THE GREEN 'MENACE'

"I speak of the green menace, which threatens now to do what 200 years of idiot trade unionism, exaggerated industrial protectionism, bigoted immigration policies and isolation from major markets have never been able to do - destroy the Australian economy. Greg Sheridan, in The Weekend Australian, October l4th-l5th.

Mr. Sheridan is a "mixed bag" to us: sometimes we find ourselves strongly in agreement with his views; at other times the reverse. We most certainly disagree with his views on Immigration; we agreed fully with his views on the breakdown of our education systems, expressed by him some few years ago. We agree with him now, on the "Green Menace". Thank heaven some journalist of note has sounded the alarm.

Described as "wowser greens", because of their "green" bigotry (intolerant of and hostile to, the opposing views of others), they indulge in, well, vandalism (harassing timber workers and truck drivers, invading military bases). What of the two major "green victories" of recent days; viz the blocking of the paper mill in Tasmania and the mine at Coronation Hill (Kakadu). No less paper will be produced, and the mine's extent would have been one square kilometer out of 25,000. Mr. Sheridan makes a good point: i.e. Australians disapprove of people/movements that grow too big for their boots. They like to see the "tall poppies" get their heads lopped off. It may be "astonishing" to Mr. Sheridan that Prime Minister Hawke spent some 90 minutes on the phone to the chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, yet could not take a call from Sir Arvi Parbo Chairman of B.H.P., who came up from nothing as a migrant from Estonia.

It is not astonishing to us. Indeed, it is what we would expect of Mr. Hawke. Reason? How many votes does Sir Arvi Parbo influence? How many "green" votes does the Australian Conservation Foundation influence? The next Federal election will be won or lost on the "green" preferences: so says Senator Graham Richardson, and we agree with him. Yes, we can foresee a scenario in which the broad Australian electorate "turns on" the greens over some issues. It may well be that the greens will adopt an anti-Immigration stance, seeing it (Immigration) as some form of "danger" to the traditional Australian environment, and this will throw the "green" cat among the political pigeons. A backlash against the greens is eventually likely.

POLITICALLY SMART TAX PROPOSALS

The Opposition's long awaited tax proposals are designed to carry the Opposition parties to government at the next Federal Elections. From a political point of view, they could prove winners. There will, of course, be much wailing from the welfare lobby groups, but middle Australia, offered some financial relief, however small, is not overly concerned about a cut in foreign aid or a reduction in the massive budget for the Aboriginal Affairs Department.
As the Rev. Cedric Jacobs and other Aboriginal spokesmen have been stressing, most of the tax dollars paid to the Aboriginal Affairs Department, do not reach the Aboriginal people.

By projecting itself as the party concerned about the traditional Australian family, the Liberal Party may at last start to score some political points. But the Opposition still has to overcome the widespread cynicism in the electorate. "Can you trust any of the major parties to keep even constructive promises?" is the question often asked. Andrew Peacock does not inspire the great majority of Australians. But, nevertheless, what is offered may prove just sufficient to overcome what is emerging as a major factor in the battle for the next elections: the ''green'' issue.

Labor strategists concede that their primary vote may well be down, but that they will obtain sufficient of the "green" preferences to hold on to office. One thing is now almost certain: there will be no early election. The Opposition now has some kind of initiative. But it is clear from what Andrew Peacock and his colleagues are saying, they have no solution to the basic finance economic problems confronting the nation. By inference they generally accept the broad thrust of the Hawke-Keating strategy.

Talk about the possibility of lower interest rates is wishful thinking, as is talk about a reduction in the inflation rate. The economic clime is going to become progressively more bleak next year and we still feel that it will be disastrous if the Opposition is elected and then fails dismally to cope with an explosive situation. Hawke should be kept there, with a small majority, to "face the music". With of course, a hostile Senate.

UNITING CHURCH 'KNOCKS' THE LEAGUE

Yet another half baked attempt to condemn the League has been drawn to our attention. This time it is the Social Responsibility Section of the Uniting Church's Queensland Synod. In a brochure titled "Christian Perspectives" under the heading "Logos & the League: Are They Conservatives?" it appears that Uniting Church Minister Rev. Dr. John K. Williams is quoted extensively. The brochure makes the point that: "Many groups who claim to be Christian Conservatives are not. Rather, they are committed to replacing all traditional forms of democracy with a radically different system of authoritarian rule. These groups include the League of Rights, the Logos Foundation, and the new religious right." No evidence is offered, no examples given, no sources quoted.

On the League of Rights, the brochure apparently quotes Rev. Williams: "…it is a 'social and political movement based on the economic theory of 'Social Credit' as espoused (in the 1930s) by the English (sic.) theorist, C.H. Douglas'. Senator Ron Boswell ... described its philosophy in Federal Parliament in April, 1988: "Simply put, it states that if only governments would print more money and lend it at token rates of interest, then all problems would be solved and everyone could return to living in utopia" . . . The League denies that the Holocaust took place, blaming instead, a typhus plague for the extermination of six million Jews . . . The League of Rights, although it claims to be Christian, has ideological and historical roots in the classical Fascism of the 1920s and 1930s...

ONE WORLD OR NONE CAMPAIGN

We have reported previously on this amazing campaign. We now suggest that it is time for actionists to begin asking searching questions about it. In particular, churches and church aid bodies should be questioned about "A Campaign for Global Change", which is run by the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. The main question to ask: Where is the money coming from to run this campaign?

YOUR KIDS ARE THE TARGET
The September/October Bulletin for the One World or None Campaign for Global Change makes it clear that children should be encouraged to be involved. For example, a new primary schools magazine "Kids Contact" deals with the environment in its first issue. The high school magazine "Youth power" is publishing a broadsheet: "For Young People Today Its One World Or None" in the September edition, and Teachers For One World are publishing complimentary teachers' notes. Check your schools; ask for information.

ONE WORLD DECLARATION
This is a petition to be presented to M.P's on 16th October. The abovementioned Campaign Bulletin includes an insert listing coordinators in each Commonwealth electorate who will collect and present the petitions. We have received reports that some of those on the list have later been astonished to find out what they have let themselves in for!

ARE THE POLITICIANS INVOLVED?
One section of the Bulletin's very efficient action programme suggests that One World Campaigners write to the P.M. and Minister for Foreign Affairs, urging them to implement the One World Declaration, which calls for international disarmament, increased third world aid, and a "restructuring of the global economy" (i.e. a new international economic order). However, we are informed that Senator Gareth Evans' Department of Foreign Affairs provided an initial $1 million to get this One World or None campaign up and running. Is this true?

THE CHURCHES ARE ALSO TARGETS
The Campaign Bulletin also informs us that liturgical material for churches will be available by the National Day of Action - October 16th. The Uniting Church, through the Australian Council of Churches and Australian Catholic Relief, have already been making parish kits available, since One World Week in August. It is interesting to note that the coordinator for the One World Declaration in the New England electorate is a David Brown, of the Tamworth Uniting Church. Rev. David Brown was the clergyman who rang the A.B.C. in Tamworth in high dudgeon to take Rev. Cedric Jacobs to task after Cedric's Armidale meeting. Rev. Brown made the point that the Uniting Church supports multiculturalism.

CHECK YOUR SURVEY RIGHTS