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

11 December 1994. Thought for the Week: "At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is 'not done'…
Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press, or in the high-brow periodicals."
George Orwell


by David Thompson
Mr. Jeremy Jones, of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, accuses One Nation of being responsible for the rise of "anti-Semitism" in Australia. This curious accusation, made early last week, must come as a surprise to Pauline Hanson and others associated with the One Nation Party, since no public position has been taken on Zionism or Judaism, and no debate on such issues has taken place. Mr. Jones offers no evidence for the allegation.

Jeremy Jones has taken it upon himself to make the judgment about who or what is "anti-Semitic"; a potent charge that is sufficiently ill defined so that those accused are incapable of defending themselves from it. How does one prove he is not "anti-Semitic"? It is one of those charges akin to the loaded question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" The accused can only protest that he loves his wife; "some of my best friends are Jews".

Why has the charge of "anti-Semitism" been leveled at One Nation at this particular time? How do we know that there has been a "rise in anti-Semitism" in Australia? Because Jeremy Jones says so. Could this have something to do with the challenge to Senator Heather Hill, who is accused of occupying a Senate seat whilst holding dual citizenship in contravention of Section 44 of the Constitution? The One Nation Senator, of British background, has been challenged by Sydney Chinese businessman, Mr. Hong, and will face a court hearing to determine her fitness to sit in the Senate. Those who read the Jewish press will have noted the strong support from the leadership of the Jewish lobby for Mr. Hong's challenge to Senator Hill.

The Jewish lobby has campaigned against One Nation as soon as it became apparent that Pauline Hanson and One Nation were giving expression to the very substantial (but often unspoken) opposition to the policy of multiculturalism. It was the Jewish lobby, through the Australia/Israel Review, that attempted to intimidate One Nation supporters by publishing a list of some of the One Nation membership. Mr. Jones and his colleagues can only generate what they fear "anti-Semitism", or at last criticism of their tactics - by intemperate attacks on any group that legitimately expresses opposition to government policies, whether multiculturalism, mass immigration, or other policies.

The use of the smear of "anti-Semitism" as a term of political abuse is a cowardly attempt to intimidate. It is a heavy-handed and contemptuous response to those who seek to pursue legitimate political policies with which Mr. Jones disagrees. If Mr. Jones and his colleagues are strong supporters of Australia's immigration policies, and the policy of multiculturalism, then let them debate the merits of such policies. But if he wishes to do so, Mr. Jones should avoid the impression that he represents Australian Jewry. There is no available evidence that indicates that Mr. Jones speaks for all Australian Jews on the matter. In fact, the evidence suggests that Australian Jewry also opposes multiculturalism; marriage outside the Jewish faith is condemned as undermining the future of the Jewish community. Or is there another double standard here - multiculturalism for others, but not for Jewish Australians?


by Jeremy Lee
While it is obvious the Millennium Bug presents a far greater hazard than many imagine, some reactions are over the top. Queensland's Sunday Mail (29/11/98), in a double-page spread headed TROOPS BRACE FOR 2000 BUG, went on:
"Government, Police and Defence chiefs are moving to action stations in a bid to combat the millennium bug. Fears are growing that the year 2000 could herald chaos across the nation..."
There followed a lengthy and sensational report concerning steps being proposed to combat social breakdown in the aftermath of the failure of computer systems in all sectors, including traffic, hospitals, law-and-order, government services and the commercial distribution of essentials like water, power and food.

While up to now there has been a tendency to underplay potential problems, it now looks as though the reverse is the case. The deliberate exploitation of major and minor crises for the purpose of removing individual rights and strengthening central control over people has happened in the past. Nobody can predict the full implications of the millennium bug, or Y2K as it is often called. But the commonsense of Australians to get organised when necessary has been demonstrated time and again. Usually, the best thing government can do is keep out of the way.

And there may yet be solutions, which avert crisis. David McNicoll, writing in The Bulletin (24/11/98), said: "… Bruce Parker and Michael Carr, principles of a Sydney computer firm MFX Research, are on their way to Brussels for a date with the computer bosses of NATO. In front of an audience of 90 they will explain how they believe they can thwart the millennium bug. Already their researches and results have aroused interest in many nations, leading to the approach from NATO. Their development, MFX 2000, is a software programme that identifies short date usage in computer programmes, applications and data. It will change all short date usage by inserting the century component. It is 'language independent', and includes Asian character sets…"


Rupert Murdoch's media empire - far greater than that of Alexander the Great - is still expanding. The Australian (25/11/98) reported:
"The news corporation has unveiled its first significant assault on continental Europe with the creation of a European broadcasting subsidiary and confirmation of a proposed joint venture in the Italian pay TV market. News Corp Europe, which will be based in Milan, Italy, has been established to investigate and manage media investments in continental Europe…"

Commenting on the move The Australian Financial Review (26/11/98) said: "…Announcing his latest media push onto the continent this week, Murdoch said he had always supported the idea of a European Union - which would be news to The Sun which has, along with most of London's conservative press consistently opposed Britain's entry into the single currency. But Murdoch added: 'I believe that a European-wide media can provide a great deal more glue than some enforced single currency.' "In other words, a single European market is fine by him so long as News Corp gets to dominate it. Which is as it ever was.

Political and social concerns such as loss of sovereignty or culture tend to get swept aside when there is money to be made…


The same AFR article went on: "This week, business leaders increased the pressure on the Labour Government to set a more concrete timetable for Britain's entry into the single currency by taking out a full-page ad in the influential Financial Times. Murdoch didn't sign the declaration, but 114 leaders of Britain's leading multinationals did, including the chiefs of Unilever, Glaxo, Shell and ICI: "'The British Government should aim to join the single currency as soon as the conditions for successful entry are in place…"

During the last British election, one of the concessions wrung out of both major parties by the Referendum Party, led by the late Sir James Goldsmith, was that a referendum would be held before Britain committed itself to the Single Currency programme. It will be interesting to see how British PM Tony Blair gets round this one.


Why any nation would want to join the European circus (dubbed by This England as "Eutopia") is beyond comprehension. The Newsweek section of The Bulletin (1/12/98) gave a few examples of the scams going on:
"Talk about flushing money down the toilet. The European Union has funded some pretty wasteful projects, including several high-tech sewage plants that remain closed because no one knows how to operate them. It has also compensated fishermen for scrapping boats that have rested on the ocean floor for years. And given some wheat growers subsidies that were worth more than the value of their crops. So it's no surprise that last week the EU spending watchdog, the European Court of Auditors, refused to give the EU'S books a seal of approval. In their report, the auditors found that last year the EU had wasted or misused $5.9 billion - about 5 percent of its total budget. And it wasn't the first time; it was the fourth year in a row that the Court refused to certify that the cash had been properly spent and accounted for…"

The article continued with a litany of unfortunate rorts and bungles. Perhaps the most innovative was this example: "…In Italy, or instance, farmers are reportedly planting plastic olive trees - which appear real to the satellites that monitor them - to collect extra subsidies…" Australian farmers, apparently, have a lot to learn! They never got as far as "plastic sheep" during the sheep slaughter! But it's only a matter of time. Incidentally, we can only hope that the EU's sewage systems are not governed by computer in the year 2000!


The fact that over 60 percent of the world's economy is now dominated by multinationals - some with economies far bigger than nations - is not enough for the super-controllers. Their ability to dictate the future, to order nations to hand over their money-systems and their sovereignty, and to strip bare the democratic constitutional process, needs a further concentration of power.

The merger of Germany's Deutsche Bank with the American Bankers Trust will produce a giant with assets well in excess of $A1 trillion. This is matched by the merger of Exxon and Mobil, which, if it is finalised, will constitute the biggest industrial merger in history. The Bulletin (8/12/98) carried a feature article by Max Walsh, which said in part:
"The era of megamergers which is transforming the global corporate landscape has moved into a new feverish phase with the resurgence in international stock markets that has followed interest rate cuts. It is an economic revolution that will increasingly impact on Australia…While the global economy is experiencing corporate merger activity on an unprecedented scale, the driving forces involved in this process can vary from sector to sector. There is, however, the defining common denominator that, regardless of the industry involved, the message is that big is better…

Australia is more a concerned bystander in what is happening because it is largely a branch-office economy, with only a handful of locally based companies of any significance in any corner of the international marketplace. We are, in other words, being conscripted into the global merger and rationalisation process but have little or no say in its outcome… At the moment we can do little more than sit on the sidelines as the global corporate landscape is reshaped by merger fever. We can watch but we are certainly not immune from the consequences…"

With respect to Mr. Walsh, whose description of what is happening is graphic and accurate, it is simply not true that Australia is helpless in the face of this insanity. The truth is that our leaders are simply too terrified to take a stand for future Australians. There was never any compulsion on each member of the Gadarene swine to rush into the sea and drown. A novel account of this biblical story concerned one pig - was it Babe? - who pulled out of the suicidal rush. His fellows called him rude names as they rushed past him to self-destruction - "Fascist!"; "Reactionary!"; "Deviationist!"; "Extremist!". But he was the only one to survive.

Whatever else is said about Malaysia's Dr. Mahathir, he has shown that a resolute leader can buck the global system. Australia, with its supremely rich natural resources, has much more going for it than Malaysia. But its leaders are cowed and beaten. Neither John Howard nor Kim Beazley can be expected to opt for Australia's constitutional independence. The name-calling would be too fearful to contemplate. For example, how would Kim Beazley react to the following, which appeared in the ALP Platform and Rules (1982 edition)?

"Labor is greatly concerned at the extent to which our industry is foreign-controlled, and the likelihood that this foreign control of our economy will increase further unless preventative action is taken.
Labor believes that increasing foreign domination of the Australian economy by foreign-based transnational corporations endangers our national sovereignty and places our resources, technology and the leading role in determining the future pattern of development at the control of corporations whose interests are not necessarily in accord with the best interests of our nation. Furthermore, their international scale and enormous economic power…reduce the authority of the elected government over the national economy…

Or how would today's Liberals line up with the sentiments first expressed by their Party when Menzies came to power in 1949, and reprinted time after time because it said the things today's Party hacks have long forgotten. This is what the Liberal Party's "We Believe" included:

"…We believe in Australia, her courage, her capacity, her future and her national sovereignty, exercised through Parliaments deriving their authority from the people by free and open elections . . . We believe that National Financial and Economic power and policy are not to be designed to control mens' lives, but to create a climate in which men may be enabled to work out their own salvation in their own way . . .
We believe that, under the blessing of Divine Providence, and given the goodwill, mutual tolerance and understanding, energy, and an individual sense of purpose, there is no task which Australia cannot perform, and no difficulty which she cannot overcome…

It's a little different now. Globalism, obedience and conformity have replaced national sovereignty and reliance on Divine Providence - more's the pity.


Mr. Howard's compromises on the GST have obscured the basic issue of whether we have the new tax, or whether we reject it outright. Mr. Howard's answer that we are having the tax, whether we want it or not, and that there is room for negotiating on the details is simply a strategy to divide the opponents to the tax. Thus, if the pensioners and lower income brackets can be compensated (i.e. bought off) and perhaps even have food exempt, then they may modify their opposition to the GST.
If health care products and services are exempt, this will blunt the opposition from health funds, the elderly, etc.

The latest proposed exemptions are for services offered by the Churches, in order to blunt the opposition from the powerful "religious" lobby. If the Church decided to take a principled stand against the GST per se, it could be a potent opponent but they appear to be willing to take the "I'm all right, Jack" position if their services are exempt.

Now the civil marriage celebrants are taking strident issue with the Prime Minister, since the exemption of the marriage ceremony for Churches discriminates against celebrants, who make their livings from marrying couples without reference to the Church. They are claiming that Australians wishing to marry will be driven back into the arms of the Churches! (What a pity.)

Instead of being divided into squabbling camps about who and what should be GST-exempt, we should be insisting that everyone is GST-exempt, and that the tax should be dropped completely. We note with interest that there is very little debate about the Prime Minister's silence on the capital gains tax. If all other taxes are to be dropped or reduced, what about dropping the capital gains tax completely?


The loss of the seat of Mulgrave by One Nation last weekend is a serious blow to the fledgling Party that has shaken the professional politicians this year. It also relieves the pressure on Premier Beattie, who appears, as we go to press, to be claiming victory in Mulgrave. But it is a very narrow victory, and hardly a strong vote of confidence in the ALP.

We note the comment by National Party Leader Borbidge that One Nation supporters are "traitors" to the conservative side of politics. This is a bit rich, coming from a National Party leader who has taken part in the greatest erosion of support for rural Australia in the nation's history. Mr. Borbidge should be asked where he was when the centralists in Canberra, in the form of Prime Minister Howard, were usurping State powers, and forcing firearms owners to surrender legally owned weapons.
Was it not Mr. Borbidge who was Premier of Queensland when this betrayal took place? Could it be that regional voters in Queensland remember betrayals like this when they feel the necessity to choose a candidate? Mr. Borbidge would be well advised to tread carefully when allegations of treason are in the air. His own record and that of his Party is hardly pristine.

One of the issues in the Mulgrave by-election, which has escaped general attention, is the fact that the ALP campaigned strongly against the GST. If the ALP does fall over the line, and takes Mulgrave, which has previously been a National Party seat, the anti-GST feeling may be a part of the reason. Mr. Howard and the new NSW Liberal leader might pay some attention to this, since Mr. Howard may be attempting to shove his GST through the Federal Parliament during the NSW election campaign. This may count heavily against the NSW Coalition.

Pauline Hanson angrily rejects the charges of treason, as well she might. She has stood up in the Parliament and challenged the Canberra traitors as few others have. She has shown courage and determination in the face of the most awful abuse. But while she is not guilty of treason, she might be accused of poor judgment in some matters, which have caused serious damage to her cause.

In our view, the Mulgrave result, in which One Nation was rejected, has more to do with the perception that One Nation is becoming just another political party. The way One Nation has been administered has damaged the Party electorally. One Nation's leadership's rejection of demands by grassroots supporters for more accountability and a greater voice in policy matters is taking its toll. The attitudes of Mr. Oldfield and Mr. Ettridge, and of Ms. Hanson herself at times, to those who raise such questions is doing electoral damage.

Whoever was responsible for permitting the press to attend the One Nation conference in Queensland showed poor judgment. The internal wrangling on national television news did nothing for the confidence of those who were being asked to cast their vote for One Nation. In retrospect, there is also the matter of candidate selection for the Federal election on October 3rd. We are not suggesting it is a matter of "treason", but the decision to stand a candidate against Graeme Campbell in the seat of Kalgoorlie was hardly of assistance to the conservative side of politics. How was it in the nation's interests to undermine the electoral chances of one of the few nationalists in the Parliament with Ms. Hanson?

The decision to stand a candidate against Campbell rests with Pauline Hanson. She was made aware of the risks involved. It was pointed out to her that Australia First had deliberately not fielded a candidate against her in Blair. We can only assume that it was a conscious decision to oppose Campbell in Kalgoorlie, and as yet we have heard no credible explanation for this.

One Nation has perhaps one chance left to demonstrate that it is a united and competent political force, which can force alternatives on matters of policy into the political arena. The NSW State election next year will be the test for One Nation.


The threat to Queensland One Nation Senator Heather Hill is clearly motivated by an aversion to One Nation's challenge to institutionalised multiculturalism and mass immigration. The Chinese community in Sydney went so far as to establish a new political party prior to the Federal election, in order to challenge One Nation. At the polling booths, it sank without a trace.
Mrs. Hill is not the only Senator to have occupied the Senate with what are technically dual nationalities.

It was previously taken for granted that Australians were "British" - as a matter of historical fact -and that the British who settled here became Australians by virtue of the fact that Australia was British. The Australia Act changed all this in a technical and legal sense. The Sydney campaigner George Turner attempted to force the authorities to deal with those who occupied the Parliament whilst enjoying dual nationality. But the Hawke and Keating Labor administrations were deaf to such protests.

If Mrs. Hill is disqualified from sitting in the Senate, there is a possibility that Pauline Hanson may fill the Senate vacancy. However, she would first have to convince Mr. Len Harris (Mrs. Hill's Number 2 on the One Nation Senate ticket) to stand aside for her. Initial indications are that Mr. Harris is not keen to do so. Many One Nation supporters had urged Ms. Hanson to stand for the Senate rather than run for Blair, fearing that the task of winning Blair was too difficult. Perhaps their pleas were vindicated.


As we go to press, it appears certain that the Liberal Party in NSW will select Mrs. Kerry Chikarovski to lead the Party into the 1999 election, due to be held in March. This can only be an improvement; Peter Collins is a Liberal "wet" and one of the earliest Liberals, after former Premier Greiner, to declare his support for the republic. Mrs. Chikarovski will considerably improve the Coalition chances of defeating Premier Carr in the lead-up to the Sydney Olympics.

Earlier in the year, the ALP appeared to have little chance of being re-elected, but the poor performance of the Opposition and an improvement in electoral circumstances have bolstered Mr. Carr's polling. But who is Mrs. Chikarovski? We know she is an articulate and competent Minister, who did well with the Law and Order Shadow-Ministry responsibilities. We know she is the daughter of a "prominent Liberal", Mr. Greg Bartels. We know she has a better "image" than Mr. Collins. But will Mrs. Chikarovski pursue any different policies? Or will she simply put a "prettier face" on what the Coalition has presented thus far.

Where does she stand on the republic? This is perhaps the key question. Will she offer real leadership on the question of the Crown, and challenge the "change for the sake of change" brigade? Where does Mrs. Chikarovski stand on the question of privatisation? Will she overturn the Liberals' slavish adherence to the economic rationalist dogma of "user pays" - again and again and again? Where does she stand on the issue of health? Will she restore the rural health services, so that there is a chance of survival for regional hospitals?

There is much about Mrs. Chikarovski we do not yet know. Until there is evidence of a change in policy, we can only assume there is no real change. Just a "re-packaging" of the old policy and an image brush-up for the Liberals. Perhaps this is why Mr. Collins is so bitter about his forced departure from the leadership.


Having received a Federal Government grant to research British migrants to Australia, the United Kingdom Settlers' Association has released the results of their survey. It has caused a minor sensation with the press, although the print media seem reluctant to publish the findings. The UK Settlers' Association press release, headed "Anglophobia Costs $Millions", dated December 1st, is reproduced below:

"The Australian economy is probably losing millions of dollars a year because of perceptions that Australia is Anglophobic, according to a new survey of British migrants. The U.K is the source of over 14% of Australia's migrants. Nearly all of these people come here as 'skilled' and 'independent' migrants. They are chosen because, in the words of the Minister, they 'have skills or outstanding abilities that will contribute to the Australian economy'.
But skilled British migrants are returning to their homeland at a staggering rate. While 11,978 new British migrants arrived in 1996-1997, another 3,737 left Australia in the same period.

British migrants in the City of Melbourne were surveyed this year by the United Kingdom Settlers' Association, in order to establish their settlement needs and experiences. The survey reveals that:
· 35% of respondents believe the Australian media create or reinforce negative stereotypes about British migrants
· 24% believe that there is general discrimination against British migrants
· 39% believe there is discrimination in favour of other people of no-British origin
· 37% believe that complaints by British migrants are not taken as seriously as complaints by other groups in the communit.

The President of the United Kingdom Settlers' Association, Mr. Barrie Hunt, said yesterday 'the positive thing about the survey is that most respondents were pleased that they chose to migrate to Australia. However, the problems that have been exposed need to be addressed urgently, for the sake of both the migrants themselves and the Australian economy'.

In an age when everyone is "an ethnic", as former Governor General Bill Hayden once wryly observed, the UK Settlers are striking back. Surely if there are funds for the ethnic Chinese, Greeks, Italians, Yugoslavs, Turks, etc., etc., then perhaps there are funds for the British? Such a proposition is anathema to the bureaucrats, but they find insistent requests difficult to deny without discriminating against the British, Irish, Welsh, Scots, etc. So the ethnic British used Federal funds to conduct a (quite legitimate) survey about the attitudes and intentions of British migrants.

The results are very revealing, and quite significant; no wonder the press are reluctant to publish the details. The UK Settlers' Association publishes a regular newsletter, "Endeavour", and offers membership to those who are British migrants, or of British descent. Membership for an individual is $16.00 per year, $20.00 per family, $16.00 per pensioner family unit, and an initial $8.00 joining fee. The address: UKSA, P0 Box 707, South Yarra, Victoria, 3141.


Last weekend's edition of the Sunday Herald Sun published a statement by the League's National Director, David Thompson, on the question of the League donating $10,000 to One Nation. The statement, along the same lines as that published in last week's On Target Bulletin raised a number of unanswered questions concerning the alleged donation, which, of course, never took place!
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159