NO-WIN WAR IN EAST TIMOR

by Jeremy Lee
There has now been a welter of media discussion on some of the critical issues surrounding Australia's presence in East Timor, dealt with in recent issues of On Target. All those who have had experience of wartime service know there is no such thing as a "no-win" war. From the first day in uniform the serviceman is taught the basic rule of war - kill or be killed.

The idea of a "no-win" war is born in the minds of politicians who have never, and never will, be in action themselves. There is an ominous similarity between the idea of a "safe-zone" for the militia and possibly Indonesian troops in West Timor, and the "off-limits" North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The Vietcong were provided with almost complete immunity to rest, arm, recruit and deploy in North Vietnam.

In the early part of the Vietnam war the League published a statement by a large number of senior military US experts who stated they could win the war in six months if they were allowed to cut the enemy's supplies from port-of-entry Haiphong right down the Ho Chi Minh trail to the South. This essential provision was never allowed, resulting in a needlessly protracted war with endless casualties eventually lost by the West as public opinion turned against the obviously pointless continuation.

Australian Minister for Defence John Moore - for whom we generally have a low opinion - has, nevertheless been unjustly taken to task by media pundits and internationalists for his statement that Australia would pursue any militia attacks into West Timor. It is the only realistic position to show Australia means business, and won't sacrifice the lives of its young soldiers in a "no-win" situation. If John Howard does not want to squander the current approval for Australia's entry to East Timor, he will take every possible action to ensure we don't end in a protracted stalemate, with a continual harassment from belligerents working out of a safe-haven in West Timor. On this one, John Moore should be encouraged.

WHITHER BENDIGO?

Recent On Targets and Jeremy Lee's latest "How Bright the Vision? have carried material on the successful development of community banks - many in partnership with the Bendigo Bank, which is Australian in sentiment, making provision for the return of some local profits to the community. We are alarmed, therefore, to record what appears to be a raid on Bendigo shares by the international merchant bankers Salomon Smith Barney, which has now become Bendigo's largest single shareholder, with 6.3% of the Bank's stock.

Commenting, The Australian Financial Review (Weekend, 2-3/10/99) said: "... Suggestions that Bendigo is an attractive takeover target for a local or offshore financial institution have been fuelled by the Board's move to alter the company's constitution at the shareholders' meeting at the end of this month. "Directors have included on the notice paper a resolution that aims to reduce the possibility of a predator gaining control through a partial takeover offer…"

It's obvious Bendigo Bank's progress is being scrutinised closely. Community Banks would do well to take any action which helps protect Bendigo from foreign control, safeguarding their own positions at the same time.

A DIVIDED COALITION

by Phillip D. Butler
The rather odd sight of a road-sign pointing across a field of grain where no path or lane seemingly exists would strike anyone travelling through the countryside of the United Kingdom. Obviously, the farmer has encroached on the land and as time went on claimed it as his own. It is only when one learns that there exists a right of the citizens to retain a lane or path by walking along it at least once a year, claiming their right to do so, does the sign make sense. It would seem the citizens have not exercised their rights and have lost that path or lane - all that remains is the sign to show that their rights once existed.

Australians are being led to vote for the future direction of this nation in a referendum on November 6th without knowing about the signposts, let alone why they should retain them by claiming their rights. Those most responsible for this unforgivable neglect in teaching the younger generations about the signposts of our Constitutional Monarchy are the so-called 'conservatives'.

Just as the Fabian Socialists 'identify' with the working class - but are not of them, so do the so-called conservatives 'identify' with the Liberals and Nationals - but they are not of them. Certainly not with those who knew about the importance of the signposts. It is as well that Liberal and National voters know where their Member of Parliament stands.

The following list appeared in the Melbourne Age, 4/9/99:

Yes: Those who want a republic and attended this week's meeting supporting an Australian head of state

Richard Alston, Larry Anthony, Fran Bailey, Bruce Baird, Phil Barresi, Julie Bishop*, Mal Brough, David Brownhill, Bob Charles, Helen Coonan*, Peter Costello, Alan Eggleston, John Fahey, Chris Gallus, Joanna Cash*, Robert Hill, Joe Hockey, Jackie Kelly*, Sue Knowles, Lou Lieberman*, Peter Lindsay, Ian McDonald, Ian McFarlane, Judi Moylan*, Gary Naim*, Peter Nugent, Warwick Parer, Manse Payne*, Geoff Prosser, Christopher Pyne, Andrew Southcott, Sharman Stone, Grant Tambling, Andrew Thomson, John Tiemey, Judith Troeth*, Amanda Vanstone, Mal Washer*, Daryl Williams, Michael Woodridge, Trish Worth.
* Sent apologies

No: Those who signed 'not this republic' petition

Tony Abbott, John Anderson, Kerry Bartlett, Bronwyn Bishop, Alan Cadman, Ross Cameron, Ian Causley, Bill Heffernan, Kay Hull, Tony Lawler, Jim Lloyd, Gary Nehl, Brendan Nelson, Alby Schulz, Stuart St.Clair, Mark Vaile, Danna Vale, Ron Boswell, Warren Entsch, Kay Elson, Teresa Gambaro, Gary Hardgrave, David Jull, Robert Katter, De-Anne Kelly, Brett Mason, Margaret May, Paul Neville, Bruce Scott, Peter Slipper, Alex Somlyay, Cameron Thompson, Warren Truss, Grant Chapman, Alexander Downer, Trish Draper, Alan Ferguson, Jeannie Ferris, Nick Minchin, Patrick Secker, Eric Abets, Paul Calvert, Brian Gibson, Jocelyn Newman, John Watson, Kevin Andrews, Bruce Billson, John Forrest, David Hawker, David Kemp+, Rod Kemp, Stewart McArthur, Julian McGauren, Peter Reith+, Michael Ronaldson, Tsebin Tchen, Ian Campbell, Winston Crane, Barry Haase, Ross Lightfoot, Wilson Tuckey.
+Support a republic but not this version.

The Rest: Includes the undeclared and/or those who chose not to align themselves with either group this week.

John Howard, Neil Andrew, Petro Georgiou, Peter McGauren, Chris Ellison. John Moore, Philip Ruddock, Kathy Sullivan, Barry Wakelin, Tim Fischer.

GST PLUS PAYG

by Q.B.
Many have observed that if Mr. John Howard's GST really upsets the public at its introduction at the July 1st, 2000, his chances of re-election will plummet. A few years ago Canadians reduced their majority government to two lonely remaining members of parliament in one election. The issue was a GST. There is still some way to go in knowing what one will face come 1/7/2000.

One of Australia's foremost accounting firms Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC), observes uncertainties about GST in their August edition of 'Tax Talk", including:
1. "...the requirements to raise tax invoices in certain circumstances...for example, certain leases…charges for hiring..."
2. "The treatment of capital and revenue items under GST."
3. "...guidelines to arbitrarily apposition liability to tax where they (business) sell both taxable and GST-free goods and services..."

PWC are saying: "PWC urges the Federal Government to finalise the regulations as soon as possible." "Without knowing the rules, organisations cannot set up the appropriate systems..."

If you are still hazy about the details, relax! even the top accounting firms don't know yet either - nor does the government apparently. Business largely supports GST because they hoped to pay less net tax under this system. Few yet realise that five separate income tax returns will now have to be lodged, as well as GST returns. We reproduce excerpts from the PWC article below:

Pay As You Go (PAYG) - A plain business person's guide
On 30 June 1999, the Government introduced into Parliament legislation for Pay As You Go (PAYG) arrangements announced in August 1998 as part of tax reform. PAYG is the biggest shake-up in 5O years and for many businesses, the cash-flow impact of PAYG could rival the GST. PAYG replaces 11 withholding and reporting systems and the provisional tax and company instalment tax systems with:
* a PAYG withholding system which requires tax to be withheld from certain payments made on or after 1 July 2000 and
* a PAYG instalment system which applies to instalment taxpayers from the commencement of the 2000-01 income year.

For companies who balance on 31 December the instalment system will apply from 1 January 2000. This will affect every business.

Watch your cash flow, as tax withheld or income tax instalments may have to be remitted earlier. It will also affect the hiring of contractors who may have to rethink their strategies.

PAYG instalments
The PAYG instalment system will collect instalments of income tax from:
* individuals who currently pay provisional tax on income from self-employment or investments and
* companies, superannuation funds and certain trading trusts..."

How PAYG instalments are calculated: instalments of income tax will be payable 21 days after the end of each quarter and calculated on a quarterly basis by applying an "instalment rate" to the amount of an entity's actual "ordinary income" (ignoring deductions) for the quarter. The instalment rate is notified to the taxpayer by the ATO and determined by reference to tax payable for the most recent assessment. During the year, particularly if a new assessment issues, the ATO may notify a new rate - and subsequent instalments will be based on the new rate.

Running Balance Accounts
From 1 July 2000, will be required to notify the ATO in a single approved form (to be known as a Business Activity Statement) for a reporting period (either a month or quarter) of the following business tax liabilities:
* Goods and Services Tax (GST)
* Wine equalisation tax
* Luxury car tax *
PAYG income tax withholding
* PAYG income tax instalments
* Fringe benefits tax (FBT) instalments (there will be four rather than three FBT instalments, which will be aligned with other instalment dates from 1 April 2000) and
* Deferred company instalments

The following example is given to explain an income tax instalment rate:- "Bloggs' Sparkling Wines Pty. Ltd.for its most recent assessment was liable for tax of $600,000 (excluding tax on capital gains) and in that income tax year had gross ordinary income of $10 million. The Australian Tax Office (ATO) notifies an instalment rate of 6%." "McClurk, the CFO for Bloggs, now has to prepare the equivalent of five income tax returns a year - one for each quarter (ignoring deductions), and a final return, which recognises deductions as well as income! McClurk orders himself a case of mineral water for the festive season."

We will all be drinking the health of our Treasurer, Mr. Peter Costello, come Christmas 2000 - and showing our appreciation at the polling booths in 2001?
Election comment authorised by B. Luks, 145 Russell Street, Melbourne, 3000

REMEMBER WHERE SOME OF THE RURAL ROT BEGAN

by Phillip D. Butler
It is fine for ALP leader Steve Bracks to be able to claim he is looking after the Bush - on seat numbers he could claim more support than the Nationals. Nationals only hold seven seats in the Legislative Assembly - down two from the last election. Pretty pathetic for a Party which is supposed to be of the Bush!

However, before Steve Bracks has his feet under the Treasury benches just remember where he comes from, as pointed out by Diana M. Seeley in The Age (Melbourne, 28/9/99): "I do hope that the advice given to John Cain and Joan Kirner by their 'advisers' was not trashed when they left government, but archived... (for) Steve Bracks' potential frontbenchers... Mr. Bracks who was also an 'adviser' to Mr. Cain and Mrs. Kirner which resulted in the loss of the State Bank and decimation of our credit rating... Do our hardworking country Victorians remember under which government the rot set in for country Victoria?"

While saying that, it is quite obvious that the Nationals were not listening at the time and, in fact on reaching government, inflicted even greater damage on rural Victoria. It is time that the Nationals take the gloves off - sit in the cross benches and seriously dictate to both major parties that Rural Victoria - all Victorians - are given some help to survive against the further centralisation of financial and, eventually, political control. At least the Independents are giving some voice with nearly half the seats of the Nationals.

A POLITICAL LESSON

by Alfred King
So, John Howard has sought to reassure our "regional neighbours" that his Government is not seeking to be more aggressive in its foreign policy stance. This must mean, then, that we will continue to be obsequious and subservient to all. Declining to stand up for any moral values, we will be trying to be all things to all men, and in reality nothing to any man. We cannot offer moral leadership internationally because we have lost sight of moral values ourselves.

Contemporary Australia is hopelessly lacking in any kind of moral leadership. We have lost sight of the fact that it is the duty of the nation's rulers to set a moral tone, primarily by personal example. Political leaders today seem frightened of venturing into the realm of individual morality and private behaviour, no doubt because their own lives, in many cases, would not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. The result is complete moral anarchy. This is consistent with our multicultural society. "Multicultural" literally means "the worship of many different beliefs" - we don't know what we believe in any more!

Today's identikit pollie can live in our cities and see moral, spiritual, cultural and human degradation all around him without being the slightest bit affected by it. Of course, other nations recognise this and exploit us for it. I can't blame them for doing it. That is human nature. But I do strongly object to our own so called "leaders" not putting the interests of those they are paid to represent first, and for making Australia the doormat of the world. Where is their national pride?

They have no national pride, they have no traditional values, they focus on only maintaining their diseased grip on power by "whatever it takes".
Speaking of which... recently on Sydney radio station 2GB, Graham Richardson, of whatever it takes fame, told listeners that "John Howard is doing brilliantly at the moment... What he's done by getting the Democrats into the cart, by making them a defacto coalition with him and the Liberal and National Parties, means that government legislation will pass through the Senate by and large every single time".

Once again we are presented with an illustration of the fact that there are no fundamental differences between the three main political parties. The Richardsons of this world dialectally justify this development by claiming that John Howard has won the benefit for all Australia of stable government, that he has overcome the main difficulty of governing in Australia today - passing legislation without a clear majority in the House.

Following this argument through to its logical conclusion, we should remove all such obstacles by not having any elections at all . . . that would leave our leaders totally free to govern. Or we could follow the Soviet system of having "free" elections every so often: the proviso being that there would be only one party to vote for.

Graham Richardson goes on to congratulate John Howard on brokering an agreement with Aboriginal Senator Aden Ridgeway over the expression of regret to indigenous Australians. In doing so, the Coalition have taken the middle ground of Aboriginal politics, sharing it with the Democrats. In the process, Labor has been pushed out further to the left.

There is a very important lesson in political deceit being played out here that has been used successfully by the main so-called conservative parties in every western nation. Let us observe and learn from it. The practice is that of making policies, which are wrong and unacceptable, seem to be the epitome of "reasonableness" and "moderation". This done by changing the location of what is regarded as the centre ground of an issue by moving it, subtly and almost imperceptibly, to a new position to the left of the old one, and then condemning all those who stand a long way from that position as "extreme."
In fact, the whole strategy of reducing political debate to a battle between so-called moderation and extremism conveniently absolves those who contrive this arrangement from having to argue the actual issues. The effect of this on the public should not be underestimated.

Invariably, if one were to ask the critic of extremist policies why they were wrong, he couldn't tell you. He has no basis for describing such policies as extreme other than a vague feeling that they are, and this is induced by those who determine the fashionable attitudes of the moment. The maneuver is variation on the gradualism theme, and goes like this.

A policy of surrender is decided upon, which represents the end of the road. On this issue, a separate Aboriginal homeland is most likely at the end of the road. A point in that direction, but some way short of it, is then arbitrarily selected as representing the middle ground that all rational and respectable people are expected to adhere to.
Those who choose to go the whole way and surrender in one jump are designated as extremists on one side (although in fact they are only favoring the policy that has been decided on anyway), while those who oppose any step at all in the direction of surrender, because they see it for what it is, become the extremists on the other side.

In other words, "moderation" represents the difference between these two poles, which favours surrender by a series of slow, gradual steps, each wrapped in such dressings of cotton wool that it permits official spokesmen to stand up in public and state that it is not surrender at all! So let us look and learn.

On close inspection, the Establishment are not as frightening as they might at first appear. Their tactics at a basic level are clever, it is true, but they have shown little true innovation or variety in the last hundred years. This gives us the opportunity to understand and counter them effectively. For it is our source of inspiration only who offers true regeneration and fulfillment. In Jesus' name we pray to the Father.