12 December 2003. Thought for the Week:
"I can imagine someone saying: "This is another Hidden Hand
Every theory of events which has any soundness must
at the present time be a 'Hidden hand' theory, because events
are not controlled by Voting or Parliamentary Debate, but
by Finance. A theory is neither more nor less likely to be
true because it appears to be romantic, nor does it necessarily
involve conscious turpitude on the part of, e.g., statesmen.
If you train a man from youth, you can make him honestly believe
anything, and I can assure you that there are very few 'accidents'
in the rise to power of public men
"There is no fundamental difference between "Rationalization"
as sponsored by Lord Melchett and Sir Herbert Samuel, and
Nationalization as sponsored by the Socialist Party, and I
believe the propaganda in regard to them comes from the same
source. They are both of them policies for reducing the individual
to an impotent unit in an overwhelmingly powerful mechanism."
C.H. Douglas in "Warning Democracy".
MARK LATHAM - DOES IT MATTER?
by Jeremy Lee
The coverage given in the major media to Crean's demise and
Latham's ascendancy has rivaled that attending the onset of
the Iraqi war. The speculation, arguments, assessments and
predictions is unbelievable. It seems almost churlish to suggest
that it will of itself have little bearing on Australia's
The most telling interview I saw was
on the street in the adjoining electorate to Werriwa - which
Latham holds - that of MacArthur. The indifference of those
interviewed was marked. They might just as well have been
asked to comment on the Melbourne Cup. Not one policy was
discussed. A few had heard that Latham was a 'larrikin' -
anything as an alternative to the bland, boring, deceitful
politics of the moment.
Ominously, spokesmen for "the establishment"
felt they could work with Latham. It was felt that any deviation
from a corporatised Australia could be controlled whoever
was leader. If there is any expectation for a man like Latham
it lies in the hope that he will attack sacred cows. But there
seems little likelihood. His party faithful will adjust uneasily
behind him, settle a few personal scores, hire a new consulting
firm to create a new 'image' and we're back to square one.
If Latham was to offer any hope of a
real alternative, he would say something like this:
"Ladies and Gentlemen - I'm not all that worried whether Labor
wins or loses the next election - certainly not enough to
stop me saying what I think. So here goes:
· My assessment of President Bush was accurate. He has been
a disaster. I deplore the Howard Government's decision to
paper over all the cracks in the Western Alliance and pretend
that all is well. The Iraqi war has made things worse - not
· I believe no Australian Government can continue to ignore
a widespread expression of conviction from ordinary Australians.
A large majority was opposed to the Goods-and-Services Tax.
An equally large majority was opposed to Australia's participation
in the Iraqi war. An even bigger majority do not want to see
a lucrative Telstra sold. We now urgently need a mechanism
of some sort, a check and balance, to ensure Government truly
reflects the desires of Australian people. This is not the
case, and a managerial style of government that believes it
knows best is one step away from dictatorship.
· There is a clear conviction in the Australian community
that too much of our economy is foreign owned. The Government
knows this, or it would publish a detailed analysis of the
proportion of the Australian economy that is in foreign hands,
and how much flows out of our economy in the way of interest
and dividends annually.
· A large majority of Australians now know that the official
employment figures published are well below the real position.
Therefore, I will ensure that the figures provided are divided
into "Full-time", "Part-time", and "work for the dole". We
will also have figures for those who want work but have given
up looking for it.
· We need a far better measurement for our economy than "GDP,
growth and exports" These do not give an accurate description
of the divide between rich and poor, the number below the
poverty line, the number of homeless and those on the lower
end of the wage-scale where even two incomes do not meet necessary
· I am ashamed of an Australia where it is now conceded that
home-ownership will be beyond the reach of young Australians
in the future. It is an admission of failure and wrong direction,
and must be reversed.
· I strongly believe that Australian jobs should be a priority,
and that passing Australian labour across to low-wage nations
is wrong. Likewise, I believe Australian-owned-and-controlled
industries should have precedence over overseas workforces
in Australian government contracts and private enterprise.
· I believe we must-re-think the current position, nationally
and globally, where all human activity and progress depends
entirely on debt-creation, now in private hands. Australia,
in parts of its history, has shown that this is not true.
· I believe that we should aim to re-establish the small,
family-owned farm and the growth of rural communities. Despite
our small population, we are amongst the most centralized
from a population point of view in the world. The loss of
our farmers and the weakening of our hinterland has been short-sighted
· I believe that families are the best environment to raise
children; but families with adequate income, rather than impoverished.
The children of today are the Australians of tomorrow.
· I do not believe we can continue trying to "borrow our way"
into the future. Therefore, Ill be opening a national debate,
and a Government inquiry, into alternative ways of financing
Australia. I believe everything I have outlined once existed
in the traditional policy of the Australian Labor Party. I
believe a return to these policies, and a return of a stronger
say to ordinary Australian men and women is more important
that winning the next election. I will demand that my Labor
colleagues commit themselves personally on the points I have
outlined, and commit themselves personally as to where they
stand. The days of the anonymous backbencher and the film-star
approach to party leaders has gone too far, and now threatens
the democratic process. If we fail, I will accept responsibility,
as will my colleagues. If we win, it will be because we have
the genuine support of Australians, rather than simply a slick
With such a statement, we'd really have
a genuine election for once!
A MATTER OF INTEREST
The latest figures show that household
debt as a percentage of income has climbed to the outrageous
level of 134 per cent. Nothing like it has been seen in Australia's
history. Household savings were a negative -2.2 per cent!
In other words, Australia's households are slipping behind,
and borrowing to live. The last figures for the farm sector
showed an average farm debt of $252,000 in 2000. Since then,
farmers have slipped further behind due to the drought, with
the loss of crops and the cost of feeding stock wrapping more
debt round their necks.
The number of farmers continues to fall.
Every quarter-of-one-percent increase in interest rates adds
a further direct cost of $631 to the average farm. What a
Christmas present! And they can expect more next year. The
Australian Financial Review (4/12/03) reported:
. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show the household
savings ratio - which was minus 2.2 per cent in the September
quarter - has been negative for the past year and a half,
although the September result was an improvement from the
March and June quarters. Treasurer Peter Costello said the
shift was partly due to an improvement in farmers' incomes,
which had been pulling the figure down during the drought.
But use of personal credit still rose 12.9 per cent in the
year to September and household debt was now equivalent to
about 134 per cent of household disposable income. On the
latest statement on monetary policy released last month, the
Reserve Bank of Australia confirmed that "households increased
their borrowing to finance consumption"
Which raises the obvious question:
Isn't it foolish to believe that inflation can be contained
by raising costs and sending thousands of Australians into
bankruptcy? The argument is that such a policy places a restraint
on borrowing. In the process it is an acknowledgement that
the economy stands or falls on the rate that people can borrow
money. But high interest rates also attract overseas funds
looking for a place to profit.
Over the last year there has been a drastic
fall in the value of the $US, as its current account deficit
and massive debt-money creation has taken it to dangerous
levels. Nearly every economy has seen its currency rise against
the Greenback. The highest rise has been that of the South
African rand, which has risen over 35 per cent. Australia
has followed with 25%, and then Botswana (24%), New Zealand
(23%), Canada, (21%), Brazil (20%), Chile (17%), Sweden (16%),
The Euro, (15%) and Denmark (15%). As the American dollar
continues to fall, all sorts of nervous investors, who have
held their surpluses in Greenbacks, are looking for somewhere
else to put their money. If it becomes a rush, the US will
look very sick indeed.
Australia has been openly told to expect
a further interest rate hike in February. That will be enough
to break thousands with big debts, including many who gambled
on investment properties when it seemed they would never lose
value. Exporters, already hit hard by the rise in the value
of the Australian dollar, will be further penalized by higher
interest rates. Exports will suffer, while imports will boom
because we can temporarily buy more with our dollar.
Living on imports will extend our foreign
debt further - and so on, and so on, until somebody decides
that Australia's current account deficit and its foreign debt
make it a risky venture. Investment funds will leave Australia's
shores as quickly as they are now leaving the United States.
That's when we'll see the bare bones of our real economy.
It won't be a pretty sight!
How would Mark Latham suggest we handle
such a scenario? John Curtin would have had some idea. One
wonders whether modern Labor politicians know anything of
their own history.
THE WRONG DOING IS YOURS
Roger Scruton in The Spectator
(15/11/03,) while rebuking the British public for disloyalty
to its own Royal Family, touched on some fundamental truths
we all need to come to grips with.
"In peddling royal scandals," he wrote,
"newspapers are appealing to the depraved imagination of the
.Should we blame the butler? The tittle-tattlers of
the royal household? The newspaper editors, the BBC, the general
public? The cultural climate, British hypocrisy, the decadence
of modern society, the Internet, the Decline of the West?
Or should we blame the Prince (Charles) for something we know
not what, " he asks. These are the questions, he insists,
that should not be asked! If the rumour is false, then we
should not be interested. If it is true then we should be
interested even less.
"The wrong doing," he told his British readers, "for which
you search the newspaper and the Google-box, is yours." Such
would have been the response of the English people in his
youth, wrote Mr. Scruton. English people would have believed
that you sully your own soul by prurient interest in malicious
rumours. He insisted they would have learnt the wise injunction
of St. Paul, to think 'on whatsoever things are true, whatsoever
things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever
things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever
things are of good report'. This was especially necessary
when considering people, institutions and customs that demand
our loyalty and which must be protected from desecration by
the scoffers of the gutter press.
Allowing it is of small comfort now
that the public, having been suitably titillated by the gutter
press, had already gone through the latest frenzy of feeding
on the malicious gossip, he reminded us all of the astonishing
demoralisation (in all senses of the word) of British society.
But, he noted, the depraved appetites of the public are partly
caused by their own exploitation by the gutter press. Although,
on the face of it, charged with responsibility for informing
and instructing the public, it has taken to titillating them
Nothing is more repulsive he contended,
than the high-toned manner in which some of the worst offending
newspapers masquerade as protectors of public morality, the
conscientious defenders of the public interest, while ministering
to the basest of human desires and embarking on the next fit
of treasonable malice. And herein lies the reason:
"All this leads to a fundamental observation. The Prince attracts
this kind of malicious character assassination because he
is heir to the throne, symbol of our national loyalty
. believe that this situation can be remedied by declaring
a Republic; thereby recognising that the head of state is,
after all, an ordinary bloke
.and invulnerable to the lust
Mr. Scruton charges the British people with the act of "collective
treason - treason not to the monarchy, but to themselves as
a sovereign people." He acknowledges there are those who would
welcome the national extinction of the British people, who
see their national sovereignty and the culture that sustains
it, as offences against the new international order and obstacles
to the emerging superstate of Europe.
"If you believe in conspiracies," he
wrote, "you might even see the marks of one in the treatment
meted out over the past twenty years to the Prince of Wales.
But such a conspiracy, if it exists, is a very short-sighted
affair. A British people so demoralized as to recognise no
common loyalty will not prove loyal to the new state of Europe,
or to anything else that stands in judgment over its beastly
He ended his lengthy article by reminding
the British people the Christian religion teaches the way
of forgiveness, and Prince Charles has given sufficient proof
of his noble and public-spirited character to suggest that
he is capable of forgiving his people. In fact, Roger Scruton
would like to believe that for all their depravity this is
what the British people are seeking from him - the recognition
and forgiveness of their fault. Be that as it may, what is
written of the present situation in England and the health
of her people could just as easily have been written about
Australia and her people.
AND WHILE THE PEOPLE SLEPT- INQUIRY
INTO AN AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC
The Australian Monarchist League's chairman,
Phillip Benwell, has notified us the Senate Legal and Constitutional
References Committee have now issued their discussion paper
regarding their "Inquiry into an Australian Republic". The
closing date for lodgement of submissions is the 31st March
2004." The paper can be obtained from: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/republic03/index.htm
or, if this link fails, go to the main Senate page at www.aph.gov.au/Senate
and click on to Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee
and then to "Inquiry into an Australian Republic" or by phoning
(02) 6277 3560 or emailing email@example.com
Mr. Benwell writes: The Australian Monarchist
League is in the process of preparing its submission and would
appreciate any comments you may care to make. We are also
preparing a submission to the Government regarding their proposals
to amend Section 57 of the Australian Constitution. My letter
to our members is set out below. With every good wish for
the Festive Season. Yours sincerely, Philip Benwell, National
Chairman, Australian Monarchist League.
AND - RESOLVING DEADLOCKS
The most immediate concerns we have regarding
constitutional change come not from Labor or the Democrats,
but from the Howard Government itself. Probably preparing
for an early Federal Election, the Government has given only
until the 31st December 2003 for responses to be made to their
51-page discussion paper called "Resolving Deadlocks" in which
they outline their proposals to amend Section 57 of the Australian
The Government canvasses two options:
· The first of which is to remove the requirement in the event
of a deadlock between the Representatives and the Senate to
go to the People at a Double Dissolution but instead to go
direct to a Joint Sitting of both the Representatives and
the Senate where the majority of the Government would be used
to pass legislation earlier blocked by the Senate.
· The second option is to hold a Joint Sitting immediately
following the return of a Government at a General Election.
Unlike most other 'Westminster' style
democracies, Australia's Constitution is based on the power
to implement change or resolve deadlocks in the Parliament
being held in the hands of the People and not the Parliament
itself. If the Parliament had the power the Howard Government
is seeking, Gough Whitlam would have been able to pass all
his legislation and Paul Keating would probably have made
us into a republic by now.
Copies of the Government's discussion
paper "Resolving Deadlocks" can be obtained from: Constitutional
Change Legal and Culture Branch, Dept. of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet 3-5 National Circuit, BARTON ACT 2600. Phone:
(02) 6271 5530. email: firstname.lastname@example.org Or
visit the web-site www.pmc.gov.au.
Contributions are only very slowly coming
in to Melbourne headquarters. We make a special appeal to League
supporters to get behind the annual appeal and make a contribution
before the end of the year - a major boost is urgently needed.
It is amazing just what the League is able to achieve with the
funds it receives - in comparison with many other groups the figure
is quite modest - but it does need to have that support. Please
give generously this coming week to the Fund.
TO LEAGUE ACTIONISTS FROM EVE HILLARY
Thank you to all those who wrote to your
elected representatives regarding Lisa and her family. I have
had occasion to see some of these correspondences, some originating
from the office of Jacinta Collins shadow minister for children
and youth. Her concerns were conveyed to the present DoCS
minister by her female staff, none for the child - more to
do with the logistics of politics. Very disappointing. No
I will be honest and say I was repulsed, especially since
these are women, one would think with children of their own.
I hope voters in her Victorian electorate will bear that in
The attached letter (published in O.T.
ed) challenges DoCS on a number of issues. They
haven't answered or shown just cause for their allegations,
but rather have succeeded in threatening and intimidating
publisher(s). Meanwhile DoCS has decided to take the matter
to Court to apply for gag orders to be placed on me regards
the Lisa article. These extraordinary lengths are to prevent
the facts being revealed that Australia forces risky medical
drug treatments on children based on no medical evidence and
the child welfare authorities make the forced treatment compulsory.
Who benefits from compulsory drug treatments? That is for
the community to decide. That is why I wrote the article.
Instead they will try to keep the lid on the whole sorry mess.
I will do my best to prevent this from succeeding, but I need
your help. I hope you will refuse to accept any form of corruption
in your hearts and minds, and set an inspiring example to
our children who so need us to take on our responsibilities.
If you would like to contribute and are so inclined, please
pray for justice, truth and freedom of speech on Thursday
December 4 and please direct your prayers to the Supreme Court
Thank you, Eve Hillary, PO Box 745, St. Ives, NSW 2075
**Late news: Eve spent Thursday in court
but no decision was made.
*** Late, late news: With the support
of Labor votes, a Liberal 'ASIO amendment bill' was passed
in the Senate. Further report next week.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
G.M.Crops: The Editor, Stock Journal
We have one last chance to influence the plan to release Genetically
Engineered crops. A Parliamentary Committee will receive submissions
about designated areas for such crops and any impact GE product
may have on markets. I consider it is essential that the whole
of South Australia be designated GE free to maintain the status
of our current produce which is not only sold to consumers
within Australia but exported to overseas customers.
Segregation not achievable
Despite all the best efforts, nobody can guarantee absolute
segregation of GE free and GE crops of the same species. One
frequently learns of yet another instance where contamination
has occurred at trial sites and overseas where GE crops are
permitted. Buffer zones between crops, presumed to be adequate,
have been proved in some instances to be ineffective in containing
a crop. Contamination may occur at numerous times from planting
the crop right through to consumption. I refer here to cross-pollination
while the crop is flowering; also during the harvest/storage
process when harvesters, augers, bins and trucks all pose
a situation where contamination is likely to occur.
I must stress to the un-initiated that it is a wonderful theory
that segregation can be achieved during harvest and storage.
Practical farmers however, know it will fail. Why would we
take such a risk?
Insurance not available
The risk of likely contamination has been recognised in the
insurance industry as evidenced by them absolving themselves
from any responsibility for legal liability claims. This speaks
volumes and should alert everyone!
Markets, whether domestic or export, need to be guarded jealously.
They are generally difficult to establish and the customer
is always looking for a tool to use in seeking a price reduction,
or to threaten to take his custom elsewhere. The introduction
of GE crops will play into his hand at the expense of producers.
Related products affected
Another important aspect of GE crops is the impact on livestock
and subsequently the meat industry including; poultry, beef,
pork and lamb. With intensive feeding of pigs and poultry
being now also practised widely to produce quality lamb and
beef, it is likely that GE grain will find its way into fodder
at feedlots producing white and red meat. The producer will
need to divulge the ration he has fed if he is to comply with
all the elements of Quality Assurance. Now, it could be that
the producer does not deliberately feed, say GE Canola in
his ration, however he may easily buy barley reaped from a
crop contaminated by remnant plants of GE Canola. Can we afford
to jeopardise our meat markets?
The risk of contamination is so great that trial plots of
GE plants should only be permitted in a totally sealed environment
which is likely to be available at Research Institutions.
GE - irreversible
The efforts of the scientists in achieving GE technolgy is
not to be denied but its application or release into the field
provides for no turning back unless preserved identity can
be absolutely guaranteed. Until such a guarantee is available,
the risks of release is obviously too great.
Concerned consumers and farmers should voice their opinion
to their MP.
Yours sincerely, Ken Grundy, Naracoorte SA 5271
Letter to On Target editor
A People's 'credit'
Sir, A couple of weeks ago, Australia's largest bank, the
National Australia Bank, announced a record profit of four
billion dollars for the last twelve months. If that profit
were distributed to every Australian we each would have received
about $200. Even though banks have shareholders buying and
selling shares, and profiting and losing, the actual money
involved in these transactions is bank created 'credit', recorded
somewhere within the system as a debt. One wonders whether
the reason banks are listed on the stock exchange is to make
the issue of 'credit', i.e., debt creation, fuzzy in the minds
of the public. Or, perhaps, the banks reckon they can profit
even more - read 'rip the public off' some more.
Assuming that the four billion dollars is roughly 5% of outstanding
loans, for interest rates have been about that in the last
twelve months, then borrowings must be about $80 billion.
The eighty billion dollars has been 'created' out of thin
air; once it didn't 'exist'- now it does. The bank says the
money belongs to it, so therefore it is a debt.
Let's suppose the bank decided to be
However, suppose the bank decided to be honest and admitted
that it made the 'dough out of nothing', and didn't have a
claim on it (but don't hold your breath whilst waiting). And,
instead of issuing the 'new money' to those who could trade
it for real estate, (read security or mortgage) suppose the
bank made the radical decision to distribute it equally amongst
all Australians, it would equate to about $4000 each. Add
to that the $200 above and it brings the total to $4200. The
average family of four, Mum and Dad and two kids would collect
$16,800 - and that is only from one bank!
What if all the banks' fraudulently collected resources were
treated in the same way? At present, if a family has been
able to save some money in a credit account (meaning it is
money they could use without another debt somewhere else)
somewhere in the banking ledgers exists the same amount, recorded
as a debt. At the moment, in the case of the National it holds
debts of $16,800 for each family of four. What if all the
banks' debts were added to each family? The totals must be
frightening to contemplate.
If we consider the difference between the $16,800 presently
owed by each family to the National Australia Bank and the
possible scenario of $16,800 credit to each family, every
family would be $33,600 better off. (The $16,800 debt would
be wiped off the slate, and they would have $16,800 to spend.)
Again, if we involved all the banks' numbers, it would stagger
Well? What about it banks? Will your governing bodies take
the necessary action? Or perhaps the governing authority of
Australia, the Federal Parliament could legislate to force
the banks to comply. And, if they didn't, perhaps the government
could close them down and start afresh with a bank that does.
When can we expect this to happen? Or, do we have to wait
for that moment Henry Ford (car manufacturer) once suggested
might come. If the general population suddenly became aware
of how the system operates, there would be a revolution by
tomorrow morning. As some members of our Parliament profess
to live under the authority of Jesus Christ, a question that
could exercise their minds is: Would Jesus Christ favour the
present system of credit creation recorded as a debt or a
system of credit creation recorded as a credit? And, perhaps
after getting their heads around that one, some additional
questions could be: To whom does the credit of a nation belong?
How could it be better distributed?
As governments are made up of representatives of the people,
perhaps it is up to us to ask the relevant questions of our
members of parliament. (Yes Daryl, indeed it is
Daryl Carter, Murray Bridge, S.A.