12 December 2014 Thought for the Week:

Silent night! Holy night! All is calm, all is bright, Round yon Virgin Mother and Child! Holy Infant, so tender and mild, Sleep in heavenly peace! Sleep in heavenly peace! Silent night! Holy night! Shepherds quake at the sight! Glories stream from Heaven afar, Heavenly Hosts sing Alleluia! Christ, the Saviour, is born! Christ, the Saviour, is born! Sainsbury’s Christmas: Inspired by real events from 100 years ago, the advert was made in partnership with The Royal British Legion. It commemorates the extraordinary events of Christmas Day, 1914, when the guns fell silent and two armies met in no-man’s land, sharing gifts – and even playing football together. Sainsbury's OFFICIAL Christmas 2014 Ad

PETER SPENCER NEEDS YOUR HELP
How you can help
1. Help pay the costs
There are three ways to donate. 1: Paypal, 2: Direct Deposit, or 3: Cheque.

1.(Paypal accepts credit cards from people without paypal accounts).
2. Direct deposit to: Bank Account Details: National Bank of Australia. Peter Spencer “Tower of Hope” BSB: No. 082335 Account No: 484643925
3. Send a cheque to: PO Box 4297, Pitt Town, NSW, 2756 Australia.

2. Urge the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund to fund legal counsel to represent Spencer.
See the sample letter on Peter Spencer’s site or UPDATE: Enough copies of the sample letter have been sent. Please write your own short polite note, adding your name, to urge the AFFF to get back on the Spencer case. So many Farmers stand to benefit if this case is properly tested in the High Court.

Secretary: Sarah McKinnon smckinnon@nff.org.au 02 6269 5666

3. Tell the world — your friends, news editors, twitter and facebook
The more people that know — the better. That includes people, editors, and groups overseas. Australia does not have a big tradition of fighting for individual rights. We need all the help we can get and foreign pressure and advice will make a difference.

LIBERAL MP SAYS PARTY’S PROPERTY RIGHTS POLICY ‘THEFT’

By Jessica Strutt and Jacob Kagi, ABC News, 28 Nov 2014
A WA Liberal MP has criticised his Government's proposed legal changes to property rights, claiming they will only further expand the "theft" of private land. Former minister Murray Cowper has long been calling on his Government to better protect the property rights of private landowners. He said many pieces of legislation and work by Government agencies to deliver essential services such as water, power and roads, were increasingly resulting in property being taken from landowners or diminished in value.

Yesterday, on the last sitting day of State Parliament for the year, Premier Colin Barnett introduced new legislation which he said would improve and clarify property rights and ensure landowners are properly compensated when public works are carried out on their property by the Government. But Mr Cowper believes the proposed changes would actually have the opposite effect and said he will cross the floor on the Bill.

"What the Premier's attempting to do here is resolve the issue of property rights," he said. "What he's done is actually the opposite, he's now legitimising and indoctrinating the rights of Government departments to steal land. The issue here with the Premier is that he doesn't understand the legislation himself, he doesn't understand the concerns of people in regional WA." Mr Cowper said there had been no consultation with affected landowners.

Hundreds of laws impede property rights: Murray Cowper
He also raised concerns that the proposed changes would only amend a few pieces of legislation, when there were actually hundreds of laws which impeded the property rights of landowners. "It does nothing about planning (laws), nothing about the environment (laws) and....it does not achieve what was promised," he said. "They're saying this is the first step - well it's taken 10 years to get to the first step, how long is it going to take for this to be resolved? It could be 10 or 20 years time."

Read further here… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-28/liberal-mp-says-party-property-rights-policy-27theft27/5927060

VICTORIAN ELECTIONS

Labor wins government: As we now all know Labor has ‘won the election’ by winning the majority of seats in the Legislative Assembly. As John Black, a demographer and analyst, and former Labor Senator, wrote in The Australian, “Labor didn’t win this election. Hardcore Liberal voters chucked out their own. Just as hardcore Labor voters chucked out state Labor governments during the chaotic Rudd/Gillard era.”

In the Legislative Council, the balance of power will probably be held by a number of ‘micro parties’, along with the Greens. These could include the Shooters and Fishers, the Australian Country Alliance, the DLP and even the Sex Party. As more votes are counted, these will change.

ABC ‘LATELINE’ 11 November 2014

A survey of electors by Professor Mark Evans for the Institute of Governance revealed the following opinions.

Parties need to give members of Parliament free votes rather than having to ‘toe the party line’.
People want the right to recall their Members of Parliament if they lied or were corrupt.
Cut political advertising and donations to political parties.

Asked if their local member was a good representative – 80-90% Australians surveyed believed they had little or no influence over national decisions.
Widespread disenchantment with the nature of current political process characterises untrustworthy contemporary politicians.

The top 3 Responses “What they don’t like about democracy in Australia

1. Media has too much power
2. Politicians get away with broken promises
3. Big Business has too much power

HUMANS NEED NOT APPLY – SOCIAL CREDIT RESPONSE by M. Oliver Heydorn

The video, entitled "Humans Need not Apply", has received over 2 million hits on youtube. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU) It explains how the development of intelligent machines (computers, robots, etc.) now threatens many of the occupations that traditionally relied on brain-power (while continuing to threaten those jobs that rely primarily on muscle power). The result is that more and more people are ending up and will continue to end up being permanently unemployed. The solution to this growing problem is the solution offered by Social Credit.

People must be granted access to goods and services regardless of whether their work is required by the formal economy or not. Furthermore, that access must not further indebt society, nor be dependent on redistributive taxation. It must be financed through the creation of a suitable volume of debt-free money to equate the rate of flow of consumer prices with the rate of flow of consumer incomes. The same phenomenon which, on the physical plane, is rendering people permanently unemployed (i.e., the replacement of human labour by machines) is the same phenomenon which, on the financial plane, is chiefly responsible for the gap between the rate at which the prices of goods and services are generated and the rate at which income is distributed by any modern productive process (machines or real capital involve, under current financial and accountancy conventions, the levying of financial charges for which no or an insufficient volume of income is simultaneously being liberated). Social Credit kills two birds with one stone by effectively addressing both sides of the central social problem of our age: the financial system that we've got is not designed to deal appropriately with the realities of industrial progress.

WE SHOULD ‘CASH-BOMB’ THE PEOPLE – NOT THE BANKS

Simon Jenkins, The Guardian Thursday 27 November 2014: Abandon helicopters. Use bombers. Bomb Germany, France, Italy, Greece, the entire eurozone. Bomb them with banknotes, cash, anything to boost demand. The money must go straight to households, not to banks. Banks have had their day and miserably failed to spend. From now on they get nothing.

Five years after the financial crash it is nearly unbelievable that the eurozone’s lords and masters now confront renewed recession. They seem inert before deflation, subflation, lowflation or whatever lets them avoid the word “scandal”. An ever more dominant Germany is unmoved. Its finance minister, Wolfgang Schauble, is set on “black zero” or a balanced German budget. The European Central Bank (ECB) murmurs about “quantitative easing” but is up against Germany’s furious protests. Ten per cent of the eurozone’s workforce is unemployed and one in five of its young. Greece has lost a quarter of its national product. The waste of resources is staggering. At the heart of this tragedy stands the absurd figure of the new EU president, Jean-Claude Juncker, impresario of Luxembourg’s outrageous tax-evasion oasis. Yesterday he proposed a €21bn European fund which, he claimed implausibly, would entice private backers to invest “up to” 15 times the sum. Who will invest when there is no demand? The pope rightly called the EU “elderly and haggard”, mistrusted, insensitive and bureaucratic. I doubt if Juncker turned a hair.

The eurozone is heading towards what even the pro-EU Economist calls “Europe’s lost decade”. Ever since the credit crunch the continent has been suffering what Keynes called a classic liquidity trap. There is too little money around and thus a chronic shortage of demand. People have too little to spend, which means shops close, supplies dry up and no one invests. Britain and the US supposedly met this challenge by “printing money”, by quantitative easing (QE). This was a confidence trick. It claimed to release money “into the economy” to stimulate borrowing and thus spending. It merely channelled billions into bank vaults and boosted reserves. What did spill into the economy went to stock market inflation and obscene bonuses. In Britain it also leaked into the mad world of sub-prime housing subsidies. Otherwise, demand has remained dangerously sluggish.

What saved Britain was George Osborne not practising what he preached. He borrowed and spent like a crazed Labour chancellor. Borrowing has risen, not fallen, and this year is 10% up on last year. Public spending is still higher than in 2010, welfare payments are up, mega-projects are booming; only hated local government is down. To Osborne, austerity is for the small guy – and a gullible media.

The eurozone has no such luck. Germany continues to defy the two great minds of 20th-century economics, Keynes and Friedman. They clashed on much but agreed on the need to “loosen” money supply to avert recession. Keynes buried it in the ground and had the poor dig it up. Friedman more generously dropped it from helicopters.

Such methods have long been ridiculed as vulgar by conventional economists and politicians. To them economics is a branch of ethics. Monetary policy should punish the poor for its extravagance in booms, not “reward” the undeserving. Any money going should be channelled through the welfare state or the great and good banks.

Yet versions of helicopter money (HM) are now emerging into public debate. The essence of HM is not to boost government spending – and thus challenge “budgetary austerity” – but to print money off-budget to avert deflation. It is like giving blood to a shattered body: without it, all other remedies are a waste of time. Such “neo-monetarism” is aired by the Financial Times’s Martin Wolf in his new and exhaustive study of the credit crunch, Shifts and Shocks. He suggests “permanent helicopter money”, with government deficits simply covered by printing presses unless and until inflation returns. It has been discussed sympathetically by Tim Congdon, by the Americans Mark Blyth and Eric Lonergan in the magazine Foreign Affairs, and by the former City regulator, Lord Turner.

All challenge the conventional wisdom of bank-led reflation.
John Muellbauer, professor of economics at Oxford, champions “QE for the people”. He points out that, as existing policies to revive Europe’s growth have faltered, “proposals for distributing money directly to citizens have been quietly gaining traction among critics of orthodox central banks.”

The commentator Anatole Kaletsky points out that if the £375bn of QE had gone to private bank accounts rather than to buying bonds from banks, it would have meant £24,000 per British family. This would have transformed the demand economy.

To have government simply depositing cash in cashpoints or handing out spending vouchers at post offices might seem eccentric. But this has been done in Japan, China, Vietnam and Taiwan, where cash and vouchers have yielded swift spending surges. HM has been adopted by aid organisations including Give Directly in Africa, sometimes tied to school attendance. Brazil and Mexico have likewise “dropped” cash on poor communities. All these schemes were declared resounding successes. The west’s brief flirtation with HM through car scrappage schemes is credited with having saved the US car industry.

Why are policies considered suitable for developing societies not relevant to Europe?
The answer, I believe, is not intellectual or political but rather a matter of class. Just to print money and hand it out leaves people vulnerable to “moral hazard”. People should not get cash they have not deserved. If demand is to be stimulated with cash, it should be through someone responsible, like a banker. If the banker in effect “steals” the money, too bad. I imagine that even if Friedman and Keynes banged together on the door of the EU or the ECB, those inside would send them packing. These institutions are in a line of descent from those who sealed Europe’s fate with the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the Great Depression and the 2008 credit crunch. They seem happy to visit on Europe a “lost decade”. Meanwhile, the bombers are on standby. The printing presses can roll and Europe can be saved. But who will throw the switch?

Wallace Klinck noted:
It seems that the problem of a lack of buying power is beginning to dawn on various observers. Blaming the banks for not spending is not appropriate, though. Banks release demand into the community by lending and all such monies go through the price-system to create costs which must appear in prices. This applies to consumer as well as production loans because consumer loans must be repaid from money extracted from future production, and so costs are merely carried forward as debt and are not liquidated at all. The normal operation of the price-system generates costs and prices in a flow that increasingly exceeds the flow of uncommitted incomes that it releases as wages, salaries and dividends.

The problem arises from the banks having a virtual monopoly of the creation of money as debt and the failure of the government to institute remedial measures based upon real as opposed to financial cost.

For all the turmoil and ferment the question of macro-economic cost-accountancy seems never to enter the discussion and debate which seems always to centre around prices influenced by supply and demand in terms of the quantity of money. Deflation is equated with economic depression, contraction and bankruptcy while the expectation is that economic prosperity must be accompanied with rising prices which can only be dampened by restrictive financial measures. Both positions fly in the face of reality.

Douglas pointed out that credit-creation and price-creation are two aspects of the same thing and the two must be firmly matched or co-ordinated at the final stage of production on a macro--economic level. This requires not price control but a universal price-regulation. People are accustomed understandably to regard price-control as unworkable, which they are in a system that can only continue to function through continuous expansion of money to accommodate rising financial costs. Douglas explained that money is simply accountancy and how it is entirely feasible to create money to reduce prices so that they reflect real costs - which are typically falling due to increased technological efficiency. Under such a policy a National Dividend would have increased buying power.

To speak of “cash-bombing” an economy with anything that might be employed as purchasing-power sounds impulsive and irresponsible, but Douglas provided a rational and practical means of generating new consumer purchasing-power to constantly cancel multiplying financial costs, while ensuring consumer access to goods as they emerge from the production line.

SELLING AUSTRALIA OUT TO CHINA

by James Reed
The political and chattering classes have been in a state of euphoria about the bilateral free trade agreement that Australia has signed with China. According to the media it is a “gift” which China has given us – but I for one would be suspicious about any nation giving us a “gift”. Nations act in their own self-interest and this is what China has done.

Chinese companies will be able to bring in, in numbers never before seen, Chinese national workers on 457 visas. Abbott says that this will not undercut the pay and jobs of locals, but surely that it the sole reason for bringing foreign workers in, in the first place. (The Australian 18 November 2014, p.7) The ACTU is right in slamming this, especially when unemployment is at a 12-year high. Kiss the local manufacturing industries goodbye.

It is well known, contrary to Abbott’s assurances, that often Chinese workers work at about half the hourly rate paid to Australian workers and there is even mention of this in the media. (The Australian 18 November 2014, p.7)

Tasmanian agricultural land is being devoured by Chinese buyers. (The Weekend Australian 15-16 November 2014, p.1) Farming land is then set to be farmed by China’s Big Agri using Chinese workers, with produce sent directly to China. This is nothing short of colonisation and countries with self-identity and self-respect such as Thailand wouldn’t allow this to occur.

For the media, China has opened the door to the Chinese markets. Greed comes before a fall – there is no reason to believe this. China has an appalling record of sticking to agreements. Once tariffs are eliminated to satisfy naïve Westerners, ad hoc regulatory strategies are used to protect Chinese industries and production.

Thus American beef was banned in 2003, allegedly because mad cow disease was discovered in one animal. The ban has never been lifted. Few sectors of the Chinese economy escape political interference by the Communist Party.

And don’t worry about China’s vast military build-up. According to President Xi in his speech to the “Australian” parliament, China will never inflict war on other nations. China’s development is peaceful. Gerard Henderson (The Weekend Australian 15-16 November p.18) is critical of “alarmists” who predict conflict, if not war between China and the U.S., perhaps sparked by tensions over the South China Sea. He cites of evidence of US/China co-operation, the agreement between Obama and Xi over carbon emissions cuts. But he says that neither can keep this promise. This is especially so in the light that China’s carbon emissions will be over double the reductions of the US and Australia over the next 15 years. So, making an agreement that can’t be kept isn’t good evidence. Nor is Obama’s easing of restrictions on Chinese business people and students, a move done in US interests. A cartoonist (The Australian 19 November 2014, p.14) has depicted Tony Abbott beaming wearing a red Chinese communist uniform. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words.

DELUSIONS ABOUT CHINA

by Richard Miller
Chinese communist President Xi Jinping in his visit to Australia committed China to the non-militarisation of Antarctica and a global ban on mining. So far so good, if we can believe him – apart from vast mineral reserves Antarctica is thought to have one third of the world’s remaining hydrocarbon reserves.

A recent article “China ‘A Threat to Aussie Grip on Antarctica’” The Weekend Australian 22-23 November 2014, p.10, states that the opposition assistant defence spokesman believe that even given China’s pledges on non-militarisation and non-exploration of Antarctica, China will work to overthrow the treaty system upon which Australia claims 43 per cent of Antarctica. While Australia is retreating from Antarctica because of lack of funding, China and our other beloved Asian trading partner, India, are increasing their presence. In the future they will no doubt want those hydrocarbon reserves and what they want, will no doubt, be theirs.

TONY ABBOTT’S DELUSIONS ABOUT THE ‘COMING OF CHINA’S DEMOCRACY’

by Chris Knight
Abbott claims that Chinese communist President Xi Jinping had claimed that China would be fully democratic by 2050. Abbot, excited, said that this was a “historic statement”. What Xi had said was he had a goal to “turn China into a modern socialist country that is prosperous, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious by the middle of the century”. This is a standard speech given by Xi and he has said the same thing many times. All that Xi meant by “democracy” was a slight tweeting of some “democratic” procedures within the communist state. Xi has rejected China ever embracing what Abbot understands (or we think he means) by “democracy”. If Abbot gets that wrong, what faith should we have in the rest of the trade rhetoric?

WILL CHINA ECLIPSE THE UNITED STATES?

By Peter West
Paul Dibb and John Lee have recently published “Why China Will Not Become the Dominant Power in Asia”, Security Challenges, vol. 10, 2014, pp.1-21. This report was discussed in The Australian “China Will Never Eclipse US” 19 November 2014, p.1 at the same time as a flood of positive articles about the free trade agreement with China. The strategic sub-text seems to be that China will therefore not be a security threat, so it should be full speed ahead with business, business, business.

The Dibbs/Lee paper is thought-provoking because the political elites in Australia accept as a matter of religious faith that China will be No.1, based upon linear projections of its economic growth and military build-up. This line of thought is seen in writings outside of Australia such as by Martin Jacques, “When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order” (2012). However in the 1980s Japan was also seen as No.1, yet its economy ultimately faced diminishing returns and financial difficulties, especially debt.

It is not widely discussed but China’s capital-intensive growth model is founded on an ocean of debt. National corporate debt levels have grown from 147 per cent of GDP in 2008 to over 250 per cent by June 2014. As Dibb and Lee put it, “the expansion of debt – which has been used to finance capital inputs – from US$9-10 trillion in 2008 to US$20-25 trillion in 2014 exceeds the size of the total American banking system” (p.4). Thus the debt to asset ratio of Chinese firms was 105 per cent in 2011 and is now (in 2014) is even higher. Corporate debt could easily sink the global economy.

Dibb and Lee do not go on to follow through the implications of their debt analysis, namely that all countries face a debt crisis, a product of an unjust globalist financial system run by a class of cosmopolitan mega-elites and that this structure of greed is unstable and capable of collapse at any time.

50 YEARS OF On Target: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

I have followed and supported the New Times and the League all my life. Monetary reform and Social Credit spread very much during the 1930s. The election of a Social Credit government in Alberta (Canada) looked like spreading. The war put a stop to that. Although we were at war with National Socialism (Hitler, Germany), we were allied with Russia (Soviet Socialism). While Fabian Socialism (English speaking countries) helped pervert the course of history. What was not recognised was that the 3 courses of Socialism were simply 3 different tactics to the main objective, “One World” Government. Eric Butler influenced many people including high ranking persons and politicians. Unfortunately, many considered their own necks under banking and media influences and remained negative.

60 years ago, Butler warned that China would be a key factor in Australia’s security. The Communist blueprint map listed North Queensland as owned by Indonesia and called “Irianjia”. A recent Herald Sun article stated that there are now 10 million Chinese waiting to come to Australia within the next 10 years.

When Jack McEwan was Minister for Trade and Commerce, the policy of “What we can produce in Australia, we won’t import” – Tariffs were set accordingly. Under that policy we had full employment and no debt.

In obedience to Treaties and United Nations’ directives all that has been wiped. Fabian Socialism is gaining. Increased welfare and other directives, taxation continues to rise plus increased borrowing and debt.

Since World War II, the International Banks have increased their ability to create money out of nothing. They create this as a debt, not a credit. What ratio the banks use to create money as to their deposits, one would not know. But he who controls the countries’ finances, directs the policies of Governments and hold in their hands the destiny of the peoples. According to World Watch 35% to 40% of our gross product goes in interest.
Cedric Turner, Grovedale, Victoria.

Footnote: Cedric Turner is Eric D. Butler's brother-in-law. Cedric, God bless you and Margaret. We wish you a Blessed Christmas.... from all at On Target and The Hub, Melb.

Dear Editor, On Target:
I can’t clearly remember when I first started receiving and reading On Target, but I first came into contact with the League of Rights in my teens back in the sixties. Mail was delivered on Saturdays in those days and it was the highlight of my week to receive my weekly On Target each Saturday. Now it comes by email!

I have always found the information like a breath of fresh air to really learn what was going on behind the scenes of current events.

It was through the teachings of the League that I was made aware of the spiritual reality of things and particularly the spiritual battle going on behind world events. This understanding ultimately led me to the Gospel and a born-again experience when I was 22 years of age in 1969. Within a short time, I felt a calling by God to the ministry and was ordained a minister in 1978. Since then over the many years, I have served my community to the best of my ability in business and in church ministry.

I haven’t searched the archives to date, but it is good to know that such a resource is there should I ever need it.

I will be forever grateful to the League, its teachings and journals like On Target to whom I owe a great deal as to how my life has been shaped.
Kind regards, Kevin Hodges, South Australia.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor,
I was interested in Peter West’s comments in this week’s On Target*: “The problem is that of evil: if death and entropy (even of physical matter via the second law of thermodynamics) predated the Fall, of both man and Lucifer, then free will cannot be a satisfactory response to the problem of evil. Even eating an apple produces disorder/waste/ entrophy.” I would like to know what was in his mind when writing this. Could he please expand on it? Signed: A reader of “On Target” and a ‘Bible fist-thumping, has-been-fundamentalist.’

*Below is the article the writer referred to, repeated for easy reference in this edition of OT.

DOCTOR GEOFFREY DOBBS ON “SPECIAL CREATION”

by Peter West 

Earlier this year I was taken to task for a book review which I did (published just before Easter) which mentioned archaeological evidence challenging the historicity of the Old Testament. I was criticised by many folk for such a review, as if the quest for seeking the Truth should be suppressed if our own beliefs (if they are our “own” own beliefs) are challenged. In, I think, unpublished replies, I argued that a strictly literalist/fundamentalist viewpoint from, say Genesis, ran into problems if evolution is true in some shape or form (not necessarily Darwinian selection of random genetic mutations).

The problem is that of evil: if death and entropy (even of physical matter via the second law of thermodynamics) predated the Fall, of both man and Lucifer, then free will cannot be a satisfactory response to the problem of evil. Even eating an apple produces disorder/waste/ entrophy.

I have recently read Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs’ paper “Religation”. Dr. Dobbs is one of the respected intellectuals of this movement while I am but a minor contributory. I note with interest on the point of our debate his words: 
“Meanwhile, the idea of Creation had become identified with a shaman-like process of instant verbal magic, under the terms ‘Special Creation’, in which one recognises what has been called ‘the technique of the essential adjective’. For differentiation is necessarily of the essence of creation, which can mean only that every creature must be ‘special’ - of distinctive character and marked off by distinguishing features - so that ‘Special Creation’ is a tautology meaning no more than ‘Creation’ if taken literally. But when this term is applied to a childish conception of the Creation based upon the literal interpretation of the words of Genesis, which is then superseded by a more mature conception involving time and continuity, it is not only the idea of conjuring into existence by verbal edict which is discredited, but to some extent also the idea of Creation and of a Creator altogether, in so far as the verbal situation is not consciously analysed.

Thus, what for some was the greatest enlargement and enrichment of the idea of the Creator for centuries, for others was the greatest retreat in history. For if ‘Creation’ is taken to mean that all species were brought into existence and fixed for ever by divine edict in 4004 B.C., which we can now see to be manifestly untrue, then ‘Creation’ ceases to be credible, and we must seek another religion. For many scientists this religion has been achieved not only by substituting the fascinating and awe-inspiring impersonal process of evolution for the Creator, but further, since this process is held to culminate in Man, by substituting Man, or the Mystical Lump of Mankind, for God, as the Supreme Being of the Universe.”

In other words, literalism, dogmatically held to, has contributed itself, Dobbs seems to be saying, to an intellectual discrediting of the Christian account of Creation, something which atheistic humanism and liberalism of all shapes and ugly forms has capitalised on. This weakness has also enabled the growth of evolution into a religion of its own, a form of atheistic-materialist dogma, Dr. Dobbs describes.

Equally of interest Dr. Dobbs is critical of the cult of mathematicising the world and society, attempting to capture reality by mathematical models. “The trouble is, of course, that mathematical processes need have no relation to reality”. Perhaps climate science and economics best illustrate this, where so-called computer models spin out all sorts of nonsense, without empirical/experimental verification. Science too, may have gone the way of literalism. (Original https://alor.org/Volume50/Vol50No45.htm#1a)

THE SUPER-ULTIMATE PROBLEM OF EVIL by Peter West

Peter West’s response: A reader has asked me to say something more on a remark that I made in an On Target article about the theological problem of evil and the second law of thermodynamics. The problem is that if the world was created with the existence of the entropy law before the Fall, then it seems that evil and disorder pre-existed the Fall. The entropy law, the most basic law of physics says that closed systems (those without energy added) tend to disorder. Most systems have energy added to them, such as the Earth getting solar energy from the sun. But the system of Sun/Earth is therefore tending to greater disorder and ultimate disintegration. If the second law of thermodynamics did not operate before the Fall, then there is another problem. The arrow of time, Time’s direction is dependent upon it, as we don’t conceive of burnt cigarettes suddenly reconstituting themselves.

Hence there is a natural science problem of evil that is seldom discussed by theologians. The idea that the Fall led to a radical change in the laws of physics seems to be the only reasonable response.

MADE IN AUSTRALIA CAMPAIGN from Kenneth Grundy

Response to Government Inquiry into Country of Origin Food Labelling Report: November 2014:
My first reaction was positive because a number of key complaints were identified and promoted by those appearing before the Committee.

The message repeated throughout the report is one of being aware of International and Trade Agreements and how these provisions impact on Australia establishing rules which might best fit the wishes of our consumers. It is abundantly clear that Australian negotiators have committed us to a multitude of restrictions over a number of years. They have been asleep at the wheel.

Despite the above, and I will return to this matter, the committee have made progress on the matter which concerns most consumers who either have a loyalty to Australian producers and/or seek an item which has special country of origin quality.

Comment on the recommendations:

1. Regarding the first recommendation, I feel the “Grown in”, “Product of” etc are meaningful. The fourth dot point could be unclear where the ‘country’ is not Australia. eg If it read “Made in Italy from mostly local ingredients – more than 50% Australian content”. It would not make sense. It looks as though the wording can only apply when the ‘country’ is Australia. I am sure that was the intention.

2. The second recommendation needs teeth - it is too weak. To recommend amending the code to allow for label details to be increased in size is insufficient. Replace allow with require.

3. Similarly, the third recommendation seeks an increase in scrutiny over symbols etc. Would the scrutiny lead to positive action or be filed away in some report?

4. Recommendation 6 wins little support because consumers do not wish to carry gadgets to scan bar codes for information. Keep it simple; write the information large enough in a prominent position and everyone will be able to access it. Committee remarks as per item 4.59 and 4.60 form the nub of the problem and must not be lost sight of in the resolution.

Section 5: International and Trade Obligations, leads me to return to my earlier point. It is a shocking admission when we as a sovereign nation have difficulty establishing laws which our own citizens desire, all because of a Clause in an Agreement to which we have previously committed. We can look back in amazement at naïve negotiators who sold out our rights to self-determination. Even more amazing is the fact that the same errors are being made this very day as the Trade Agreement with China is due for signature. The same Clause is present and it will prevent Australia making any changes to domestic laws (which we want) because those changes will trigger the foreign power’s right to sue our Government for loss of income due to the changes. When will we learn?

In the Section 5 on GATT there is reference to us not being able to establish an unfair advantage over imports. I do not believe that has ever been the intention. All we want is a fair go for our product. We do not want the imports to have an unfair advantage! Many of the Agreements seem to favour the foreign nations more than us. I refer to the Trade Agreement with Thailand where it permitted cars to enter Australia more cheaply and yet when our Ford Territory was exported to Thailand it attracted such a huge barrier that no sales could be made. Hardly a “Fair” agreement!

It was heartening to read in 5.8 that Mr Kewalram considered “there is no issue with the concept that (country of origin labelling) is entirely consistent with our Trade Agreements”. If he is correct, it seems we have no problem in establishing labels as we wish! Similarly 5.14 reveals that WTO rules on origin have yet to reach agreement. Take the opportunity to act now in a full and meaningful way.

The Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA) needs attention because of the confusion and perceived deception of food sourced from third countries being processed in NZ and labelled for export to Australia with label wording like “Product of NZ”. In summary, I confirm that some headway has been achieved and this is appreciated. However more needs to be done. Test the legalities of Agreements to the limit and if necessary withdraw or amend them.

An opinion I have had for some time has been confirmed in the report. It is regretfully, that Australia is a very weak negotiator on the international stage. Can I expect any change? Made in Australia Campaign www.madeinaustraliacampaign.net
Ken Grundy, Naracoorte SA 5271