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

28 November 2003. Thought for the Week: "In the last analysis there are but two possible forms of social order - there are these two opposite and contradictory conceptions of the sanction of social law. The sanction, the force of law, is either outside of mankind or it is within… The idea that the will of the people could be the source of social law was born into the world with great travail. It was for ages difficult, even impossible, to conceive such an idea… But Christianity is the discovery of the infinite depth of the human will… The Church of the Middle Ages stood as a provisional plan of such a social system. In the midst of a world-order based upon an opposite principle - the principle of the external law - the Church wrought into concrete forms and the solid structure of institutions the democratic ideal… The Church had poured out its vital store into the lap of the nations. It had breathed out its very soul of liberty in the breath of the modern spirit."
Charles Ferguson in "The Affirmative Intellect, " 1901

JUSTICE FOR ALL, BUT AT A PRICE

The controversy over the jailing of Pauline Hanson continues. There is now an inquiry into the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland. The politicians are pointing fingers ate the judges, as can be expected. But it is the law itself, for which the politicians are responsible, that deserves scrutiny.

We made the point in a recent New Times Survey that political parties have ganged up on the basic principles of elections, to safeguard their own positions, and make life difficult for minor parties and independents. The Electoral Commission and the judiciary have to make sense of the convoluted mess made by the politicians. The following article by John Carter in the New South Wales rural paper The Land (13/11/03) deserves thought and attention:
"Most people will be relieved that Pauline Hanson and One Nation co-founder David Ettridge are out of jail in Queensland. Most felt uncomfortable as they saw them as political prisoners. The contrary judicial pronouncements associated with this case should shake any thinking person. Increasingly, justice is seen to be bought. When the independence and credibility of the judiciary is seen to be suspect, we are on the road to anarchy.

Ms Hanson was hounded by Terry Sharple's challenges (reportedly made with promises of funding from some politicians) before five different magistrates. All dismissed the charges but a sixth took it up. How could a vendetta like this be allowed to continue in a civilized society? She was then pursued under criminal law with claims that she and Mr Ettridge (David Oldfield, the third One Nation Director was not charged) had defrauded the Queensland Electoral Commission. After District Court Judge, Justice Patsy Wolf, handed down her sentence, an official from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was overheard saying, "We should never have pursued this".

Justice Wolf's sentencing makes extraordinary reading. She spoke of sympathy for Pauline Hanson working hard to return the money (she put her little farm up as security). The judge acknowledged that neither had received personal gain from "the offence" and that the taxpayer lost nothing. She then sentenced both to three years jail without parole. Queensland's Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey, ruled that One Nation was eligible yet the Queensland Electoral Commission is now saying that it won't pay the $500,000 back to One Nation!

There is inconsistency between electoral commissions. The Australian Electoral Commission paid One Nation more than $3 million of the $33 million "payout" to all parties but is still to announce the results of its inquiry into federal Coalition heavyweight, Tony Abbott, and his $100,000 Honesty in Politics Fund. Justice de Jersey and Justice Margaret McNurdo, president of the Queensland Court of appeal, were critical of the QDPP and the caliber of defence that the pair could afford. The Law Council president is quoted as saying that an outcome should be a commitment by governments to reach better legal and funding agreements. Justice McMurdo launched a strong attack on political pressure on the judiciary, attacking everybody from the Prime Minister down. She was correct but omitted the chief culprit (Queensland Premier Peter Beattie).

There are calls for a Royal Commission and for compensation but what Government will move to help its enemy? The late Bob Santamaria predicted that Pauline Hanson would change Australian politics for better or worse. Her 1996 maiden speech woke up Australia. The Government has implemented much of its content. A Bill was sneaked through Federal Parliament in June, 1998, changing our electoral procedure to one of compulsory preferential voting, making it almost impossible for a party to win a seat if the Libs and ALP combined against it. Destiny may yet ensure that Pauline Hanson changes our judicial as well as our political procedure."


THE WORLD OF UPSIDE-DOWN ECONOMICS

The Weekend Australian (15-16/11/03) said all. First there was news of the latest push by the ACTU for a national wage incease of $26.6 per week. It was aimed a lifting the position of 1.6 million award workers. If it was granted, this would increase pay packets by $42.5 million a week, or $2.3 billion for the year. There is little doubt that lower paid workers in Australia could do with a wage increase. But Greg Combet made a startling claim which, in the current financial context is sheer nonsense. "Increasing the minimum weekly wage by $26.60 would not cost new jobs, fan inflation or fuel interest rate rises, the ACTU claimed as it staked out its industrial course for 2004 …."

Of course, employers disagreed
"… employer groups attacked the pay claim, arguing that the ACTU was helping middle-income earners rather than the low paid, and claiming that any wage rise on the back of interest rate increases would reduce new job opportunities. But Mr Combet said the wage rise was necessary to prevent further increases in inequality, debt and poverty among the growing number of low-paid and part-time workers in insecure jobs ….."

It's becoming a very tired and stereotyped play. One wonders whether the case presented before the Commission will simply repeat the lines that have been argued at every case for the last eighty years. Of course workers need an increase in purchasing power. So do farmers, manufacturers and businesses. But Greg Combet, while defining the problem accurately, will if anything make things worse.

Consider the sequence
Where are employers to get the means to pay any wage increases? They can only take short-term loans from the banks and repay them as soon as they can. The wage increases are, by law, paid to workers. Employers can only recoup the added burden by increasing the prices of goods and services by a similar amount - plus the interest the banks charge for their short term loans. Momentarily, the worker feels better with his wage rise. He hardly notices that he is lifted to a higher tax-bracket. By the time he goes shopping, price rises take care of the rest. He is slightly worse off than he was before.

The key is that Australia's money supply increased by $2.3 billion, as the banks created fresh credit to loan to employers in order to finance the wage increases! It's a never-ending, vicious cycle that has been played long enough. The solution is for the Reserve Bank to create the precise amount - $2.3 billion - and credit it into the economy in the form of tax cuts or work bonuses, that do not have to be paid back in price rises. If a money-creation of $2.3 billion can be costed into the economy which must raise prices, why cannot it be created as a cost-reduction? The short answer is that it COULD be done; but the banks wouldn't like it. They don't want to relinquish their monopoly on debt and money-creation.

Almost in competition with Greg Combet, Shadow Treasurer Mark Latham is advocating tax cuts as part of the ALP's election policy. At least that would be a better way of helping the worker than granting a wage increase that is simply snatched back in higher taxation and prices. But how does government fund the requirements of a welfare state if it reduces taxes? It cannot fund the many demands now.

Until Mark Latham and Greg Combet direct their attention to the money supply - which increased in the last financial year by $50 billion - they have no real answers. And employers? They are almost forced to reduce their workforce wherever possible. Where a machine or a computer can do the job, a worker is down-sized. Finally, they are forced to 'out-source' to low-paid overseas work forces, or move offshore themselves.


LONGER TERM EFFECTS

One woman has emerged as a strong, vibrant, clear-headed spokesperson for the enormous danger to Australia's future. Professor Fiona Stanley, Australian of the Year, has spoken fearlessly of the enormous damage being done to young Australians without a traditional, loving family upbringing, and deprived of opportunities in the Australia of tomorrow. Quoted in the same edition of The Weekend Australian, she pointed out that a huge surge in welfare-dependent young people was threatening any future budget stability. The number of young people on the dole had doubled in the last three decades. The result of a dearth of opportunities for young people was producing a blowout in attitudinal, behavioural and learning problems.

Professor Fiona Stanley is right. This week we have "schoolies' week" on the Gold Coast, where thousands of young school leavers gather to celebrate the end of their school careers. Underneath the joie de vivre, there is a hint of desperation. How many will get employment and a secure long-term future? The implicit message they are receiving from the politicians and trade unionists of this world is that most cannot expect anything more than "work-for-the-dole". No robust young person would accept such a proposal - as a life choice.

Refusal to tackle the debt system will carry us into an even bigger crisis that the present one. This is an abundant world. It doesn't need so many human producers. The technological world is replacing work forces. Instead of welcoming what is really a major achievement, we are morally, intellectually and physically starving those who can't get a job; even though there is enough for everyone, whether they are employed or not.


A FAMILY'S WORST NIGHTMARE

The League first heard of the plight of 'Lisa' and her parents at the national weekend in Albury NSW. Brilliant health researcher and writer, Eve Hillary, presented the facts of this Australian family's on-going battle to regain their rights after being caught up in a bureaucratic-court nightmare. Eve spoke of the part played by the Department of Community Services (DoCS) and its drastic action in forcing an 11-year-old girl, "Lisa", to undergo chemotherapy against her will and against the wishes of her loving parents.
Having been a victim of "The Toxic Harvest" (title of book exposing her own nightmare journey) Eve Hillary feels passionately about this issue.

 

Eve Hillary
PO Box 745
St. Ives, NSW 2075
evehillary@smartchat.net.au

to:- Crown Solicitor’s Office
GPO Box 25
Sydney, NSW 2001
crownsol@agd.nsw.gov.au
November 18th, 2003

Attention: Miss Gretchen Shirm: Solicitor for the Department of Community Services-DoCS
RE: Giving Notice regarding Your Demand to Suppress my Article entitled DoCS - Stealing Our Children for Medicine?

Dear Miss Shirm,
On 14th November 2003, I received a faxed copy of your letter to Ms. Elizabeth Stevens, Editor of Living Now magazine referring to my article, “DoCS - Stealing Our Children for Medicine?” Ms. Stevens published part one in her recent November issue with part two set to run in the December issue which is now I understand being typeset. I am the author of that article. In accordance with court orders I have deidentified personal and family names and other details and used the pseudonym “Lisa” for the child.
(DoCS have used another pseudonym “Heather” for the child.) I understand you are acting for the interests of the Department of Community Services.

In your letter you allege my article reveals the child’s identity and you claim it contains “various inaccuracies”. Pursuant to these allegations you threaten the editor with court action if she does not give you a written assurance to suppress part two of this story in print and remove it from the magazine’s website. I understand this would incur considerable cost to the magazine.

My article is an exposé of the Department of community services (DoCS) which took drastic action to force an 11-year-old girl, “Lisa”, to undergo chemotherapy against her will and against the wishes of her parents. This was carried out on the medical advice of Doctor Alvaro who based his prognosis and chemotherapy treatment on a UK study he insisted supported his claims. The doctor told the parents and later told the Supreme Court of NSW that the child had an 85% probability of a “cure” with his recommended chemotherapy when the study he based this on showed this figure to represent only a five year survival rate. The doctor claimed the child had no chance of survival without his chemotherapy, but according to other expert opinions, the UK study had no control group to support this claim. The family asked doctor Alvaro to supply them with supporting medical evidence, which he refused.

Your client, DoCS continued to pursue the parents through the Court until their daughter was made a ward of the Court and the chemo was forcibly administered. The family continued to request proof of the medical evidence to support this forced treatment. Their family doctor and two other doctors subsequently reviewed the UK study and disagreed with the forced treatment, finding no adequate basis for it in the study. One doctor asked the court to seek independent medical opinions. Despite being made aware of these reasonable doubts, your client, DoCS, continued to pursue the parents through the court in a concerted action to deprive them of their parental rights. As you are aware, the child and her family had a number of their rights reinstated by His Honour, Judge Campbell at their most recent court appearance.

I wrote the article using the available information at the time. I checked my sources for accuracy and found the information correct to the best of my knowledge at the time of writing. I was in full awareness of the Court orders stating; “no publication that would identify or tend to identify the child the subject of these proceedings or her family occur except for the purpose of the proper conduct of the proceedings.”

Respectful of the court orders and the sensibilities of the child and her family, I de-identified the personal family’s details in accordance with the US de-identification standard and the privacy standards set down by the Privacy Act and the APC Privacy standards. The details of the case were obtained by fair and honest means from the relevant legal and medical documents and interviews and transcripts. Other information sources included the Supreme Court’s own website listing this case with considerable medical and legal detail including the actual names of most doctors involved and treatment locations. This information is in the public domain for the purpose of serving the public interest as are other court judgements available for the rightful purpose of public scrutiny.

The story of how an Australian government department did all things necessary to force a now 12-year-old girl to undergo a series of potentially fatal chemotherapy treatments, purportedly without adequate medical evidence, would appear to be a matter of significant public interest. Particularly since the forced treatment was contrary to other medical opinions and was administered in spite of the child’s and the parents’ opposition. The trauma caused to this family and others by the way in which “health care” has been forcibly applied without informed consent, through a government department, is a matter capable of affecting people at large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about what is going on, or what may happen to them and others. It is in fact the duty of the media to inform the public of these matters of public interest, as the Privacy Act itself acknowledges. Indeed this story was reviewed by a solicitor prior to its release to ensure it complied with all necessary orders and requirements.

In addition, the document; “DoCS-Stealing our children For Medicine” was tendered to the Supreme Court and to your client, DoCS, and to all other relevant parties as an attachment to an affidavit dated 1/9/03. DoCS have had ample time to dispute its veracity, accuracy or relevance. It has been in the public domain for several months. It is not clear why your client demands this story be suppressed by this particular publication. I have received no notice from DoCS with respect to the issues they raise, when they have had the means to contact me since September 1, 2003 by way of my email address clearly printed on my article.

It appears self evident that no reader would be able to know the name of the girl or her family unless the family chose to disclose this. Because your client purports to act in the child’s interests, I require evidence that your demand for the suppression of this story would serve the child’s interest, the family’s or the community’s interests. I note that no relevant family members have complained about the issues you raise purportedly on their behalf. They have checked my article for accuracy and found it correct to the best of their knowledge. Far from protecting the family’s interests or the public interest, your actions would appear to ensure the department of community services is protected from legitimate and rightful public scrutiny.

Your demand to stop the press within a few days, without showing just cause, and without giving the magazine sufficient time for recourse, and without service, cannot be a lawfully binding restraint. To give in to DoCS demands would be certain to incur heavy expenses for the magazine. This would be liable to cause wrongful damage to my integrity and reputation as a writer who relies on publications to publish my works. This I suspect is intended by your client, DoCS.

I reserve the right to continue my occupation unimpeded, to report matters that are in the public interest without suffering intimidation, without those around me suffering intimidation or incurring expenses or damages arising from unfounded allegations. Pursuant to the aforesaid facts, you are hereby required to produce proof of alleged inaccuracies and give just cause why this article should be excluded from the public interest, within by 14 days. Failure to do this shall be taken that no inaccuracies or other impediments exist and the matter is at an end.
Should your client pursue further unfounded actions preventing me from pursuing lawful activities, I will seek orders to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding in a frivolous and vexatious manner.
Sincerely,
Eve Hillary

 

Written on 17/11/03 and sent to Crown Solicitor’s office by registered mail No; RD 49422008 on 17/11/03

For the full story of 'Lisa' send for Eve Hillary's audio-taped presentation at the national weekend.

AUDIO TAPE

"They Are Stealing Our Children": Single Tape $6 posted; Five Tapes - $25 posted. Order from: MEA Tapes and Books, PO Box 248, East Caulfield, Vic. 3145

ANOTHER IMPORTANT AUDIO TAPE

"Are You Sick & Tired of being Tired & Sick?" Dr. Alec Burton's address to the Adelaide Conservative Speakers' is filled with commonsense advice. He outlined what is a sensible approach to health and well-being for us all. Dr. Burton runs the Arcadia Health Clinic and the Australian College of Hygiene in Arcadia N.S.W. Single audio tape: $6 posted. Available from the MAYO TAPE LIBRARY, Box 6, Hahndorf, S.A. 5245


WE'RE ALL FABIANS NOW

by Phillip D. Butler
It has always been the rallying call of the Liberal and National parties - and it would usually strike just the right note of fear in the hearts of the 'straying' conservative voters: "Those godless Socialists (i.e., Fabian- Socialist Labor) want to centralise more and more power over you." But, it would be better for 'Victoria' and 'democracy', if we centralise power further.
But the Liberals' recent annual talkfest in Shepparton must have put paid to any lingering hope the voters might have had the Lib/Nats were going to save them from those godless power-hungry centralisers.

Liberal member for South-West Coastal in the House of Assembly - and former Opposition Leader - Dr Denis Naphine called for the abolition of the Legislative Council, Victoria's Upper House. Sunday Herald Sun," 9/11/03. He said
"I argue quite strongly that it would be better for Victoria and democracy to abolish the Legislative Council than to pursue this proposal (i.e., proportional representation) to create an unrepresentative house dominated by political hacks (i.e., independents and minority parties) who will be fighting for the No 1 and No 2 ticket on the ballot paper (i.e., the preference deals which all political parties do to further their own chances in the numbers game we now dignify by describing as part of the democratic process).

Who can forget the last Federal Election and the collusion between all major political parities to place all One Nation and Australia First candidates last on their own "How to Vote" tickets? Denis Naphine continued
"If we look at the situation when the Upper House was established in the 1850s ...it was a different era. It is more than 100 years since Federation and since 1901 we have seen a continual shift of power and responsibility to the federal government."
Quite right Denis! But this policy was actively pursued by all mainline political parties IN THEIR OWN PURSUIT OF FURTHER POWER - IT WAS NOT WHAT THE ELECTORS WANTED!

Dr Napthine then went on to say - and thereby exposed the fact (as if we didn't already know) that the real agenda for the Liberals is to FURTHER CENTRALISE power
"(the) sound case to abolish the Legislative Council in Victoria and significantly reduce the number of politicians in this state...(including) the members of the Legislative Assembly...(will result in, the electors can) get local representation by local people who live in local areas."

Government by party dictatorship is the name of the game: The most telling was this
"Governments of the day should be put to the test when they are elected to govern, they should be allowed to get on with the job and be judged by the people every four years at election time."
In other words, when it comes to the wielding of power there should be no checks and no balances on these 'models of perfection and unsparing service' to their people! Quite obviously the people of California believe in their right to bring their political representatives to account because it is enshrined in their State Constitution; as it is in the Constitutions of 15 of the other states of the USA. The people of California can petition for the recall of an elected representative and he can be held accountable to the electorate even in mid-term. They recently used this democratic mechanism to oust their State Governor. They can also initiate referenda to abolish current legislation or introduce new legislation.

Shock, horror
Politicians like Naphine and his Fabian-Socialist fellow-travellers hate this idea of party politicians being held accountable by and to the people, that is real people, like you, like me, considered collectively. They hate the idea they should have to give local representation to local people who live in local areas. Victorians should never forget.

It was the Liberal and Country (now Nationals) parties using their numbers, who rammed through the legislation giving Parliament, not the People, the POWER to amend the State Constitution. The people were not given any say - not even by referenda. The Lib/Nats reasoning was: Don't let the peasants have a say - they just may say NO!

Every sporting club or association I have ever belonged to has a constitution - and it is the members of the club or association who have the final say.

WHY IS THIS NOT THE CASE FOR OUR STATE'S CONSTITUTION?

Who remembers Jeff Kennett?
In league with the Nationals, then LIBERAL premier Jeff Kennett sold out the Victorian people to the Fabians' agenda when he sacked all the councils in Victoria, and then brought in his 'commissars' and forced the state wide amalgamations of municipalities - he said for more 'efficiency'. Perhaps Dr. Naphine, (qualified veterinarian) member of the Kennett cabinet at the time, would like to survey the people of Victoria and ask them what they now think of the power-bloated centralised municipalities which they can judge by experience?

What about the Cain government and Kennett's words? In case memories are fading, it was in 1986 that the Cain Labor Government promoted the same program. It was stopped in the Upper House by a one-vote majority by the Lib/Nats opposition. At the time, the front page story in the Bendigo Advertiser (22/07/86) reported a stormy hearing of the Cain Government's Local Commission in the Eaglehawk Town Hall. Jeff Kennett and other Liberal and National party colleagues attended that meeting and on the same front page of the Bendigo Advertiser a headline ran: "NO ALGAMATION WHILE I'M LEADER, KENNETT PROMISES". He stated
"… not one forced amalgamation will proceed in Victoria while I lead the Liberal Party".

*This whole seedy story was published in a special 4-page brochure published by the ALOR. Obtain your copy @ $2.00 per copy posted from the Heritage Bookshop, Box 1052, GPO, Melbourne 3001.

Another proposed step by this coalition of power-hungry centralisers is for the Upper House representative-members being stripped of their power to block supply, that is, their right (or power) to vote for or against Money Bills. Victorians must exercise their own freedom: A suggestion is they send a letter of instruction to their own representative, freeing him from the rather erroneous belief he has been elected to Parliament to do just what the Party Whip wants. At the same time, the voter should insist he wants the retention of the Upper House of the Parliament of Victoria and yes, he does want to keep the powerful check on the power-hungry parties by retaining the right of his representative in the Upper House to vote for or against Money Bills.

It's a funny thing about this thing called 'freedom'- there are other aspects to it, they are called 'accountability' and 'responsibility'. Use it or lose it!


REPUBLIC 'BANKRUPT'

by Philip Benwell, Australian Monarchist League
That is the headline of an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald describing how we have, what they call "forced the (Commonwealth) Bank into an embarrassing climb-down". Yes, the outrage expressed by so many of our members to the Commonwealth Bank at their use of the word 'Republic' to name their Customer Relationship Marketing System as the 'Republic CRM' has resulted in the Bank phoning to advise me that they have now discontinued the name.
A later emailed message from Ms Jill Lester, the Executive General Manager - Group Corporate Relations - of the Bank, stated: "Please be assured nothing should be read into the name used in the early stages of the development of the software".

However, we are in no way placated by this excuse and we still question what on earth caused them to use such a divisive term in the first place and what else they may have done should we not have organised a campaign of protest? We also dispute Mr. Fitzgerald's assertion that the Bank received only "around a dozen letters of complaint". Several hundred at least would be more factual let alone the hundred of phone calls to the Customer Complaint line that we are aware of!
Nonetheless, this exercise by the Commonwealth Bank, and our successful opposition to it, have clearly shown that the forces in support of The Crown must always maintain vigilance and must always unite in action to defend our Constitution and our Monarchy. Our many thanks go to all who participated in this campaign. It is important to note that victory has always been achieved whenever Monarchists have united against any attempts to promote a republic.

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