THE SABOTAGE OF AUSTRALIA'S INDUSTRIAL BASE

The Australian Federation came into existence early this century on a strong nationalist note. "Australia for the Australians" was the dominant theme. The concept of cheap coloured labour, strongly supported by some, was firmly rejected. Unlike what had happened in other parts of the world, including Fiji, cheap coloured labour, whether from India or the Pacific Islands, was rejected. Europeans demonstrated that they were capable of developing the tropics without importing the type of problem, which developed in Natal, South Africa, Fiji, the United States and the West Indies. The Kanakas were sent back to their island homes.

Associated with this policy was one of protection for developing secondary industries. The overall objective was one of economic nationalism. Early this century Australians, with only a fraction of the present population, enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world. Generally speaking, the policy of economic nationalism, with adequate protection for Australia's secondary industries, vastly expanded as a result of the Second World War, was continued into the post Second World War period. The Chifley Labor Government gave its blessing to the establishment of an Australian car manufacturing industry.

Compared with what is happening now, Australia was a stable and prosperous nation until the election of the Whitlam Fabians in 1972. With all the problems, including continuous inflation, the young coming out of school had relatively little difficulty in finding a place in industry. The Menzies Government was nearly thrown out of office in 1961 when it applied a "credit squeeze" which resulted in a level of unemployment only a fraction of what has been created today. Many people have been conditioned to accept in 1992 what would have produced a national uproar 20 years ago.

The present high unemployment figure in Australia is a result of a deliberate strategy to "re-structure" the Australian economy in order to fit it into the New International Economic Order. The closing of the Nissan car factory in Victoria, with the headlines proclaiming an increase in the unemployment casualty lists by 1,800, is merely the latest manifestation of the "re-structuring" programme. The total job loss from the Nissan closing will escalate into many thousands as the effects spread to contractors and firms producing spare parts.
Historically, Victoria has been the industrial heartland of Australia. But the "re-structuring" programme, along with the depression "we had to have", has devastated that heartland. A long list of industrial casualties could be listed. But the human cost has also been enormous.

The Australian Chamber of Manufactures paints a dismal picture of what is happening, stating that confidence is at "rock bottom." Mr. Bert Evans, Chief Executive of the Metal Trades Industry Association, which represents 7,000 manufacturers across Australia, points out that while M.T.I. members employed 620,000 in 1974, today they employ 400,000. "Those numbers ought to tell you something," he says. Mr. Evans makes the revealing comment, "Of course, we will still have a manufacturing industry, but it will probably be based in South East Asia."

While the Keating Government pushes ruthlessly ahead with its programme for "internationalising" the Australian economy, progressively eliminating all forms of protection, while mouthing platitudes about "level playing fields", countries like Thailand and Malaysia seek to develop industries behind high tariff barriers. Australian firms moving to re-locate themselves in South East Asian countries not only enjoy tariff protection, but are given tax and other concessions.

Unless the programme of "re-structuring" is reversed before long, Australia will have no textile industries at all by the end of the century. Australian textile manufacturers point out that irrespective of the sophistication of the technology they use, they are unable to compete against Asian production with much cheaper labour and less government charges.

The tragedy of what is happening is not going to be reversed by the election of Dr. John Hewson to replace Mr. Paul Keating. Dr. Hewson subscribes to the same philosophy of internationalisation. It is becoming clear that Dr. Hewson's proposed contribution to the "re-structuring" of Australia, not only via his Goods and Services Tax, but with his programme for Australian workers, could result in open violence.

Under the Labor programme, real wages in Australia have been progressively forced down. Labor Governments have been able to achieve what will be much more difficult for a Liberal Government. Australia is now entering the most perilous period in its relatively short history. The nation is practically defenceless. Young Australians are being offered little or no hope in the future. Even those who in desperation are turning to the army as one means of obtaining an income and learning some skills or trades are being turned away. Why? Because of the financial policies being imposed from Canberra.
Hopefully, a few genuine patriots can be elected to Canberra before the nation's decline becomes terminal. The noisy minority shouting for a Republic at this critical time are treacherous in more ways than one, as they completely ignore how Australia's sovereignty is being eroded by the internationalists.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Public outrage in Western Australia has resulted in the Lawrence State Labor Government taking action to try to cope with a wave of juvenile crime which has resulted in a number of deaths. But Premier Dr. Carmen Lawrence has run into a storm of orchestrated opposition from a number of groups, with Aboriginal activists claiming that the legislation, although aimed at only 2 percent of the State's juvenile offenders, will result in 70 percent of those sent to prison being Aborigines. But this only reflects the reality that Aboriginal youths in Western Australia are 33 times more likely to go to prison than others. Instead of facing this reality, the equalitarian theorists shout about "discrimination."

While Dr. Lawrence has both community and parliamentary backing, she is threatened with opposition from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which claims she is violating a U.N. Convention. The Western Australian Premier has responded with the comment that "The claims by the Human Rights Commissioner that the U.N. conventions provide balanced protection for victims and potential victims of crime are frankly unconvincing. In the light of the deficiency in the U.N. guidelines, the Government has had to apply its own judgment to balance the protection of the public against the well-being of these serious and dangerous offenders."

Dr. Lawrence has made the telling point that "We've ... been cognisant of the need to respect our international obligations, but we've also noticed that those obligations don't often extend to a protection of victims."

At least one major paper, the Herald-Sun, Melbourne, of February 10th, has drawn attention to the significance of the West Australian legislation: "If Australians, as citizens of a sovereign nation, want to cry 'enough' to lawlessness, it should be no business whatsoever of the United Nations." To which we say "Amen", and urge all readers to organise every possible support for Dr. Lawrence, who has done the whole nation a great service by demonstrating how U.N. conventions are a threat to Australia's sovereignty.

GOVERNMENT WARNED ON POPULATION DANGER

An article in The Age (Melbourne), February 3rd, carried a report of the final report of the National Population Council on "Population Issues and Australia's Future". There are more important issues in population than the emotive issue of Australia's immigration level. The National Population Council believes that "on balance" immigration benefited the economy (it did not say the nation ... O.T.). The optimum level at any one time depended upon many factors. No numbers were advanced on appropriate population levels. The Council urged the Government to upgrade and generally improve the infrastructures necessary to support an increased population.
What are they? Really, they are too numerous to mention: roads, public transport, schools, hospitals emergency services (ambulance, fire control services, police, teachers, and so on, and so on). All this means money; and lots of it. What is happening to these services we have NOW? That's right; they are contracting, and deteriorating in quality!

If immigration continues at the present levels, then Sydney, for example, will most probably have a population close to 5 million, Melbourne 3.6 million, over the next 20 years. Note this please: The National Population Council observes that: "Australia's immediate region is a source of population movement"…"for Australia major efforts will be required to preserve national sovereignty over determination of residence in the country". To us, this clearly means that we probably won't be able to control who comes into our country, and in what numbers! It's The Camp of the Saints, all over again, in the Southern Hemisphere.

DESTROYING BRITAIN'S SOCIAL COHESION

The following notes are taken from the Newsletter of The Bruges Group (Issue No.7, September 15th, 1991). The Bruges Group Newsletter is published by The Bruges Group (U.K.), which is opposed to Britain's entry into Europe. Honorary President is The Rt. Hon. Margaret Thatcher, O.M., F.R.S., M.P.

"Learning to live with an external source of legislative authority will divide the political, cultural, and social cohesion of our country. In the long term I do not fear a European federation because ultimately it can never work, and it is this certainty, which should give all men of Bruges the conviction to pursue our campaign to its logical conclusion.
But I am worried about the effects on Britain of this debate in terms of the integrity of our political culture, and our respect for each other's democratic liberties as British subjects, regardless of class, religion, or ideology.

Classic Divide and Rule
"To understand why the Treaty of Rome is so divisive - which, classically, explains its success as an organ of power - we have to look at what makes it up: a combination of national chauvinism and high blown idealism. Chauvinism attracts national politicians to the possibility, via the European Community, of interfering in the affairs of other countries.

The mechanism is simple: propel to European level a question - whether it be agriculture, energy, trade or monetary affairs - which was previously in the domain of national governments, in such a way as to secure a 'common' policy which in reality reflects the national policies of is sponsors, usually a minority of two or three of the larger countries.

"High blown idealism is brought in to play to justify establishing 'European' policies in the face of overwhelming technical evidence that such-and-such a policy would in fact be better managed at national level; the need to be 'more united', establish a 'European identity', 'speak with one voice', 'protect minorities', and other such bumper sticker platitudes as are the truisms of modern day Europe. These emotional calls for European cultural and political unity flatter the sensibilities of well-meaning, chattering classes, who, with the wholesale discrediting of socialism have deftly transferred their allegiance to European federalism as a way of expressing their desire to 'do good'.

"Well, they are not, and it will emphatically not take as long to discredit federalism as it took to undo communism. There is nothing 'good' about Europe making a mess of G.A.T.T. thereby threatening the future prosperity of the whole world. There is nothing idealistic about Europe causing the death of hundreds of Croats because of an ill-judged policy to deal with a unified Yugoslav government. And there is certainly nothing intelligent or desirable about a Common Agricultural Policy.

"If it were to run through the other policies which the Luxembourg Draft Treaty proposes to make European we would see that they too, in the long term, are highly damaging to all of Europe. But at times it seems if we have actually got to suffer the effects of a Europe wide monetary policy, or an identical social policy for 340 million people, or a foreign policy of the most neutering lowest common denominator, before people wake up to the damage Europeans are doing to themselves.

"This is not a digression from the theme of this article, the social divisiveness of the Treaty of Rome, because to fight it we must try to understand how it works and what motivates it. The fact is that an entirely new equation has been brought into our national life. Today Conservative and Labour voters not only disagree about how to run the country, they also quarrel about who is going to run it -London or Brussels.

"The time when a Conservative could say to a socialist, 'Right, you want a Social Charter, do it if you get elected', has passed. Europe will now provide it, regardless of the political complexion of our government. And the Labour Party is too greedy for power to care where the democratic authority rests. But many Conservatives play the same game.
When we joined the E.R.M. one of the secret satisfactions of many right-wingers was that this system would prevent a future Labour government from inflating itself out of trouble, and into deeper trouble. This may or may not be true, but where is the discipline to do things ourselves?

Ignoring the Political Implications
"The problem is that this sort of Treaty of Rome inspired opportunism - which plays right into the hands of the central, federalist, source of authority - is now very widespread. The business community is split between those who are being crucified by E.R.M. - forced high interest rates and others who reckon they can make a fast buck on a single European currency. Typically, they have no consideration for the political implications of either.

"Similarly, the traditional working classes of Britain are divided into those who see Europe as the provider of social rights (and cash) and others, like Dennis Skinner, who still believe it is a capitalist conspiracy. Environmental lobbies, educational lobbies, animal welfare lobbies - just about every interest group you can imagine - has an active European programme to bring into Britain something 'better' from Europe, by which they invariably mean Germany because they have no conception of the reality of a Europe including Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain.

"And every lobby is split, as is our class system and social structure, between those who for their own specific purposes support the authority of Europe, and those who on principle do not. Who is more noble, do you think, the true democrat who draws his own and his opponents legitimacy from the Queen in parliament, or the opportunist who grabs what he can from Brussels without a care for the consequences of his actions?"

The address of The Bruges Group is - "Suite 102, Whitehall Court, Westminster, London, SWlA2EI, U.K." The "opposing" organisation is the European Movement (U.K.). We can quote in part from their policy sheet, British Policy and European Union. They are just what you would expect:

"By the end of this year (1991), the governments of the 12 member states aim to agree to reforms to transform the European Community into a European Union in the 1990s. The key reforms should be:
"1. Economic and monetary union with a single currency and central bank.
"2. Common foreign and security policy, decided through the Community's institutions.
"3. Power for the European Parliament to legislate jointly with the Council of Ministers."

There is much more, in the same vein. Please note well the policy statement below:
"The traditional concept of national sovereignty can no longer serve the interests of the people of Britain or of other member states."