. The irony of Richardson's comment on the Senate preventing Mr. Howard pushing through a GST is that he is probably wrong. It may be a shaky assumption, but if we assume that the Coalition parties can retain a majority of the House of Representatives, much will depend on the composition of the Senate. How will the numbers line up?
The fact is that Mr. Howard will not control the Senate directly, especially if a number of One Nation or other Independent Senators are elected. He is then faced with a dilemma. How to push through the hated GST? Surely Richardson has not forgotten that the new Senators will not take their seats until July 1st, 1999? This means that the Prime Minister and Treasurer Costello have the option of presenting their GST legislation to the Senate long before the new Senators actually take their seats. There are many, in fact, who privately believe that this was an important motivation for holding an election now, when it could easily have been held next March or April.
Mr. Howard is already making the claim, wherever he can, that he is seeking a "mandate" for his GST. If he has the numbers in the House of Representatives, he will claim the moral authority for pushing the GST through. But what about the Democrats? At present they are sitting on the fence - "two bob each way". Ms. Lees implies that the Democrats would claim a "mandate" too - to tinker with the GST in areas where they believe it is unsatisfactory. For example, they suggest that a GST on foods is immoral, perhaps with the New Zealand experience imprinted on their minds.
The battle for "control" of the Senate, of course, is a party political battle. It is notable that whenever an Independent is placed in the position of holding the "balance of power" in the Senate, he/she is regarded as "controlling" the Senate. But, in reality, this is only a function of Party politics. That Mr. Howard should be deprived of "control' of the Senate is only as it should be. But other Parties should not "control" the Senate either. In recent times, one of the few Senators who has functioned with the original purpose of the Senate in mind is Senator Harradine. He has sought, wherever possible, to place the interests of Tasmania first. If every Senator put the interests of their State first, politics in Australia would be a very different business.
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND POLITICAL POWER
The strident denials of sexual misconduct by President Bill Clinton a few weeks ago have been exposed in the most dramatic way. His situation gives new dimensions to the phenomenon of lies in politics. Since his electoral standing did not seem to be seriously damaged until recently, this seems to imply that the American people - like Australians - perhaps take lies in politics for granted. It is interesting that, for the "most powerful man in the world", Mr. Clinton is in so much hot water for an issue that is relatively pedestrian.
But to whom does "the most powerful man in the world" defer? A number of obscure reports last week gave an indication of where the power really lies. Mr. Clinton gave an address to the Council on Foreign Relations in which he gave his approval for the programme for global power. He observed that a quarter of the world's population lives in countries of declining economic growth. This, he said, justified the leading economic powers in acting together in the best interests of all nations.
With the suggestion of a slight easing
in US interest rates, and the promise of more concentrated
political power, the "markets" responded with enthusiasm.
It is "the Market" that now exercises not only economic but
political sovereignty. What is happening to Bill Clinton?
When President Kennedy was shot, the details gradually emerged
about his women, but it almost appears that Clinton is being
assassinated because of his womanising. Or is there another
agenda below the surface? In any case, the weapon of destruction
seems to be the Internet.
MAKING A RESPONSIBLE VOTE
Contrary to the general view that voting at the Federal elections is compulsory this is not true. Until what is known as the "Langer Option" was quietly removed, it was possible for the responsible elector to cast a valid vote by attending a polling booth and casting a number ONE vote for a candidate of whom they did not approve. The current situation is that, unless the voter can provide a valid reason for not attending a polling booth, the voter is liable to be prosecuted and fined. It can be claimed therefore that it is compulsory for a voter to attend a polling booth. But the voter is not compelled to vote for anyone. He can leave the voting paper blank and thus record an informal vote, or can also cast an informal, but more responsible vote by writing on the ballot paper that 'None of the applicants for the position of being my paid representative are regarded as suitable".
Forced attendance at a polling booth encourages irresponsible voting. In countries like New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the USA, where voting is not compulsory, a President or a Member of Parliament can be elected by a minority. Are such countries less democratic than Australia, one of the few countries with compulsory voting?
The abolition of compulsory attendance at a polling booth, this resulting in a large number of "informal" votes, and the introduction of a Citizens Initiative and Referendum would be a vast improvement on Australia's present political system. However, the system does enable electors to remove from office those politicians who have been judged as unsatisfactory.
Our general recommendation is that elector's
vote on October 3rd against all members of the present major
parties, who have collectively contributed to the present
disastrous state of the nation. The only exception we would
make is the four Northern Queensland National Party members
such as Bob Katter.
Suitable Independents, including those already in Parliament, should be given first preference. Members of Australia First, who are in essence a group of Independents, with one of their "core" policies the introduction of CIR, can also be supported. Unless there are good reasons for supporting them - and we have reservations about a number of them - One Nation candidates can be supported.
The vital importance of the Senate vote should not be overlooked. The major political parties fear the influence of the Senate in the next Parliament. Victorians are fortunate in that they have two outstanding Senate candidates - Denis McCormack of Australia First, headed by West Australian MHR Graeme Campbell, and Mrs. Robyn Spencer of One Nation. We strongly recommend that all South Australian supporters make every effort to have Peter Davis, Australia First, elected.
The most desirable election result would be a new Parliament in which there is a balance of power, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. This is the type of result, which both the Liberal and Labor Parties fear. The disappearance of a National Party, which has played a major role in betraying rural Australia, will not be missed.
SUPPORT FOR GRAEME CAMPBELL
The spirit of co-operation between One Nation and Australia First in Kalgoorlie is good news. Much more could be achieved if this extends across the nation. But both Ms. Hanson and Mr. Campbell face a difficult task in maintaining their seats in the Parliament Those who wish to assist Mr. Campbell could write a note of support for his intelligent nationalist outlook and its value to the nation.
Such a letter could be presented to his electorate via the local press, using the following addresses: "Kalgoorlie Miner", Hannan Street, Kalgoorlie, 6430- Fax: (08) 9021 7764 "Goldfields Magazine", P0 Box 10392, Kalgoorlie, 6430 - Fax: (08) 9021 8031 "Esperance Express ", P0 Box 799 Esperance, 6450 - Fax: (08) 9071 3731 "Northern Guardian", P0 Box 949, Canarvon, 6701 - Fax: (08) 9941 1746 "North- West Telegraph", P0 Box 562, Port Hedland, 6721 - Fax: (08) 9140 1177 "Kimberley Echo", P0 Box 1105, Kununurra, 6743 - Fax: (08) 9168 1674 "Broome Advertiser", P0 Box 303, Broome, 6725 - Fax: (08) 919~ 7340 "Merredin Mercury", Barrack Street, Merredin, 6415 - Fax: (08) 9041 2577 "Midwest Times", P0 Box 2391, Geraldton, 6531 - Fax: (08) 9964 3711 "The Guardian", P0 Box 128, Geraldton, 6531 - Fax: (08) 9921 5953
SUPPORT FOR PAULINE HANSON
Twentieth century Australian politics has seen nothing to equal the political career of Pauline Hanson. In two years she has had an impact on Australians that may well rival that of Sir Robert Menzies over 30 years. If history remembers Mr. John Howard, it may well be in the context of being Prime Minister while Mrs. Hanson was in the Parliament. But can she win the new seat of Blair? We don't know. We don't know anyone who can say for sure.
It would appear that two of the major party groups - the National Party in particular - will double their normal efforts to take the seat, and see her defeated. It would be a huge relief to the Nationals to have some of the One Nation pressure removed, which Pauline Hanson generates personally. We often hear the comment "She may not have all the answers, but I'm voting for Pauline!" This is a very broad generalisation.
Only those who live in Blair can "vote for Pauline". Those who do not live in Blair can either vote for a One Nation candidate, or find another way of supporting Mrs. Hanson. We suggest a letter to one of the newspapers in or near her electorate expressing support from across the nation.
The following are a few of those newspapers: "The Advertiser", P0 Box 600, Ipswich, 4305 - Fax: (07) 3281 9981 "The Queensland Times", P0 Box 260, Ipswich, 4305 - Fax: (07) 3817 1736 "The Star", Star Arcade, Railway Street, Gatton, 4343 - Fax: (07) 5462 2491 "The Brisbane Valley-Kilcoy Sun", P0 Box 8, Boonah, 4310- Fax: (07) 5463 1039 "Kilcoy Sentinel", 30 William Street, Kilcoy, 4515 - Fax: (07) 5497 1952 "South Burnett Times", P0 Box 312, Kingaroy, 4610- Fax: (07) 4162 3016 "The Chronicle ", P0 Box 40, Toowoomba, 4350 - Fax: (07) 4690 9301 "The Courier Mail", GP0 Box 130, Brisbane, 4001 - Fax: (07) 3252 6690
FINANCING ONE NATION
An article in The Herald Sun of September 16th, by writers Clinton Porteous and Helen McCabe, reveals that the One Nation Party of Pauline Hanson could make a profit of up to $3 million from the Federal elections on October 3rd. In order to receive these funds it must obtain 4 percent of the primary vote. It does not matter if One Nation fails to have one member elected.
The Herald Sun article reads: "The money would be delivered to One Nation national director David Ettridge" who under the Commonwealth Electoral Act can spend the money as he pleases. Ettridge is quoted as saying that most of the money would be used to strengthen the organisation, pay debts or his back wages. It is stated that Ettridge hinted that he could draw in excess of $100,000".
We will, at a later date, prepare a full report on a matter, which relatively few people understand. The scheme of using Government funds to help finance minor political parties was originally designed in a number of countries to help ensure that minorities could participate in the nation's political processes. There should be a full examination of how the scheme operates, to ensure that there is no exploitation of the scheme, which, superficially, does appear to have some merit.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|