AND NOW THE GENERATIONS WAR
by Betty Luks:
Australians would do well to 'mull over' the following Greg Palast
article bearing in mind: First it was the Marxist 'class' war,
then the 'race' war, then the 'gender' war and now the 'generations'
war. All to 'divide and rule' of course.
A West Australian reader sent us a short article that appeared
in his local newspaper, the Courier Mail, 14th November
2003. Under the heading: Grey rich face youth backlash
journalist Fleur Anderson reported on what amounted to 'veiled
threats' by the Reserve Bank Governor, Ian McFarlane to the older
generation of this country: "Rich seniors sitting on real
estate fortunes are headed for a stoush with overtaxed young people
who can't afford homes."
McFarlane went on to question "whether today's older population
should be getting such a large slice of the government financial
pie at the expense of education for tomorrow's workers. If we
are not careful, there is a potential for conflict between generations,"
Mr. McFarlane told the Melbourne Institute's Economic and Social
Outlook Conference dinner.
(You're darn tootin' they will do their best to foster the conflict!)
"The young may resent the tax burden imposed on them to pay
for pension and health expenditure on the old - particularly if
they see the old as owning most of the community's assets,"
Who remembers the proposal 'floated', I think in Whitlam's era,
that the elderly should sell their homes, live on the capital
till it ran out - then they could go on the pension? This is just
another spin on the same idea, the same policy. We are continually
'sold' the idea there is 'not enough money to go round.
B.T.S. wrote to us: "This is dangerous rubbish (Ian McFarlane's
words) from such a high profile personality. All politicians are
currently putting the same spin on pensions
Yes B.T.S. they are. They have their IMF orders, but are not game
enough to put them into operation - yet. We will probably see
a move after the next federal elections - unless enough Australians
wake up to what is happening.
You asked about a history of social security schemes that governments
have levied for over the last 80 years. Finding such legislation
will not solve the problem. Look at what happened recently in
Germany. The German workers must have paid into a pension scheme
all their working lives, and yet, just recently they were out
on the streets protesting at the government cutting their pensions.
I am sure they believe they have every right to receive the pensions,
the trouble is their governments have got the nation (read people)
up to its neck in debt to the same money lenders.
You can be sure the money was borrowed from the money lenders
on condition taxes would be levied to repay the debt - with interest!
And you can be sure the money lenders will get first call on all
money collected through the taxation system
The real question is: Why should we as a sovereign nation, a sovereign
people, borrow from banks for our own money system? Surely a money
system is a social function in a modern 'money' economy? And should
it not simply reflect the real world? Isn't the real question:
is there enough production to feed, clothe and house us in this
age of technology and automation? Surely the real problem is the
insufficiency and maldistribution of purchasing power
this day and age, symbolized by the ticket system we call 'money'?
AUSTRALIANS MUST FIRST 'REMOVE THE SCALES'
FROM THEIR EYES
Modern taxation has its origins in the
corrupt financial system the burden of which we all 'heavily
labour under'. In recent history it first saw the light of
day in 1694 with the setting up of the Bank of England. Taxes,
despite the propaganda of bankers and governments, are not
collected from the workers to pay for those who do not work
(such as pensioners), taxes are collected to help pay the
interest on monies borrowed by governments from the banking
system, the money lenders.
I suppose Mr. McFarlane of the Reserve Bank still describes
'money' as a medium of exchange although it long ago passed
beyond that function. It is now primarily a means of power,
of some men over the rest of the world.
Why do people, as people, not matter to economists such as
Ian McFarlane? The answer is 'economics' is now entirely dominated
by 'money' - Mammon rules. Mr. McFarlane is quite detached
from reality, in fact he would be better described as 'an
idolater', he cannot think in terms of people, but can only
think in terms of money.
Where does the banking system get the money in the first place?
It creates it out of nothing, claims it as its own, lends
it out - to be repaid with interest!
One wonders: does Mr. McFarlane, now 57 years of age and not
that far from retirement age, plan to live by the same rules
he wants to impose on other Australians? He is probably 'sitting
on some prime real estate'. Is he going to sell his prime
real estate to 'relieve the burden of taxation' of the young
workers? As a professional economist, Mr. McFarlane wouldn't
have produced one real product in all his working life.
Two books which will help the readers'
understanding of how Mammon works and assist in 'removing
the scales from their eyes,' are: "The Story of the
Commonwealth Bank" by D.J. Amos and "The
Enemy Within the Empire" by Eric D. Butler.
THE 'MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING'
Early in February, 2002, journalist Greg
Palast alerted the world that, "In Buenos Aires, the
Paris of Latin America, police gunned down two dozen Argentines
in December after they chose to face bullets rather than starvation.
The nation's currency had crumbled and unemployment had shot
up from a grim 16 percent to millions more than the collapsing
government could measure.
The economy had been murdered in cold blood. ("In Americas.org
Thursday, February 7, 2002 by Greg Palast). "Who done
it?" asked Mr. Palast, before deducing that the killers
left fingerprints all over the warm corpse.
"A Technical Memorandum of Understanding, dated September
5, 2000, was signed by Pedro Pou, president of Argentina's
Central Bank for transmission to Horst Köhler, managing
director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). I received
a complete copy of the inside report from ... let's just say
the envelope lacked a return address."
The 'understanding' required Argentina to cut the government
budget deficit from $5.3 billion in 2000 to $4.1 billion in
2001. Think about that. Eighteen months ago, when the 'understanding'
was drafted, Argentina was already on the cliff-edge of a
depression. One in six workers were unemployed. Even the half-baked
economists at the IMF should have known that holding back
government spending in a contracting economy would be like
turning off the engines of an airplane in stall."
At the time Mr. Palast wrote:
"The IMF is never wrong without being cruel as well.
Under the boldface heading, Improving the Conditions of the
Poor, the agency directed Argentina to:
· Cut 20 percent from $200 monthly salaries paid under
an emergency employment programme.
· Promised a 12 to 15 percent cut in civil servant
· A pension 'rationalization' (IMF-speak for a 13 percent
cut in payments to the elderly).
"Salted in the IMF plans for pensioners and the poor
were economic forecasts bordering on the delusional. The report
projected that, once Argentina snuffed consumer spending,
somehow the nation's economic production would leap by 3.7
percent and unemployment would fall. It didn't. The IMF plan
kneecapped industrial production, which fell 25 percent in
the first quarter of last year (2001) before keeling over
completely to interest rates that by summer were running up
to 90 percent on dollar-denominated earnings
Another (June 25) document just happened to 'walk onto' Greg
Palast's desk in which the World Bank president, James Wolfensohn,
expressed particular pride that Argentina's government had
made "a $3 billion cut in primary expenditures accommodating
the increase in interest obligations."
In other words, the government gouged spending on domestic
needs to pay interest to creditors, mostly foreign banks.
Further reading: The Best Democracy
Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. $66 posted.
TELSTRA HEEDS DOWNER'S ADVICE TO EXPORT
JOBS TO INDIA
The West Australian Member for the Mining
and Pastoral Region Hon. John Fischer MLC, has highlighted
the fact that last year Telstra sent 180 IT jobs offshore
and now intends to send another 500 to India.
He writes, "This phenomenon", (hardly a phenomenon
Mr. Fischer, more to do with political party policies
is quaintly referred to as 'outsourcing to maximise profits'.
By going down this very path, Telstra has literally taken
Alexander Downer's advice to export Australian jobs (as outlined
in a report released by The Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade titled - India: new economy, old economy.)"
It should be noted the advice (policy) would not have originated
with Downer or his department
its origins would be traced
back to the faceless power wielders based in the halls of
the International Monetary Fund's headquarters.
"In this report," explains John Fischer, "Alexander
Downer suggested that Australian companies should consider
moving operations to India to exploit lower wages, as this
would result in cost savings for operations ranging from call
centres to software development."
"I have issued two Media Releases on this very subject,
one dated 5 December 2001, and another on 22 April 2003 -
outsourcing jobs and selling off Australian owned companies
- we're losing control of our destiny." John Fischer
"If the Government gets its way and sells off the remaining
51% of Telstra, be very afraid. Just imagine how many more
Australian jobs will be sent offshore to maximise profits.
Just imagine how our taxes will increase to make up the billions
of dollars per annum that Telstra makes in profits that go
straight into Government coffers. How long will it take for
Telstra to introduce timed local calls?"
For those who would like to contact John
Fischer and encourage him in the defence of Australian sovereignty
his phone number is: (08) 9486 4081 or 0417 981185.
He also said "The support of Nationalistic policies and
Independents now becomes more important than ever before if
future generations of Australians are able to claim this nation
- the lucky country."
So do ask him, what are his nationalistic policies which he
believes will help solve the fundamental problems we face.
Voting for Independents in itself is not the answer. But determining
what are the policies of the Independents could be the first
step in ensuring you the voter register a responsible vote.
HOWARD'S PROPOSALS TO AMEND COMMONWEALTH
Let us be quite clear about the Commonwealth
Constitution Act of 1901; one of the intents was to safeguard
the Australian People against power-hungry politicians. Although
drafted by men who understood the temptations and corruptions
of political power, it was voted into legislation by the People
of this great land and brought into existence the Nation,
the Commonwealth of Australia. Always remember the Federal
Parliament is the creature and the politicians are the representatives
- of the People. They are there to serve the people within
their own electorates. Despite what the political parties
would have you believe, John Howard is prime minister only
because his party voted him into that position - the position
gained prominence only because it was a position created by
the political parties.
This man now constantly puts himself forward as our Head of
State, delivering 'messages to the nation', strutting around
the world like any republican president, whereas in fact,
our Commonwealth Head of State is the Governor-General. The
political-party position of Prime Minister is not recognised
in our Commonwealth Constitution.
Be that as it may, we have another battle
on our hands.
The amendments proposed by the Howard ruling party could be
likened to a scenario in which earthly creatures say to the
Creator, "WE know what is best for You and WE want to
change Your laws and run creation how WE think best!"
It behooves us all to study what the Liberal ruling elite
-- and those calling the shots behind the scenes -- have in
mind within the proposed changes for our balanced, trinitarian
form of Constitutional Monarchy.
Continuing Mr. Phillip Benwell's submission.
You will remember the first part of the article ended with:
"It was during that very Convention that Sir Samuel Griffiths
said of the Senate "A strong Senate will compel attention
to its suggestions; a weak one will not insist on them."
Indeed it is clear that the prime purpose of our Founding
Fathers was to avoid a concentration of power in the House
of Representatives, regrettably the very thing which has occurred
under the banner of 'Responsible Government'
Mr. Benwell continues:
"We are concerned that the explanation of 'Responsible
Government' as printed in the Glossary is not a correct definition
and in fact is so biased in favour of the proposals that it
The Glossary states:
"RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT: Responsible government is a
particular form of government that was inherited from Great
Britain. A great deal has been written about responsible government.
At its simplest, it means that the government of the day is
accountable to the lower house of parliament. The party or
parties that win the most seats in the lower house of parliament,
or has the support of the majority of members in that house,
forms the government of the day. The members of that government,
the Prime Minister and ministers, are also members of parliament
and are not elected separately. The government remains in
office while it has the support or 'confidence' of the majority
in the lower house."
We submit that 'Responsible Government' means far more than
We submit that that the government of the day is not solely
"accountable to the Lower House of Parliament" as
this explanation infers, but, under our Constitution, also
to the Senate and above all to the people.
General terminology referring to modern day Westminster parlance
can in no way be made superior to our Constitution.
We submit that it is a matter of concern that the Australian
Parliament has become subordinate to the Executive with an
unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of the Prime
The same occurrence had emerged in the United Kingdom. It
was never the intention of Westminster for this to occur,
for it breaks the chain of command in that the Executive should
be subordinate to the Parliament and the Parliament to the
People, not the other way around.
The basis of the discussions during the debates of 1891 and
1897/8, and indeed throughout all the Conventions held leading
up to Federation, was to balance the needs of a federated
authority against the needs of the individual States and above
all without upsetting the rights of the people.
That the framers of the Constitution achieved this fine balance
was a masterstroke of ingenuity. It is known from records
of the debates that an inordinate amount of time was spent
on deliberating the powers of the Senate, which was the first
elected Upper House within a Constitutional Monarchy under
the Westminster System, and on resolving potential impasses
between both Houses. Several solutions were discussed and
the process of sending the full Senate together with the House
of Representatives to the People in a Double Dissolution was
agreed upon as the most appropriate method of resolving any
Other processes, such as a referendum, were considered to
be outside the framework of 'Westminster' or would otherwise
result in too great a concentration of power in the Lower
The Paper states:
"Why then in 103 years of federation has a double dissolution
been used so sparingly? The answer is two-fold - cost and
We submit that the real reason is that most disputed bills
are resolved by negotiation which in itself indicates that
the Section is working.
Furthermore, the fact that it is often not politically convenient
for a Government to go to the People in a Double Dissolution
is not an excuse to amend the Constitution as proposed.
The Powers of the Senate:
The Paper 'Resolving Deadlocks' cites an observation by Professor
Jack Richardson: "There are no longer other national
parliamentary democracies of the Westminster type where popularly
elected governments have to face an upper house with powers
matching those of the Senate under section 53 of the Constitution."
We would counter that there are no other 'parliamentary democracies
of the Westminster type' which have remained as free and as
democratic as Australia has due specifically to the restraints
placed on the Parliament by the Australian Constitution!
References are made to Parliaments with which we share a Westminster
tradition, however of all those Parliaments most have enhanced
their own authority at the expense of the freedom of the people.
In the United Kingdom, Parliament is supreme for there is,
under their uncodified Constitution, no requirement to put
constitutional change to the people. We have seen in recent
years the British Parliament ceding sovereignty to Europe
and even proceeding, without going to the people, to sign
a - now stalled - alien Constitution which would essentially
make Britain a part of a federation. Furthermore the House
of Lords, even though restructured, is an un-elected House
and has no real comparison with the Australian Senate.
The Canadian Senate, as has been pointed out in the Paper,
is also un-elected. The Constitution of the other major Dominion
of the Union of South Africa came into being in 1910 and,
in any event, was based on a single Chamber.
It is appropriate at this time to comment that had the Constitution
of South Africa made provision for a Senate with similar powers
to our own, it is probable that the South African Government
would never have been able to introduce the iniquitous 'Black
Urban Areas Act' in 1923 which led to the further segregation
laws of apartheid!
The Upper House of India:
We are surprised that reference has been made to the Rajya
Sabha the Upper House of India Whilst admittedly mostly elected,
it has done little or nothing to thwart the authoritarian
actions of successive Indian Government and was complicit
in the State of Emergency which lasted nearly two years from
June 1975 to March 1977 and was declared not because of reasons
of national security, but to keep the Prime Minister, Indira
Ghandi, from facing incarceration following a guilty verdict
for election malpractice.
It was during this period that thousands of leaders and activists
of the opposition political parties were arrested and civil
liberties suspended including the censorship of speeches made
in the Parliament.
It may very well be said that such things could never occur
in Australia. However, should either of the two options proposed
have been a part of our constitutional arrangements in 1975,
the Whitlam Government would have been able to pass all of
its insidious legislation!
Either one of these options and particularly the first, would
give the House of Representatives total control over the Senate
and would void its significance.
It is therefore important to our democracy that the Senate
maintain the power to block vile legislation and thereby force
the Government to either abandon such legislation or go to
the people. Senators are elected to protect the interests
and the democracy of the people within a federation.
Both the Democrats and the Greens are essentially socialist
movements and the fact that they combine with the Labor Party
on most occasions, although frustrating to the Government,
is hardly surprising. However their blockage of a minority
of bills, however important to the Government, is a small
price to pay for maintaining our democracy intact.
Over the past fifty years five Governments have been elected
with under 50% of the national vote. This is where, due to
a disparity in electoral boundaries a political party can
hold a majority of seats, and therefore form Government, without
obtaining a majority vote of the people when computed on a
Since 1950, Labor has won government on seven occasions. They
did so on six occasions with a majority of the national vote.
In 1990 they were returned with 49.9% of the vote.
However over the same period, the Coalition won Government
on fourteen occasions, of which ten were with a majority of
the national vote and the remaining four with a vote in excess
of 49% but under 50%; the lowest vote achieved being in 1998
On these occasions the Senate can therefore be said to be
more representative of the people than the House of Representatives,
particularly since election to the House of Representatives
electoral system is non-proportional whereas election to the
Senate is proportional.
The Government's Mandate:
The Paper consistently puts forward the argument that on its
re-election the Government's legislation has received a mandate
from the people and that "they (the Senate) have a responsibility
to respect the basic mandate of a government's stated agenda
which has been endorsed by the electorate."
The idea of a mandated Government is fairly new in Australian
politics and is not mentioned in the Constitution and indeed
was not even a topic for discussion at any of the Constitutional
Conventions. The Founders would have been aware of the significance
of mandates, given the problems faced by British Governments
in the 19th and early 20th Centuries against an intransigent
House of Lords. However it is clear therefore that it was
never the intention of the framers of our Constitution that
it should form a part of our process, possibly because of
the elected nature of our own Senate.
In passing we mention that we find it surprising that the
present Government should raise the issue of mandates, given
that it is this same Government which has demeaned the mandate
process with its introduction of what it has termed 'core
and non core' promises!
The Australian Monarchist League has polled its membership
throughout Australia and has received a response unanimously
opposed to any change to Section 57 of the Australian Constitution.
We reject wholeheartedly the assertion that Section 57 in
its current form is not a workable means of resolving deadlocks
and are resolved that not even one iota of power should be
transferred from the people to the Parliament.
We believe that the two options proposed do not provide 'a
simple, quick and low cost way to resolve deadlocks between
the houses by removing the need for an election' but would
instead create a radical change to the existing balance of
In the event that these proposals are put to the people at
referendum, the Australian Monarchist League will vigorously
campaign against any change.
We would appreciate our opposition to any amendment of Section
57 whatsoever to be formally recorded." (emphasis added