Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Home Blog Freedom Potentials The Cross Roads Veritas Books
OnTarget Archives Newtimes Survey Podcast Library Video Library PDF Library
Actionist Corner YouTube Video Channel BitChute Video Channel Brighteon Video Channel Social Credit Library

On Target

7 July 2000. Thought for the Week: "...Taking monopolist capitalism in a country where it is still in the vulgar sense successful, as in the United States, we only see more clearly, and on a more colossal scale, the long and descending perspectives that point down to Byzantium or Pekin.
It is perfectly obvious that the whole business is a machine for manufacturing tenth-rate things, and keeping people ignorant of first-rate things.
Most civilised systems have declined from a height; but this starts on a low level and in a flat place; and what it would be like when it had really crushed all its critics and rivals and made its monopoly watertight for two hundred years, the most morbid imagination will find it hard to imagine...."
"The Outline of Sanity", G.K. Chesterton, 1926


by Ken Grundy
Correspondence with the Governor's staff at Canberra always suggested that the Governor would not act on the petitions to overturn the G.S.T. I contend that what is written in the Constitution, is what is meant. Therefore I proceeded to make the presentation, even though a request for a brief audience with His Excellency had been declined. I expected a secretary, or the like, to receive the petitions. However, a letter was received advising me that the Security Guards at the GATE were authorised to receive petitions and they would be advised of my expected time of arrival. Not only was this ill mannered, but it showed contempt for the Constitution and the 43,000 signatures.

At a media conference held after the 'presentation' I made it clear that I considered the action contemptible. The content of the media release follows and you will see the reason why we need to RECLAIM THE CONSTITUTION.

CANBERRA - 13 JUNE 2000 by KEN GRUNDY, sponsor of a petition to disallow the G.S.T., which attracted over 40,000 signatures.

A document for which we should be very appreciative. The founding fathers demonstrated considerable foresight by including sound protection for the citizens. One clause in particular, provides us with a "cooling off period", where all legislation may be disallowed within one year of it receiving assent. I refer to Section 59. The referendum in November last year demonstrated clearly that the people wished to retain not only Section 59, but also the Constitution in its entirety. It is important to recognise that, unlike other Republican proposals where the word "Queen" would be replaced with the word "President"; the whole of Section 59 was scheduled for deletion. The only interpretation must have been, the desire to deny the people the right to a "cooling off' period.

I have been corresponding with the Governor's staff since August 1999 and on every occasion they have indicated numerous reasons outlining, why nothing would be done by the Governor to disallow the G.S.T. legislation, or for that matter, any other legislation. I will elaborate, in a few minutes, on the detail surrounding this matter in the launching of the campaign to RECLAIM THE CONSTITUTION.

Section 51 [ii] and Section 9 state that the Government may not apply a tax that discriminates in any way between States or parts of States. There must be hundreds of examples where the price of goods varies from the metropolitan area to remote country areas. For the sake of an example, let us take fuel. The price may not be accurate but the point will be obvious if we assume the petrol price in Adelaide is 88c per litre and at Roxby Downs it is 95c per litre. With the application of the 10% G.S.T., the tax component in Adelaide is 8.8c and at Roxby Downs it is 9.5c. There is discrimination in "parts of the State". The same example may be made with fuel prices between States.
I am reliably informed that fuel in Brisbane is priced below that of Melbourne. The application of the 10% G.S.T. would create discrimination "between States".

The next flaw
Section 55 allows taxation to be imposed provided that tax law "..shall deal with ONE subject of taxation only,.." The G.S.T. legislation embodies a tax on both GOODS and SERVICES within the one Act. Although it is easy to claim that this could be corrected by legislation, the point remains that the current laws are wrong according to the Constitution. Why should the community have to challenge the legislation in the Courts when there is an abundance of talent within the Houses of Parliament, which passed the law? Did they read it? Did any Member raise these matters?

Having admired the protection for citizens in the Constitution, it is exceptionally alarming to discover some instances in the G.S.T. laws where it could be impossible for a member of the public or a corporation, to successfully defend themselves against accusations by the Tax Commissioner. The analogy would be: The police claim that your car was speeding yesterday in Sydney. You are able to substantiate that your car was in Canberra all day. . The police state that your car was speeding in Sydney - end of story!
The real piece of diabolical legislation is found in Section 165 -55 of the Goods and Services Act. "For the purpose of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:
[a] treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and
[b] treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:
[i] having happened at a particular time; and
[ii] having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
[c] treat a particular event that actually happened as:
[i] having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or
[ii] having involved particular action by a particular entity [whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity]."

It may be difficult to say or read the legal wording. What is clear, is that, if it suits the Commissioner, black is white and vice versa. The phrase "moving goal posts" does not even apply - there are no goal posts at all!

With other petitions against the G.S.T. destined for the Parliament, the Senate and the Governor General, the signature tally must be approaching two million. To debate whether the Government had a mandate or not is fruitless. If there was a mandate, it has evaporated with the detail of the legislation now before us. Would anyone suggest the G.S.T. would be approved today by referendum! The community feeling is one of frustration, since their representatives in Parliament will not accurately reflect their wishes. Furthermore, upon examination of the Constitution, it is found that our last hope, the Governor, is disinterested.

Possibly the best way to abolish the G.S.T. will be for a group of dedicated voters in each electorate to withhold their vote at the next poll. The group could announce that their vote could only be obtained by a candidate giving a firm undertaking to move for the tax to be abolished. It is estimated that candidates would regard this group of votes [say 6%] as essential to win the seat. They would have to negotiate. Failure to do so would see many voters simply attending polls to have their names crossed off and not voting.

It is usual for local sporting bodies to simply organise sport without too much discontent among the ranks. However, if the main committee begin acting in a way not approved by some members, those members often refer to the club constitution to discover avenues available to seek remedial action. This principle forms a basis for all associations from sport, to corporate and to government.

With the G.S.T. example before us, many have followed the illustration above, of the sporting club members going back to the Rule Book. My discovery of Section 59 gave me considerable inspiration to mobilise the community feeling into a form which would possibly impress the Governor to exercise powers granted to him. Once I sensed the support for the petition, I wrote to His Excellency seeking a brief audience with him when I presented the petitions. My intention at the meeting was simply to draw attention to the points mentioned earlier.

At this stage it is worth quoting Section 59

"The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known."

Men much wiser than I have agreed that reference to the Queen's power in these matters are transferred to the Governor. I quote from Dr. David Mitchell's book 'Republic? More power for politicians'. He writes:
"Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the office of Governor-General as the 'Queen's representative in the Commonwealth' to exercise such powers of the Queen as are assigned to him. In fact, by virtue of Section 61, the whole of the executive power is assigned to the Governor-General and can be exercised only by him. Although it is 'the Queen's power' she has no authority to exercise it even if she is present in Australia."

Correspondence from the Governor's staff is astounding, to say the least. I have been referred to authors who claim "The power of disallowance, while used in relation to Australian Colonial legislation in the nineteenth century is now a dead letter and this section must therefore take its place with other inoperative sections of the Constitution." We have had several referenda over the years; it is a wonder we have not been asked to approve the deletion of some of these "inoperative sections of the Constitution"!!
The adoption of the Constitution was the ending of the Colonial period, so why would the new Constitution retain a Colonial power?

A reply from the Attorney General's office claimed "Section 59 has never been used. It has long been regarded as obsolete." I wonder how these people would react if they were told similar things had occurred in their sporting club? That some rules had never been used so they were obsolete or were from a bygone era and no longer applied.

The Constitution forms the basis of our governmental structure, the relationship between the people and their government. It says the Parliament shall consist of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives. To function properly, the public must have some sort of access to the three aspects in order for them to govern 'justly, mercifully and lawfully", to quote Dr. Mitchell again. It appears that some modem 'convention' has it that the Governor may only act on the advice of his Ministers. This would deny the Governor any discretion which is clearly granted to him in Section 58. His role is not to be a rubber stamp for the Government of the day.

One is able to accept clarification of a clause in the Constitution by way of a cross-reference. For example, where the Queen's powers are transferred to the Governor. However, it is completely unacceptable when interpretation or 'convention' over-rides, denies the existence of, or changes the meaning of the wording of the Constitution. Such changes may only occur when passed by referendum.

It may be a simple view, but I contend that the words of the Constitution explain everything. What it says, is what it means! How could it be different?

In honour of the founders and for the sake of those who will follow, Australians need to - RECLAIM THEIR CONSTITUTION.

My effort today is only the spark. For ignition, I wish to hear from all interested people who share these concerns. With their suggestions we may develop a way to reclaim the Constitution.
Interested people are welcome to contact me by writing to:Ken Grundy, PM Bag 21, Naracoorte SA 5271- or by e-mail to


by Jeremy Lee
A recent demonstration in Sydney got publicity for its call that illegal immigrants be granted immediate citizenship. "Those whom the gods would destroy ...." One of the great problems faced in "humanitarian-brainwashed" nations, where opinions are fashioned by propaganda via the school-room or the media, is the ease with which self-styled 'experts,' with no personal experience of the issues on which they make judgements, condemn their compatriots. The latter are condemned to live with the results.

A letter in The Australian (June 16th) is a case in point. The writer had personal experience in dealing with illegals: " .... I spent 15 years in the Australian Customs Service and was often the first person to deal with so-called boatpeople.
Australia is entitled to secure its borders from ingress by people with no legal right to enter. A large number of undesirables find the excuse of refugee status an easy way of escaping due process in their country of origin, and having rid themselves of any valid travel documentation, it makes it difficult to establish their identity.
Illegal immigrants are well versed in the correct things to say to establish their status, having been coached by the smugglers (or snakeheads, as they are known) ...."

Those who live in a fairy-land which says there are no such things as racial differences or people- smuggling would probably condemn such a view.


Following hard on his "snakes-and-redbacks" video - designed to scare the wits out of potential illegals - Immigration Minister Ruddock has decided to release more than half the 3,100 boatpeople still in detention within the next six weeks: "Each state and territory, excepting N.S.W., will receive a quota of the refugees to avoid 'undue impact' on any one area. Mr. Ruddock told the partyroom that Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia would each take about 425 refugees, Victoria would take about 250 and the rest would be dispersed around Tasmania, the A.C.T. and the Northern Territory ...." (The Australian, 28/6/2000)

Ruddock acknowledged that the boatpeople would not necessarily stay where they were sent: "....While successful applicants were encouraged to go to capital cities or regional areas with smaller populations and enough job opportunities, they ultimately had freedom to settle where they wished ...."

At the 1996 Census, Australia had a total of 427,000 Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. This is now outnumbered by the total of Buddhists, Hindus and Mahomedans. Currently, the great bulk of illegal immigrants come from Islamic countries, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan. With the world's biggest Islamic nation on Australia's door-step - Indonesia - now self-destructing, Australia's indiscriminate and abject policy of accepting all and sundry does not bode well for the future.


The discovery of 58 illegal immigrants at Dover who had suffocated to death in the back of a truck highlighted the dimensions of the $11 billion global smuggling industry. A feature article in The Weekend Australian (24-25/6/2000) pointed out: "..... Some of those who died at the weekend are believed to have travelled overland through Russia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Belgium and on to the Netherlands ..... True, the [British] Government has cracked down on entitlements, replacing welfare payments with food vouchers, but the system is much more generous than those applying in most European countries and other popular destinations such as Australia. At the end of the day, there is a good chance an illegal can argue fear of persecution at home and get the official nod to stay ...."

As we reported recently, Australia is now paying Indonesia to house illegal immigrants. It seems only a matter of time before we make arrangements to pay the 'snakeheads' themselves to keep the boat people from embarking. In the meantime, perhaps we could lend the U.K. our new video?


Huge pressure has been placed on both India and Pakistan over the development of nuclear weapons. But what about Israel? The following appeared in The Australian Financial Review (24/6/2000): "Israel has test-fired cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, fuelling fears of an escalation in the Middle East arms trade, the Sunday Times (London) reported yesterday. The tests took place in May off Sri Lanka and hit targets at sea at a range of about 1,500 km, the report said. Western experts say Israel has used its reactor at Dimona in the southern Negev desert to produce around 200 nuclear warheads. A cruise missile capability would increase the range of targets in the regional theatre that Israel could hit."


The National Tax and Accountants' Association has called on the Federal Government to defer the July 1st introduction of the G.S.T. for six months: "..... Consumers faced overcharging, small businesses faced bankruptcy and the Federal Government faced an electoral backlash because of a lack of preparation for the new tax .... President Mr. Ray Regan said. "Accountants responsible for small business activity statements were still waiting on answers for 30,000 queries from the Australian Tax Office (A.T.O.) he said ......"
It all sounds like a promising start to the new financial year!


The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 25th. Come along to hear guest speaker Mr. John Ambler. A retired architect, Mr. Ambler has for 30 years been a Sydney 'Domain' public orator. He will speak on "The Joy of Relationships". The cost of your attendance is $4.00, which includes an excellent supper provided at 9.30pm. Books and videos will be available for purchase.
The book "Vaccination: The Right Choice" by Maureen Hickman ($28.50 posted) is available from the Heritage Book Service, P.O. Box 6086, Lake Munmorah, N.S.W., 2259.


The Annual General Meeting is to be held on August 29th, 2000 - make every effort to attend! Guest speaker will be Mr. John Stafford and his subject will be "Ireland Today". No meeting in September: Due to the anticipated Sydney Olympics' congestion there will be no meeting in September.


Supporters are asked to mark the dates of Saturday, 19th, and Sunday, August 20th, in their diary


To - Mr. Neil Mitchell, Radio 3AW, Bank Street, South Melbourne
Dear Mr. Mitchell, Heard you reject outright a caller's idea this A.M. that aborigines are really seeking statehood. Nov. 25th, 1999, I attended a Reconciliation meeting here at Brunswick Town Hall - you should have gone to one - and at refreshment's break, I asked one of the part aboriginal persons there whether they were wanting to gain sovereignty over this continent, and without hesitation the answer was 'yes'. But that was not part of the evening's formal mumbo jumbo of, also, incense wafting from a piece of eucalypt bark being waved about by a part aboriginal man walking among the audience, and 'reconciliation' - wait for it - only meaning just being matey with everyone!
So, if the Anglo-Saxons walking across the bridge on Sunday knew that 'reconciliation' and 'regret' and 'sorry' and 'apologise' were nothing more than the velvet gloves on the mailed fists of 'self determination' and 'treaty' and 'statehood' and 'sovereignty', the bridge would have been all but empty.
I also noticed that Asian Australians (numerous in Sydney) who have as much to be guilty about were very much noticed (not by the media) by their absence. Lastly in support of my small but direct experience of what they are on about - and not telling the public - aided and very much abetted by yourself - is a report in the Australian League of Rights publication On Target for 19/5/2000, where the essence of what Father Pat Dobson said at the Federation of Aboriginal Councils meeting held in Alice Springs on 27/11/81 was that the ultimate objective is not just the establishment of an independent black nation in Australia but also the eventual taking of the whole of Australia from the white man. For this, On Target gives its source The Age of 28/11/81.
When next I chance to hear you dismiss a caller with the correct understanding of what aborigines are about I will know by that, that you are lying. - M.M. Brunswick, Vic.

The Editor, On Target
Dear Sir, C.I.R. was covered on A.B.C. Talk-back radio, compered by Ben Knight. I got on air from Bendigo and gave the League a plug for having started the modern popularity of C.I.R. in Australia. The arrogant 'panel of experts' dismissed that (claim) but most of the callers were from rural Australia and used classic League 'jargon' in their points of view. It was good to hear 'left-wing' academics and journalists talking up a League of Rights initiative without them realising where the idea came from, until of course, I told them! - D. Pyke,Bendigo, Vic.

To Rt. Hon. John Howard, MHR. Parliament House Canberra
Dear Sir, You are quite right to confront, indeed defy, the reconciliation demands of the aboriginal industry. I do not believe we owe the aborigines anything, even so much as an apology. The mass media is saying that everyone in Australia agrees that an apology is due. I beg to differ. Should you come to the position that you say 'sorry' please do not do so on my behalf. All eight of my great-grandparents arrived in Victoria in the 1850s. Half of them pioneered fruit growing near Melbourne. Their sacred sites have been swallowed up by the urban sprawl. A quarter of them pioneered the wool industry near Hamilton, while the other quarter pioneered agriculture in the Horsham district. Their descendants are still there producing more from that land than was ever produced before. What would there be in those areas today if my forebears, as a microcosm of settlement, had not pushed the aborigines out? Of course, it would have remained in the hands of a nomadic hunter-gatherer primitive people. That is, unless some other civilisation even less sympathetic to the aborigines had not filled the void.
As for the stolen generation, the 'stolen' ones should say thanks, not demand an apology. The ones that were left were left to continue the cycle of abuse to the extent that an aboriginal child in N.S.W. is eight times more likely to be abused than the rest of the community. Please, don't blame all of that on poverty among the aborigines.
Charles Perkins in particular, should say thanks to Fr. Smith of the Church of England (now Anglican Church) of Alice Springs, not lash out at every white person in reach. Charles' mother, Hetti, among many aboriginal mothers in the area, was anxious to have her son educated by the mission run by the priest, Fr. J. Percy McD. Smith. With the full support of the mothers, Fr. Smith took six of the most promising boys, among them Charlie Perkins, to Adelaide to be educated. They lived at St. Francis House, Semaphore South, a property purchased by the Church for the purpose. It accommodated many other boys as it had 28 rooms and 5.5 acres of grounds. While the discipline might have resembled a police compound, as Charlie has claimed, it was nothing of the sort (based on the biography of Fr. Snuth, The Flower of the Desert).
The advantages of civilisation enjoyed by aborigines today would not have existed had the country been left to its pre-l788 inhabitants. Where would they be without the spectacles we see so many of them wearing? Where would they be without the aeroplanes their activist leaders use to travel overseas to abuse us in front of the world's media? What about the permanent buildings, the roads, the educational system, the universities that their activist leaders availed themselves of in order to gain a springboard from which to assail us.
All of these things had their origins in Europe not in aboriginal Australia.
As well, first class medical facilities are available free to the 'underprivileged' aborigines just as to the rest of us. If they choose not to use them that is their responsibility not mine. The divisiveness of the question of indigenous 'rights' was foretold in the book Red over Black written some years ago by Geoff McDonald a former communist whose duty to the communists was to indoctrinate aborigines to become activists for the comrades. If anyone wants to apologise, please count me out. - Yours truly, Ron Fischer, Talbot, Vic.

Editor's Note
In fairness to Aboriginal folk. Whilst in Queensland I heard many stories of Aboriginal Australians who reject the 'aboriginal industry' and the Marxist agenda. They want to get on with their lives as part of mainstream Australia.

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159