FREE TRADE? or FAIR TRADE?

by Jeremy Lee
The Hobart conference of the A.L.P. included a much-publicised battle between Kim Beazley and the head of the Australian Metal Workers' Union, Doug Cameron, representing a conflict over Free Trade versus Fair Trade. Cameron pointed, quite rightly, to the loss of big sectors of Australia's manufacturing sector, and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. He pointed to the disabling effect of imports from countries with wages as low as 30 cents an hour, and in some cases child-labour components.

He was answered by Shadow Treasurer Simon Crean with what seemed unanswerable logic: "If Australia protects local industries, our export partners will apply sanctions against Australian exports." As far as Crean and Beazley were concerned, this was the end of the matter. They clearly believed that Labor should continue with the "bi-partisan" policy of Globalism and Free Trade currently adopted by the Coalition.

Implicit in this position is the view, now never questioned, that Australia - and in fact all nations - live or die by exports; to coin an old phrase, "Export or Perish". Once this is accepted, one must turn a blind eye to all else. The domestic economy must be forced and cajoled into export mode at any price, even the destruction of local industries not specifically geared to export.
Neither 'free trade" or "fair trade" can offer a solution to this problem unless the mechanism of debt finance is dealt with, and there is no indication that either Beazley or Cameron understand this (or if they do, they are steering well away from it).

In 1933, a group of experienced businessmen and manufacturers in England produced a report dealing with the basic premises of the Beazley/Cameron argument. The Southampton Chamber of Commerce produced a report which gained wide attention nationally and internationally, despite a complete boycott by the mainstream media. This is how they described the problem:
" .... we are witnessing the bitter economic struggle for markets between nations of varying standards of living. Nations with the higher standards find themselves fighting a losing battle, and they are obliged to counter the effects in the political field. Thus we see countries arming in the face of a world desire for peace, and scheming for securing a balance of power with other nations. So the situation develops towards the culmination of the economic struggle among nations, namely, war...."

Elsewhere, the Report continued: " ....It is being further suggested that national central banks should be made completely independent of control by national governments, so that any such centralised world hierarchy of finance would form a World Government with complete power over communities ...."

The Southampton Chamber of Commerce Report continued by offering some alternative financial policies which would remedy the situation, making possible peace between nations and prosperity in home markets. The Report was subsequently brought before the Annual Meeting of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, where, according to one member Mr. L.D. Byrne, it met "strong opposition from the Association's Executive who brought in prominent bankers and economists to support them ...."
Despite this fact, " .... Requests for copies poured in from every part of Britain and the world - from Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, as well as several European and Asian countries - necessitating reprint after reprint of the report over the years that followed ...."

Apparently, neither Mr. Beazley or Mr. Doug Cameron have come across it! Yet it offers the sane answer to both their difficulties. (The Southampton Chamber of Commerce Report, 1933, available from League bookshops, $4.00 posted.)

TOBIN - THE INTERNATIONAL "DEBIT-TAX"

Australia and New Zealand have failed to stop a United Nations feasibility study of the Tobin Tax, the inspiration of Professor James Tobin, a Nobel Prize Winner for Economics in 1972. The proposal was steered through a special gathering of the General Assembly of the U.N. in Geneva, attended by 7,000 people in early July by former Australian Federal Member John Langmore, now a director of the U.N's. social policy and development commission. While a Federal Member, Langmore was the spokesman for "Parliamentarians Global Action" which started life as "Parliamentarians for World Order".

The Tobin Tax proposes a 0.25% tax on all international financial transactions, to finance U.N. redistribution programmes. The idea was applied on a national scale by Dr. Mahathir of Malaysia a couple of years ago to a chorus of disapproval from many, including John Howard. Howard's complaint was that it should only be applied by consensus among nations - not by individual action. The Tobin Tax is a perversion of the eminently sensible Debit Tax proposals, where a national tax of about the same percentage, applied each 24 hours at the central clearing house of financial institutions in Australia, could replace all other direct and indirect taxes at State and Federal level (including, obviously, the G.S.T.). The Tobin Tax would, on the other hand, be the first international global tax, weakening national parliaments and the democratic process.

WORLD BANK AND WORLD HUNGER

On August 15th another global crisis conference will be held in Canberra - scientists, policy-makers and academics gathering under the auspices of the Crawford Fund, a non-governmental organization with World Bank affiliations. The reason for the meeting is to consider growing food and water shortages round the world. The Australian (1/8/2000) reported:
" ....Already, 500 million Asians do not have enough to eat and the U.N. estimates that by 2015 about 680 million people worldwide will be without sufficient food to meet their basic nutritional needs ...."

It is somehow difficult to reconcile these pictures with the fact there is a current glut of grain in the world, as there is of sugar. Australian dairy farmers are leaving the land in thousands, and we have recently seen - once again - apple trees being bulldozed out of the ground. The problem is not a production one, it is a distributive problem, whose answers lie in the area of money.

WHO REMEMBERS JON CORZENE?

It was former head of Goldman Sachs, Jon Corzene, who was selected by the gathering of international bankers in Sydney in early June 1996 to specify to newly-elected Prime Minister John Howard the conditions the bankers required to continue bankrolling Australia. It wasn't long after that Corzene was head-hunted out of Goldman Sachs - perhaps by someone a tad more ruthless? But not before Corzene picked up a neat 4.4 million Goldman Sachs shares, valued at a modest $US400 million. (Another beneficiary was Goldman Sachs Australian rep. Malcolm Turnbull).

John Corzene recently won the Democratic nomination to run for the U.S. Senate for New Jersey. He spent $35 million of his own money - which worked out to $142 for every vote he gained. Such is the democratic process in the U.S.

MUGABE AND THE 'RED CARD' TREATMENT

We really like the novel method developed in Zimbabwe to show opposition to Mugabe's brutal dictatorship - a simple plastic red card. A regular feature in the game of soccer - fanatically followed by Africans in many countries - the 'red card' is shown to erring players by referees as a sign they must leave the field.

The Australian (1/8/2000) gave this picture: " .... When Mugabe stepped out of the ceremonial 1936 Bentley 10 days ago to open parliament, he was greeted by thousands of little red cards flashed at him by M.D.C. supporters. " When the anthem was played three weeks ago before the start of the ill-fated football match between Zimbabwe and South Africa, the packed terraces of the 65,000-capacity National Sports Stadium twinkled with red cards. " The first million cards, the same dimensions as the original wielded by football referees, are in such demand that the M.D.C. is having three million more produced. ...."

We can think of a few Australian politicians who deserve the red-card treatment; and it would look so colourful on television!

GAS-EMISSIONS

There's a lot of rhetoric and social-manipulation round the issues of gas-emissions and global warming. But for some strange reason the government turns a blind eye when a solution appears. In the February edition of The New Times Survey we reported on an air-powered vehicle being developed in Mexico, where 40,000 Zero Pollution taxis and urban delivery vehicle are being produced. Here in Australia a hybrid Holden EC Commodore has been developed which relies on an electric, fuel-efficient motor to drive the generator that charges the battery. It has the capacity to commercially develop cars that will reduce gas-emissions by 70 percent. Within cities, the reduction will be about 92 percent. We understand one will be running in Sydney, on duty during the Olympics. Current estimated price will be about $40,000 above comparable petrol vehicles.

I was recently one of a group that visited a pollution-free motor developed in Brisbane. The incredibly simple motor had only one moving part, designed to be wear-free. The linear engine drives a single shaft back and forth, shifting a magnet through coils, capable of producing almost costless electricity with a lifetime of use. Ideal for small communities or single households, the concept has the potential to make the "grid" obsolete. But lack of venture capital raises a question-mark over its future. An Environment Minister would be seeking means of subsidising the production of such innovations into commercial reality, instead of issuing the never-ending stream of controls which hog-tie those with initiative.

NOT MUCH TO CELEBRATE SAYS RICHARD COURT

by Betty Luks
In a recent ABC radio interview, West Australian Premier Richard Court drew attention to the many problems between the States and Federal Government, in particular the centralisation of powers to Canberra. He observed federation was 'far from well' and suggested a new deal between Canberra and the States would be a far better way of marking Australia's birth as a nation.

In reference to the recent high-powered 'jaunt' of John Howard, former prime ministers, and others, to the U.K. for official Centenary of Federation ceremonies, he commented: "I don't have a difficulty if people want to go and bask in the glory of what happened 100 years ago. That's fine, we should never forget history. But all I'm saying is - don't think that our federation is in good shape. We need to assess where we're going to go for the next 100 years and from the West Australian perspective we're not going to sit back and take this continuing trend to centralise more powers in Canberra."

He was not opposed to the trip but questioned why no Premiers' Conference had been scheduled this year to discuss Federal-State relations. "I would have thought in this day and age we would have really been having a look at how we strengthen our system so we can move away from this trend towards more and more centralised power in Canberra. Western Australia had been a reluctant starter in the federation because of the valid concerns that it would lose financial autonomy," he said. How right they were to have such concerns!

In 1933 West Australians voted to secede from the federation but were prevented from doing so by the refusal of Britain's parliament to accept the petition. Will the West Australians try again?

DOCTOR NORMAN FINKELSTEIN - A MAN OF INTEGRITY?

by Betty Luks
There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Holocaust Industry camp when Dr. Norman Finkelstein launched his book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering in the U.K. last week. Norman Finkelstein says 'The Holocaust' has been hijacked by special interest groups, the memory of those who died is being exploited for questionable ends.

The son of a survivor, Finkelstein repeatedly cites his mother as sanction for his own opinions. "In this book," he writes, "I attempt to represent my parents' legacy." His rhetorical stance is that of the Jewish prophet condemning the shortcomings of his own people. Not only does the author attack the role of many within the 'holocaust industry' but targets such people as Dr. Deborah Lipstadt who, he claims, has created the self-serving bogey of Holocaust denial'.
He took to task the self-appointed guardians and members of "The Holocaust" industry, which has become, he alleges, an outright extortion racket.

To Finkelstein, "The Holocaust Industry" is a grubby story of moral bankruptcy, commercial exploitation and the shoring up of power bases by the American Jewish 'elites'. Their support for Israel and their amoral use of Holocaust imagery in order to reinforce a Zionist ideology, that has itself led to the abuse of the human rights of the Palestinian people, has he says, little to do with ideological conviction. Dr. Finkelstein said the Six-Day War turning point (when 'The Holocaust' gained prominence) was not because the State of Israel was weak, defenceless and powerless, but because it was a powerful means of garnering support for Israel.

He poured scorn on the dogmas of orthodox 'Holocaust' scholarship, including the claim that Jewish suffering during W.W.II was unique. He rightly said this claim trivialises the suffering of other peoples. And then there is the push to blackmail German and Swiss institutions into paying compensation to a largely fictitious body of 'survivors'. The billions paid in 'compensation' he claims, have not gone to genuine survivors but to greedy Jewish 'holocaust industry' bureaucrats who squander the money. They get rich at the expense of gullible, vulnerable Gentiles who fear bad publicity and are intimidated by accusations of anti-Semitism.

For over thirty years westerners have had the dogmas of "The Holocaust" thrust upon them - many who accepted it 'holus bolus', will find it difficult to believe they may have been 'conditioned' by the proliferation of books, films, school educational material, and museum exhibitions. Dr. Finkelstein's claims will be hard for them to accept.

Further reading: An American Jew in Racist, Marxist Israel; The Zionist Connection; The Controversy of Zion; Censored History.
Send for a book list from the League Book Service in your State.

ARE YOU DISSATISFIED WITH OUR DECISION?

asks the Tax Office
If you have an Australian Business Number (A.B.N.) and decide to relinquish the number, you are required to apply to the Taxation Office to do so. But! If you disagree with the Tax Office's decision, you then have to take the matter to an Administrative Appeals Tribunal, set up for just that possibility. Several Sydney contractors have discovered that this is so. They have had no work since the implementation of the G.S.T., and were forced to look for employment or go on the dole - in which case they wanted to relinquish their A.B.N. But, it is not simply a matter of them informing the Tax Office that they want to relinquish their ABNs. There are procedures - of course. And what if the Tax Office doesn't agree with their giving up their A.B.N's.? Then they can request that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal 'review the decision'.

A taxpayer's Review Rights are listed on an official form sent out by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The form tells them the review rights can be found in Section 21 of the "A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999". They are informed that should they decide to seek review, "... your request for review has to be lodged directly with the Tribunal. Your request for review should not be forwarded to the Australian Taxation Office."

But there is a 'sting in the tail' for the taxpayers: Under Review by The Tribunal: There is a list of those who are exempt from paying the fee and it includes pensioners, prisoners, etc. But, not only will we pay more taxes by way of the G.S.T., and administer the system for the government, we will pay extra should we give the bureaucrats any hassles! We are fast becoming the servants of the Government.

GIPPSLAND ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED

DIARY DATE FOR SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S STATE WEEKEND

Saturday, 19th, and Sunday, 20th August Venue - Seminar & Dinner - Seminar commences 1.35 p.m. Parish Centre, Christ Church, 1708 Main South Road, O'Halloran Hill
"Are We Choosing the Paths to Quality of Life?" Dr. Ziema McDonell, Ph.D., will speak to the following: "G.M.O. Foods; Effects on Our Cells and Health; Latest Research; What We Can Do About It". Dr. McDonell has degrees in Medicine, Forensic Science, Biochemistry and Nutrition as well as practicing Natural Therapies. Dr. Kate Clinch-Jones
Dr. Clinch-Jones has a general practice at McLaren Vale. She will speak to the following: "Mechanics of HOW the crops are modified and WHY they do so...Danger of G.M.O's. to effect and modify weeds"
Geoff Kurtin Agr. Sc.: After graduating from Massey University in Agriculture he went on to further studies on bovine nutrition in the U.S.A. He is an Accredited Agricultural Consultant, Australasian Institute Agricultural Science & Technology. "Genetic Modification: from the Agriculturalist's Point of View: Is It All Bad?"

Saturday seminar: $10.00 admission. "Frank Bawden Memorial Dinner" will be held on Saturday, August 19th. $22.00 per person - 3 course meal; B.Y.O. drinks. Sunday Action Conference: August 20th...10.00 a.m.. $10.00 admission. Venue to be announced. A short Divine Service to open the Sunday Action Conference. Then the meeting will be opened up for Dr. McDonell who has agreed to stay on for the Sunday morning. She will speak on the following: "Looking at Cancer; Probable Causes; Treatments; Hormones & Menopause Problems; Men's Prostate and Cancer - How to Treat It; What To Do To Avoid It". Action reports will follow.

Bookings: R.S.V.P. - August 11th. Heritage Bookmailing, Box 208, Ingle Farm, S.A., 5098.

Please note: The next Adelaide Conservative Speakers' Club will be held in November.

BOOK
Genetic Engineering: Food & Our Environment (A Brief Guide) by Luke Anderson: A reading must for everyone! Author Luke Anderson has presented a clear picture of all aspects of the debate concerning genetically engineered foods. The question is answered as to who is making the crucial decisions about the future of our food supply. Why are living organisms being patented? What are the implications to our health, the impact upon farming and the environment? Unsustainable chemical/industrial farming practices have already turned much arable land into desert, yet the Federal Government is pouring approximately $80 million this year into gene technology! Order from: Australian Heritage Society, P.O. Box 163, Chidlow, W.A., 6556, or any of the League Book Services. Soft cover - $22.00 posted.

NATIONAL WEEKEND