AND NOW THE GENERATIONS WAR

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 salaries.
· 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 …ed) 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 said
"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 CONSTITUTION

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:

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT:
"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 is misleading.
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 this:
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 Minister.
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 deadlock.
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 House.
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 impracticality."
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 national basis!
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 with 49.2%!
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!
Conclusion:
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 power.
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 throughout…ed)

BOOKS, BOOKS, BOOKS