CENTRALISATION THROUGH REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

by Jeremy Lee
Federation in Australia, whose centenary we are celebrating this year, allowed for a division of powers between Commonwealth and States. Local Government remained within the States' jurisdiction, and had nothing to do with Canberra. Each tier of government was conducted by elected representatives, from the local Councillor to State and Federal Members.

Representative government along these lines has been distorted enormously, with power shifting as is its wont to central government. There are a host of reasons, chief of which are (a) central control of tax revenue and borrowing requirements; and (b) the party system. In 1972 the Whitlam government re-vamped an old fabian policy first outlined at the beginning of the century by the economist G.D.H. Cole, for the replacement of smaller elected governments by "regional governments". It was sold under the inducement that this would decentralise power, but in reality it aimed to replace elected representatives with appointment of 'experts' at regional level, who would simply administrate a centrally-devised policy. The federal idea would disappear.

Earlier members of the Liberal and Country parties opposed and exposed this programme. In more recent times the regional government idea has been fostered whichever major party government has been in power. The idea gained added strength with the development of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) which has now been given a place in the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), even though ALGA has no constitutional validity.

The programme has been graphically exposed by former Mayor of Narrabri, Councillor Bevan O'Regan, in two videos - "Your Council The Target" and "Councils At The Crossroads" (available from Pickford Productions, Box 1234, Toowoomba, 4350, $20 each or $35 the two including postage).

During the Keating era former ACTU Secretary was commissioned to produce a "regional survey" of Australia with a future regional government scenario in mind. The concept has now re-surfaced with what is called the "Hurford Model", the brainchild of former Hawke government minister Chris Hurford. A full page in The Advertiser (Adelaide, 20/1/2001) under the heading ADVANCE AUSTRALIA WHERE? gave details of the proposal:
. State and territory governments to be abolished;
. Regional governments to be established, blurring historic State boundaries;
. Each region to receive basic Federal Government funding for services including health and education, but funding topped up through regions' own taxation powers;
. Regions to elect chief minister to four-year term to represent them in a revamped Federal Senate.
. Other members to represent them in a revamped House of Representatives.

South Australian Attorney-General Trevor Griffin, commenting on the proposal, said there was no hope of such an idea being passed in the constitutional referendum necessary for such a change. Quite true. But, as with so many fabian ideas, by-passing the Constitution is quite acceptable. Once central control of money has been achieved, the States can be starved, and their finance simply passed to the regions, to be spent in carrying out the central government's policy.

There is some highly creative kite-flying to support the idea: " ....eliminating State governments in favour of a series of regional governments under the umbrella of a national government would save about $25 billion annually, while more effectively delivering services. .... Under the Hurford 'Australian Peoples' New Commonwealth' model, States and the NT government would be replaced by a federation of 51 regions, as well as one territory around Canberra. Each region would represent a 'community of interest', in which economic interests would be tied to specific geographical areas ...."

Apart from anything else. If such a proposal succeeded it would place local government firmly under the International Treaty on Local Government, linked to the United Nations, which ALGA and Paul Keating were pushing before Howard's arrival. Since then, the gradual movement towards regional government has not abated.

WHAT SEATTLE ACHIEVED

Whatever else is said, the protests in Seattle and at subsequent international forums has forced a sea-change into current events. At the end of January the World Economic Forum again met at Davos in Switzerland. The usual high-fliers from all over the world attended, from Bill Gates to Oprah Winfrey, from Yasser Arafat to George Soros. From Australia were Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and NSW Premier Bob Carr, and corporate chiefs John Ellice-Flint from SANTOS, Telstra's Ziggy Switkowski, Western Mining Corporation's Hugh Morgan and JB Were's Terry Campbell. Also attending was the ACTU's Sharan Burrow, one of 12 labour leaders from Australia.

Absent, however, were any representatives from President Bush's new administration. As usual, huge security measures had to be taken: " .... WEF organisers have also endeavoured to be seen to be listening to the critics of globalisation at the same time as 300 Swiss Police and up to 600 soldiers have sealed off the ski resort against demonstrators with barbed wire, car searches and machine guns ...." (Australian Financial Review, 29/1/2001)

Among the anxious topics discussed at this year's sombre gathering was the almost complete standstill in the programme of the World Trade Organization. "The backlash against globalism is central to this year's conference theme ...." (AFR, 29/1/2001).

INDEBTED STUDENTS IN NEW ZEALAND

A recent article sent to us by a New Zealand reader pointed out that the total debt incurred by tertiary students to the government for their university courses was now almost $NZ4 billion. That's over $1,000 for every person in the country! The article added: "The loan scheme is forecast to grow to $15.5 billion by the year 2015, and is described in the report as a 'significant government asset' ...."

There's creative accounting for you! The indebtedness of young New Zealanders regarded as a government asset! Unfortunately, many young graduates are heading overseas, leaving their debts behind them. Some asset!

GENETICALLY-MODIFIED FOODS

An alliance of scientists and religious leaders in the United States is now suing the Food and Drug Administration for covering up scientific concern about the safety of genetically modified food. The Australian Financial Review (6/2/2001) reported: "As part of the group's legal case against the FDA, the regulator has handed over 44,000 pages of documents, some of which are available at www.biointegrity.org which reveal serious scientific disquiet about the new technology. 'The documents uncovered by the legal case show some scientists and officials questioning the view that GM foods are essentially the same as conventional foods, an assumption strongly promoted by industry which has underpinned the regulatory response in Australia and the US.

One FDA microbiology expert wrote: 'There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering.' In a 1992 memo, the FDA's Director for Veterinary Medicine said his department 'believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns' and that residues of toxic substances in 'meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems ...."

Sounds like a case of mad foot-in-mouth disease from genetically modified bureaucrats!

AUTOMATION IN TRANSPORT

We have drawn attention more than once to the implications behind Chris Corrigan's move to replace human labour with automated robotics on the wharves. A few operators sitting at home will direct by computer the unloading, sorting and stacking of shipping containers.

Three years ago Chris Corrigan confronted the Maritime Union, resulting in the wharf strikes which hit the news. In 1998 the corporation headed by Corrigan - Lang Corp. - lost $65 million and its shares were worth $1.17. At the end of January Lang's shares touched $13.03 and have settled now at $12.66. A recent share float has been oversubscribed, with interest coming from overseas. Why? Because Lang is now poised to expand its "workerless" handling operations into shipping wharves round Australia - plus its aim to acquire National Rail and Freightcorp.
It also has its sights on the Port of Adelaide and six regional ports being sold by the South Australian government. It looks as though Corrigan's "workeless revolution" is doing better than Howard's promise of "full employment". Of course, we could always build more government departments. How about a "Ministry of Beauty" to Australia's future colour co-ordination? Under 'international guide-lines" - without question.

THE COLD LOGIC OF SHARON from (c) - www.MiddleEast.Org

Many Israelis just stayed home. Others cast a blank vote. But a considerable minority thrust Ariel Sharon into the greatest electoral landslide in that country's history - obviously as well as an overwhelming majority of those who did vote. And the "Israel Arabs" turned their backs on both of the Zionist parties and managed a near complete "boycott" of the election, also for the first time and interestingly the exact opposite of what Arafat and the "Authority" advocated. Now the soothing songs and tailored campaign slogans give way to ideological, political, and military realities.

The major media primarily trumpet the politicians and spin-masters from hither and yon. But behind the scenes preparations for a spasm of intensified low-level conflict and stepped-up repression are in motion; and any spark could now bring about a cataclysmic eruption. From "Tehran to Aswan", as Sharon's own henchmen warned even during the campaign, those in charge of military plans and preparations are indeed sharpening their knives, not their pencils and television persona.- (from Neil Baird's website).

WHERE THE PUSH IS COMING FROM

by Betty Luks
ALP looks at crackdown policy on racists. It was on Wednesday, June 17th, 1998, under the above heading that the Melbourne Age announced that the State ALP Opposition leader John Brumby had "commissioned a report from the Jewish Bn'ai Brith Anti-Defamation Commission on the proposal for "tough anti-discrimination" legislation "that would include criminal sanctions for racial vilification and inciting violence against minority groups." It was intended to bring Victoria's anti-discrimination laws into line with the New South Wales legislation.

At the time, the Anti-Defamation Commission's "executive director, Mr. Danny Ben-Moshe, said the measures were necessary to combat an increase in racist attacks in Victoria..." Of course, he didn't think "the criminal sanction proposal" was a "knee-jerk reaction to the rise of One Nation and denied it would undermine civil liberties".

The Age reported, "The previous Federal Labor Government tried to introduce the Racial Hatred Bill in 1995 but it was opposed by the coalition, which promised an anti-racism campaign if it won office. That campaign has yet to be implemented." The then Premier, Jeff Kennett, "has previously ruled out introducing tougher racial vilification laws but Mr. Ben-Moshe said Mr. Kennett had done much to promote multiculturalism in Victoria..."

MPs MUST BE TARGETED ON RACIAL VILIFICATION LEGISLATION

There are three Independents in the Lower House in Victoria and the Liberals are strong in the Upper House - pressure must be applied to them. All hands are needed to take part in a concerted letter-writing campaign - along with the submissions to 'nip this bill in the bud'.

Write to:Ms. Susan Davies, MP, Independent, 1 Murray Street, Wonthaggi, 3995 (P0 Box 406, Wonthaggi, 3995) Tel: 5672 3799 Fax: 5672 3794 Pager: 016 370 040 E-mail: susan.davies@parliament.vic.gov. au
Craig Ingram, MP, Independent143 Main Street, Bairnsdale, 3875 (P0 Box 443, Bairnsdale, 3875) Tel: 51523491 Fax: 5152 2023 E-mail: craig.ingram@parliament.vic.gov.au
Russell Savage, MP, Independent, 170 Eighth Street, Mildura, 3500 (P0 Box 1385, Mildura, 3502) Tel: 5023 3798 Fax: 5021 2430 E-mail: russell.savage@parliament,vic.gov.au Internet: http://www2.ozland.net.au/savage/

PROPOSED RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL INTOLERANCE LEGISLATION

We urge our supporters to make every effort to put in a submission - even a one-page letter - to the Bracks Government. Submissions and correspondence to be addressed to: Victorian Office of Multicultural Affairs, Department of Premier and Cabinet, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne, Victoria, 3002.

'Thought Control' Bill
Make no mistake, this is a 'thought control' bill. Just as the whole thrust of Keating's 1994 Racial Vilification legislation was to 'outlaw' certain ideas - so it is the purpose of this proposed legislation. And, just as the push for the 1994 legislation did not come from the ethnic communities as such, the main backers were then and are now, the Zionist leaders of the Australian Jewish community.

In a July 2nd, 1994, editorial News Weekly revealed, "...it is not the Arab or Islamic communities which are the strongest proponents of the (then Keating) racial vilification bill...The concept of incitement to racial violence or hatred ...is an extremely difficult one to enshrine in law. Unlike clear-cut anti-social acts like destruction or defacement of property, or creating a public nuisance in the streets (all of which are already illegal, and rightly so), the concept of incitement relies 'as much on intention and attitudes' as on spoken words. In other words, what is to be outlawed under this legislation is certain kinds of ideas. It is a thought control bill..."

At the time (1994), former Labor Cabinet Minister, Peter Walsh, spoke out against the push for such legislation as reported in the News Weekly editorial and his warning is worth repeating: "The bill is aimed at limiting what is permissible to think rather than what is permissible to do." It was not coincidental that when Keating chose to "re-ignite debate on the bill, he did so at a conference of the Zionist Federation of Australia". At the time the "Liberal's Deputy Leader, Peter Costello" was "in attendance at the conference" and "refrained from distancing his party from Keating's bill".

Just as the purpose of the Keating legislation was 'thought control' so is the Bracks' legislation. The methods, although more subtle than those used by the Soviets, have the same objectives - to legislate for what you will think and what you will speak. Other names for what they are about are 'mind conditioning' or 'brainwashing'. The mass propaganda is aimed at the 'internal enemies of the State'; to arouse the fear of being publicly identified as a 're-actionary, red-necked racist' and/or instill a sense of shame when labelled a 'grievous transgressor' against the multicultural, new-world-order State.

Under the proposed legislation you the racist vilifier, in order to publicly renounce, or repent of, your transgressions may be brought before:
. The Equal Opportunity Commission's Chief Conciliator.
. Appear before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

If any of these two bodies think you are beyond 'redemption', that is, "beyond the reach of effective conciliation" then you could be charged with a criminal offence. But, (remember we are dealing with psychopolitical warfare here) the State, most likely, would only proceed along this path if you proved "beyond the reach of effective conciliation".

Just to make sure you have got the picture you are informed in the "Racial and Religious Tolerance Legislation" proposal:
Option Two - Civil and Criminal Proceedings
"If vilification legislation creates criminal offences, the details of any such alleged offence should be referred to Victoria Police who will investigate and lay charges where appropriate."

Under the heading of "Division 2 - Other Prohibited Conduct, No. 14" is the following warning:
Vicarious liability of employers and principals: If a person in the course of employment or while acting as an agent - (a) contravenes a provision of this Part; or (b) engages in any conduct that would, if engaged in by the person's employer or principal, contravene a provision of this Part - a complaint about the contravention may be lodged against both the person and the employer or principal and, for that purpose, the employer or principal must be taken to have contravened the provision. Isn't this just a twist on what happened to the early Christians under Caesar? The Roman Caesar (the State) ordered all citizens to go to the local temple, light a candle (or burn incense), and sign a declaration that Caesar was Lord. The early Christians would not acknowledge Caesar as Lord - Jesus Christ is Lord - and they suffered for their 'sins', their 'transgressions' against the State.

The craft guilds, etc., were situated in the temple precinct and, in effect, their signing of that declaration also opened a way to a job - no declaration, no job! How many employers are going to 'buck the State' to defend the right of an 'unrepentant racist' to his job? The employer's anger and fear has been aroused - he has been conditioned by the mass propaganda - anger at the 'unrepentant racist' and fear for his own well-being. Under this legislation truth is no defence and the accused has to 'prove' his/her 'innocence'.

Last year, that very brave lady Olga Scully of Launceston, Tasmania, was found by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to have "breached the Federal Anti-Discrimination Act" by distributing 'racist' literature, reported The Mercury, January 31st, 2001. She is now expected to be brought before the Federal Court for enforcement of the HREOC's ruling. The Commissioner of the HREOC had ordered Mrs. Scully to stop distributing the literature and to apologise to the Jewish community, but his ruling was not legally binding. In fact, Olga has stepped up her letter-boxing.

I am sure Olga knows just what Christ meant when he said "You will know the truth and the truth shall set you free". This lady has said NO! to the mind controllers, has chosen NOT to be intimidated and chosen to speak out. We encourage our readers to write offering their moral and financial support to Olga - Mrs. Olga Scully, 14 Thelma Street, Launceston, Tas., 7250.

BASIC FUND

POLITICAL PARTY FUNDS

"Total receipts - which include funding other than declared donations - show the Labor Party received $29.5 million last financial year, the Liberals $18.5 million and the National Party $4.9 million....Australia's second wealthiest man long has been known as a patron of the arts. But he is also a major recipient of government funds. His "privately owned paper and cardboard company received a $40 million grant to help him build a state-of-the art pulp and paper mill at Tumut in the Snowy Mountains..." Sydney Morning Herald, February 2nd, 2001.

Now, how many dairy farmers and small businesses have been forced off their properties and out of business because of government policies? And these politicians wonder why they are so detested!

SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB 2001

2001 INVERELL FORUM COMING UP - March 23rd-26th

BOOK