3 September 2004. Thought for the Week: Mr. Malcolm
Turnbull defended his remarks. "I was talking about
Australia's strong performance
I was contrasting
it with the throw money at the problem approach of Labor.
I observed that libertarians have often described taxation
as theft which is authorised by Parliament. While that
is just a colourful but inaccurate slogan, I observed
that is does serve to remind us that the monies governments
spend is originally private property, which has been compulsorily
appropriated from citizens under force of law."
Malcolm Turnbull, (merchant banker) The Sunday Mail 15th
"Powers of the Parliament: 51: The Parliament shall,
subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws
for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth
with respect to:-
(xiii) Banking, other than State banking; also State banking
extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the
incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money:"
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 9th July,
FAIRER RULES FOR OUR EXPORT INDUSTRIES?
by Betty Luks
As you read the following article think very carefully about
what the president of the South Australian Farmers' Federation
is actually saying.
The Adelaide Advertiser reported the South Australian Farmers'
Federation intends to initiate a national campaign to gain
fairer rules for our export industries. Only time will tell
what effects the US-Australia FTA will have on the farmers,
but it seems these fellows are attempting to shut the gate
after the horse has well and truly 'bolted'. Where have they
been all these years? Jeremy Lee and Eric Butler have been
warning them for decades their politicians were selling them
out to the New World Order bosses
but they wouldn't
listen! Instead they listened to the hirelings in their midst
who ostracised and demonised any local League supporter who
tried to warn them.
Of course they are right when they claim
the National Competition Policy targets export industries
using pure economic ideology to guide its decisions, and,
with the radical restructuring taking place under the reform
'guidelines', up to 2 million jobs are at risk.
But, they are wrong when they say that as farmers they couldn't
survive if their export markets were lost -- because the local
market accounts for only 20 per cent of what they produce.
They merely demonstrate they also are victims of pure economic
and financial ideology. It is not unlike an arms manufacturer
saying he couldn't survive to produce for the local market
if he couldn't export 80 per cent of what he produced ---
even if those arms were being activated and 're-imported'
What John Lush the president of the S.A.
farming group is really saying is that under the present economic
and financial policies the farmer cannot financially survive
upon the financial returns he gets for 20 per cent of his
production. Think about it. What an incredible situation.
A very small portion of 20 million people -- our farmers --
produce enough to feed 100 million people
and yet financially,
they won't survive unless they keep doing it. If we take into
account the infrastructure needed to supply the water, the
energy and the soil nutrients it takes to produce enough food
for 100 million people, that is a lot of our physical resources
being used up and exported just for the return of financial
Physically the production is huge. If
the farmer operated as a self-functioning feed-back system,
he couldn't possibly consume all he produces - not in years
and years, and yet financially he can't survive. No matter
that he exports 80 per cent of his real physical wealth in
return for the bulk of the figures in his bank account. Under
the present rules the farmer is trying to fight with his hands
tied behind his back, but if the financial and economic policies
were changed for the benefit of the Australian people, he
might find that instead of having to work from daylight to
dark, he and his family could take some time off, have a decent
holiday. Not only could he and his family have a rest, but
he might discover the lands could also be rested and he wouldn't
have to rape and abuse his soil into the bargain. But for
him to see that, he would have to have a complete change of
mind and understanding.
Are we ever going to hear Australians
ask the question: Why should our farmers have to produce enough
for 100 million people when the population is only 20 million?
What prevents the farmers, and us, from gaining a just price
for their goods and allowing them, and us, to live in relative
peace and security?
Clifford Hugh Douglas reminded us: "It is the volume
of money, and not the amount of available goods which governs
the purchasing power of the general population."
The Liberals need to be reminded of their
1949 Statements of Beliefs, Nos.12 & 16:
"We believe that national financial and economic policy
are not to be designed to control men's lives, but to create
a climate in which men may be enabled to work out their own
salvation in their own way."
"We believe that all forms of industry, primary or secondary,
or otherwise, depend one upon another, and that their community
of interest will be the guarantee of the nation's growth."
Nothing there about the need to export, export, export - or
THE DAVID HICKS 'KANGAROO' COURT
The following information is from internet
David Hicks, Guantanamo Bay prisoner of U.S. military authorities,
met with his parents for 15 minutes before the military tribunal
proceedings began last Wednesday. There were no guards present
for the meeting, and it was unclear whether Hicks was shackled.
The U.S. military said he would be allowed to meet them once
more after the hearing. Hicks, who arrived at the prison camp
in Guantanamo in January 2002, could be sentenced to life
in prison if convicted. He pleaded 'not guilty' at the hearing.
Before Hicks made a plea his attorneys were allowed to question
the five-member commission panel on their qualifications and
Presiding Officer challenged
Hicks' lead civilian defense attorney, Joshua Dratel, began
by challenging the presiding officer, Army Col. Peter E. Brownback,
a former military judge. He contended Brownback had ties to
John D. Altenburg Jr., a retired Army general in charge of
Brownback worked with Altenburg in Fort Bragg, N.C., and his
wife worked in Altenburg's office. He also attended the wedding
of Altenburg's son and spoke at a retirement gathering for
Osama bin Laden's driver also in Court
On Tuesday, the first day of the tribunal, Osama bin Laden's
chauffeur, 34-year-old Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen, declined
to enter a plea. That hearing marked the start of the first
U.S. military tribunal since World War II. Hamdan withheld
his plea until motions filed by his military-appointed lawyer
are decided. A ruling is not likely until November. His defence
is challenging whether the hearing should proceed without
a ruling on his ''enemy combatant'' status, which allows fewer
legal protections than for prisoners of war. That classification
was used to justify trying Hamdan and others before the tribunals,
which will allow secret evidence and no federal appeals, rather
than at courts-martial or in U.S. civilian courts.
Hamdan's defence attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr.
Charlie Swift, has filed a lawsuit in U.S. civilian courts
in Washington alleging the illegality of commissions. Swift
also challenged the capacity and impartiality of four panel
members - including the presiding officer - and one alternate.
''It is important that these proceedings not only be fair,
but appear fair to the world,'' Swift said in the hearing
Tuesday that lasted more than eight hours. Hamdan is charged
with conspiracy to commit war crimes, including attacking
civilians, murder and terrorism. He isn't charged with any
specific violent act. Hamdan, also known as Saqr al Jaddaw,
has said he earned a pittance for his family as bin Laden's
driver before the Sept.11 attacks, but has denied involvement
in terrorism. U.S. officials allege that he served as the
al-Qaeda leader's bodyguard and driver between February 1996
and Nov. 24, 2001, and that he delivered weapons to al-Qaeda
The only member of the commission with
formal legal training is the presiding officer, Army Col.
Peter E. Brownback, a former military judge who volunteered
to come out of retirement. Asked by Swift whether he thought
the proceedings were legal, Brownback chose not to answer.
John D. Altenburg Jr., a retired Army general, will decide
whether any of the commission members should be removed. It
was not clear how soon he might rule.
NGO's WEIGHED 'IN THE BALANCE' AND FOUND
Margo Kingston's expose of John Howard's
moves to bring the Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)'to
heel' through a centrally controlled government body, ("Not
Happy, John", Chapter -- Keeping democracy in its
place) is well worth reading.
Margo Kingston saw that "John Howard has a very rigid
view of who does - and doesn't - have a right to work with
and lobby governments.
· Churches should stick to 'religious issues' - meaning
that they should shut up about wars or whether a GST on food
· Charities should quit talking about the causes of
poverty and stick to doling out soup and blankets.
· Non-profits that stay out of 'politics' or toe the
government's policy line - are fine.
For those who don't do what he wants,
Howard has a five-phase plan to shut them up or shut them
Phase One: stop funding NGOs that speak out, thus intimidating
others into silence.
Phase Two: strip activist NGOs of charitable status.
Phase Three: set up a government 'non-government organisation'.
Phase Four: use public service and intelligence assets to
spy on awkward NGOs.
Phase Five: require NGOs to qualify for a 'licence' to talk
The result: NGOs that do manage to retain government funding
Many of those groups who raise their
own funds still depend on governments granting them the status
of charities to remain viable, including the tax deductibility
of their supporter's donations. (Australians claim half a
billion dollars a year in tax deductible gifts.) After the
introduction of the GST the government set up an inquiry to
'define' a 'charity'. Peter Costello rejected the definition
to any charity that had as one of its purposes advocacy of
a 'political cause' or 'attempting to change the law or government
policy'. And who would make the critical assessments? Why
the Australian Taxation Office of course! The department directly
under the Treasurer!
What in the world is happening to
the Welfare groups?
In the light of the above, Margo would have a few problems
with David Brockschmidt's address "What in the world
is happening to the Welfare Groups?" to the League's
recent S.A. Seminar. David has been 'a thorn in the side'
of not just the large supermarket chains in Adelaide but also
the large professionally-run commercial 'charitable' organisations
as well. Over the last twenty years, David has collected the
perfectly good food, clothing, shoes, etc., from the supermarket
waste bins and distributed it out to charitable groups. You
know, those groups who solicit our dollars for their work
among the poor and the needy.
After waking up to what they did with his donations - threw
them out into their own rubbish bins - he now works only with
some of the smaller charities. He knows from first hand they
are using the goods for the needs of the people.
Bigger organisations not interested
He has been trying for years to get the bigger organisations
to improve the services they offer by using the unwanted goods
from Coles, K-Mart and Woolworths. David, in his address to
the seminar said:
"The hard-core charity professionals have well paid and
secure jobs, and power, over the paid workers and the good-hearted
volunteers. Their whole aim in life is to have power over
others and the belief that they have a ticket to heaven. It
is about time that we pulled the Holy Masks off their faces
and show the public what they really are. They are part of
the ruling class as so clearly shown in George Orwell's 'Animal
Farm'. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. I am sure
that if Christ came back today they would be the ones who
would go to Hell while Heaven would be reserved for all the
victims of their system.
My message to charity workers is as
You are in the position to fight the causes of poverty and
not to profit by treating the symptoms. You are not here to
keep the people dependent in order to justify your jobs. You
have to attack power structures in order to bring justice
into our sick society. You are charity workers in the name
of Christ. Men and women with a mission. You must be crusaders
against the evil forces in your own charity organisations
and in our society."
David had more to say on those charitable organisations that
spend more on CEO's salaries, overseas trips and 'bricks and
mortar' than they do on the poor and the needy. In a world
where two thirds of the population struggles to eat properly
each day, the amount of wastage from supermarkets shows the
darkest side of our consumer society.
Let us not shy away from the fact that these food retailers
are only giving us what we demand - fast, efficiently packed,
guaranteed fresh, cheap groceries. The question we must ask
ourselves is whether the poor and hungry of the world are
paying the price for us.
** For the full story of a modern David's
battle (address) against the Goliath Supermarket chains and
'Charity' groups, send $6.00 to Mayo Tapes, Box 6, Hahndorf,
THE CANADIAN SCENE: CROWN CORPORATIONS
UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT
Paul Fromm, Canadian Association for
Free expression, 24th August
A passel of Crown corporations which collectively suck up
billions of taxpayers' dollars each year are pleading they
should be exempt from the freedom-of-information law. They
want to live in hog heaven on our money, but bristle at the
thought of any scrutiny on the part of the tax slaves who
support them. Free speech supporters will be especially incensed
at the attitude of the Race Relations Foundation, headed by
former B'nai Brith heavyweight Dr.Karen Mock. "The Race
Relations Foundation was 'concerned about malicious or frivolous
requests from white supremacist and other racist groups' seeking
information to discredit human rights and multicultural policies,
or to harass race relations agencies and community groups."
Just what would a "malicious" request for information
be? It's hard to imagine. And if information, that is, truth,
would discredit human rights or multicultural policies, don't
they deserve to be discredited? Canadians have too long been
given them mushroom treatment by federal bureaucrats: kept
in the dark and fed
CBC among agencies balking at inclusion
under access-to-information law by Jim Bronskill
(The Public Broadcaster) CBC argues its journalistic sources
will dry up if the public broadcaster is forced to comply
with the country's freedom-of-information law. The CBC is
among several Crown corporations squarely opposed to the looming
possibility of becoming subject to the federal information
law. Internal Justice memos spelling out their positions were
released to The Canadian Press in response to a request under
the access law. The federal sponsorship scandal has fuelled
debate about whether Crown corporations - state-controlled
companies that operate at arm's-length from government - are
sufficiently accountable to the public.
(Australians readily recall the recent disclosures of the
ATSIC members' disgraceful misuse of public funds
The Access to Information Act enables people who pay $5 to
request government-held records ranging from expense reports
and audits to correspondence and opinion polls. But more than
a dozen Crown agencies, including the CBC, Canada Post and
Via Rail, are excluded from the law. As part of its response
to the sponsorship affair, the government is looking at broadening
coverage of the access act.
Two years ago, a federal task force proposed new rules that
would result in application of the law to most Crown corporations.
IRAN WILL DESTROY ISRAELI NUCLEAR FACILITIES
IF OWN ATTACKED
Agence France Presse, from Tehran - Wed.,
August 18, 2004
Iran will strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel launches
an attack on Iran's own burgeoning nuclear facilities, a commander
of the elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying Wednesday.
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant,
it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where
it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be
responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move,"
General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr was quoted as saying in the press.
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at its Bushehr
plant is seen by arch-enemies Israel and the United States as
a cover for nuclear weapons development, allegations that Iran
denies. As a result, Israel and Iran have been exchanging threats
in recent weeks, raising the possibility of an attack on Iran's
facilities similar to that carried out by Israeli bombers on the
Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak in 1981. Israel refuses to confirm
it has a nuclear arsenal but is estimated to possess some 200
warheads. Iran last week tested an upgraded version of its conventional
medium-range Shahab-3 missile, and Revolutionary Guards chief
Yadollah Javani said at the weekend that all Israeli military
and nuclear sites are now within range.
Thank you to those who gave so generously
over the last week and brought the final figure for this year's
annual appeal up to $49,506.70. While we didn't reach the target
aimed for, supporters can be confident the funds will be used
wisely to carry on the work of the League -and, with the strong
support of the loyal band of volunteers in every state, every
dollar we handle will go 'that much further'. A full report will
be given at the AGM.
The following letter appeared in "The
Argus" Goondiwindi, Queensland above the name of
Senator Len Harris.
U.S. "RIGHT" TO RAISE PRICE OF DRUGS
"U.S. drug companies will have an inalienable right to
push up the cost of Australian pharmaceuticals under the U.S.-Australia
Free Trade Agreement. I revealed the fundamental flaw in the
agreement in Parliament with letters exchanged between Trade
Minister Mark Vaile and his U.S. counterpart Richard Zoellick.
Minister Vaile's letter said:
"Australia shall provide opportunities to apply for an
adjustment to the price of pharmaceuticals under the PBS".
Mr. Zoellick's response confirms and accepts the arrangement.
I'm concerned that Labor amendments could not stop the U.S.
ratchet up prices.
Australia can alter domestic legislation in regard to the
PBS as much as we like, but disputes between Australia and
the U.S. over the PBS or any element of the agreement will
be decided by a dispute resolution panel, based on the text
of the agreement, nothing to do with Australian law.
Mark Vaile's letter of exchange on the PBS forms part of that
agreement. The dispute panel set up under this agreement is
like an invisible government.
One Nation opposes the shift in decision-making. There is
an abysmal lack of basic protection for Australia in all areas,
including the PBS.
Senator Len Harris, One Nation, Queensland.
IRAQ INVASION, 9th August 2004.
Dear Mr. Howard, Prime Minister, Canberra
I have studied the subject of the invasion of Iraq by United
States, British, and Australian armed forces once the commencement
of the concept was first reported by the media. My conclusion
derived from the evidence presented, is that the 2003 invasion
like that of 1991, was, illegal, immoral, and illogical. [by
illogical I mean avoidable, and not in the interests of Australians!]
I have listened to your comments as reported by the A.B.C.
Sunday, 8th August, 2004.
I have before me three documents:
(a) "Final Judgment of International War Crimes Tribunal",
which was done in New York 29th Feb., 1992, finding those
charged viz. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dan
Quayle , Secretary of Defence Richard Cheney, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
Commander of the Allied Forces in the Gulf, guilty of nineteen
separate crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against
humanity in violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the First Protocol thereto, other
international agreements and customary international law.
"The Members believe that it is imperative if there is
ever to be peace that power be accountable for its criminal
acts and we condemn in the strongest possible terms those
found guilty of the charges herein. We urge the Commission
of Inquiry and all people to act on recommendations developed
by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure
social justice on which lasting peace must be based."
[If guilty then, how much more culpable are those people responsible
for the 2003 invasion?]
(b) "Sexing it up - Iraq, Intelligence and Australia",
by Geoffrey Barker.
(c) "The five biggest LIES BUSH told us about IRAQ",
by Christopher Scheer, Robert Scheer, and Lakshmi Chaudhry.
(Copies of covers of (b) & (c) enclosed.)
Mr. Howard: Why don't you give the Australian people the REAL
reason for the invasion of Iraq by the United States of America,
Britain, and Australia, which is namely: to assist the modern
Zionist State of Israel in its long planned expansion of its
borders to the rivers Nile and Euphrates? Knowledge and intelligence
of this objective has been readily available for many decades!
An early reply before the coming Federal Elections would be
very much appreciated.
Yours faithfully, John David Sterling Barton, Collarenebri,
FREEHOLD TITLE UNDER THE CROWN
The following letter by J.D.S. Barton is also of much interest
and a matter of concern to all freehold property owners in
this land. Constitutional authority Dr. David Mitchell was
asked at a public meeting in an Adelaide hotel a number of
"Under Land Rights, do the Aboriginal people have title
to the land in the same way the owners of this hotel have
freehold title? His answer was, "it is not clear!"
I also wonder are the Aboriginal people aware that they are
being used for future Fabian plans of attempting to set up
a Socialist republic. The Aboriginal people probably believe
they have freehold title to the land and in the event of such
a catastrophe for us all taking place, they would find they
have been 'managing' the land for their future masters!
Dear Mr. Latham, Leader of the Opposition: 9th August, 2004.
I have heard you state publicly that you are personally in
favour of Australia becoming a republic, and that in the event
of yourself becoming Prime Minister, you would initiate a
referendum on the matter within a few years of obtaining that
I understand that at present all land titles in Australia
stem from a foundational title derived from the "Crown".
I also understand that since the "Mabo" and "Wik"
cases in the High Court, Native Title has been firmly established
as a foundational title, though at present not strong enough
to replace the foundational Crown Title.
I also have a further understanding based on what I believe
to be sound legal advice, that in the event of Australia becoming
a republic on the abolishment of the Crown Title, before any
foundational title based on a republic can be put into place,
even be it less time than a nanosecond, that on the removal
of the Crown foundational title Native Title immediately,
and automatically slips into the place of the Crown Title
as the foundational title for future land titles in Australia!
I have a question:
Will you fully inform the people of Australia of how Native
Title will replace the Crown Title as the basic foundational
title of all land titles in Australia, on the advent of Australia
becoming a Republic BEFORE the question of Australia becoming
a Republic is placed before the Australian people at a referendum?
An answer to my question, before the campaign for the coming
Federal Election gets fully underway would be very much appreciated.
Yours faithfully, John David Sterling Barton, Collarenebri,
NATIONAL WEEKEND COMING UP
It is most encouraging to hear of the folk
who intend to make the trip to Albury. We know of folk coming
from as far afield as West Australia, Queensland and South Australia.
We do hope the nearer Victorians and New South Welshmen will do
their states' proud by having a goodly contingent at the weekend.
Remember the National Weekend is to be held in the border town
of Albury, NSW. It will take place over October 8th, 9th &
10th, 2004. We will have the pleasure of hearing such great speakers
as Wally Klinck of Canada, Jeremy Lee of Queensland and Roy Gustard
of New South Wales. National Director, Betty Luks will open the
Seminar by welcoming everyone in attendance. Make sure of your
accommodation at the Hume Motor Inn by phoning and booking your
rooms - Phone: (02) 6021 2733. All meetings will be held at the
Hume Motor Inn in the Main Function Room, 406 Wodonga Place, Albury,
NSW. The flyer with all the details will be sent out soon.
BOOKS, BOOKS, BOOKS
"Howard's War" by Alison
Broinowski. Why did John Howard lead Australia into a highly
unpopular war with Iraq? The war has cost Australians more
than $700 million, so far, but has predictably made Iraq and
its neighbours more unstable - and hasn't delivered any of
the results our leaders 'promised'. How could it have been
'in Australia's interests' when it has made us a target for
terrorism and put us at odds with our Asian neighbours? John
Howard mightn't have revealed his real reasons for going to
war but this book does.
Price: $23.95 posted.
"Guantanamo: What the World Should
Know" by Michael Ratner and Ellen Ray. David Hicks'
Australian lawyer Stephen Kenny has written as Introduction
to the book. "Make no mistake, Guantanamo is a prison
where cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment - even torture
as we know - is practised, and it is utterly illegal,"
writes Michael Ratner. He warns his readers, "Alarm bells
should be ringing throughout the West. Liberty, democracy
and the right of dissent are at stake. The recently deceased
former president Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union --
"The Evil Empire". Is America turning into a fascist
state? It is just incredible the way human beings can justify
their own barbaric actions! This is a must read. Price: $30.00
"Not Happy, John" by
Margo Kingston. In the triumphant first-flush of toppling
Saddam Hussein, John Howard invited George Bush the President
of the United States to visit our shores and speak on the
matter which had so bitterly divided the nation. She writes
on that presidential visit: "
what I experienced
on 23 and 24 October last year made me fear for our democracy's
future. I saw a Parliament on its collective knees before
a condescending Imperial Caesar, led by a lame provincial
governor of a Prime Minister so blind to the duties of his
own democratic office, so unmoved by the issues still rending
his own people, that he turned what might have been a healing
thank-you visit into just another vehicle for his own ambitions.
I saw him do so at the expense of Westminster traditions and
norms of civilised behaviour that I'd thought were above partisan
politics. I saw elected politicians - elected by us, the Australian
people - shouted down, physically manhandled and viciously
That day, John Howard, 'conservative imposter disguised in
ill-fitting Menzies hand-me-downs' kow-towing to the Imperial
Caesar, "had left the public service in ruins -- reduced
to mere caterers, lackies, careerists and political stooges."
She saw, "The castrated press gallery was largely oblivious
to what was happening to our democracy before their very eyes
on their own professional beat". $30 posted.