Maurice newman explains Labor

ALP's entitlement society must be transformed under the Coalition

by Maurice Newman

The Australian March 25, 2013

IT is not being partisan to say that since 2007 successive Labor
governments have shifted Australia's economic and social compass sharply
to the Left. With surprising speed, taking full advantage of unforeseen
events, Labor has managed to give voice to those progressive elites and
rent-seekers the fiscally conservative John Howard had frustrated for
11 long years

Read more: Via The Australian 


Primum-vultus-post-nosThe past fortnight has seen amazing developments in the United States.

The Internal Revenue Service has been monitoring and targeting the financial transactions of organizations which are conservative or connected to the Tea Party movement.

Was this over-diligence? Or was it a case of deliberate political profiling in order to harass, intimidate or disadvantage these organisations? It raises serious questions about the nature of the civil service; and just who is it meant to be serving.

Australia does not have the same tradition as the United States where the election of a president from the opposing political view results in a complete replacement of the upper echelons of the civil service so that the new administration properly reflects the political viewpoints of the new presidency. Australia’s Public Service follows the British model of a supposedly politically neutral Public Service, dedicated to implementing the policies of the elected government of the day.

This leads to ask some questions about possible political bias in Australia’s Public Service.

Australia would have to be the only country in the world where there are so many bureaucrats that they have their own Territory – and they even have their own government. Not only is this the case, but they seem to have spawned nests and colonies in every other state and territory. There are levels of government and regulation at the Federal, State, Local Government and Municipal levels in every state and territory. This is a stultifying level of bureaucracy for such a small population.

There is a huge cohort of potentially productive and intelligent labour which is engaged in the micro-management of unproductive and unintelligent processes. It is often hard to remember that the Public Service is there to serve the public, and not the other way round.

What, then, is the political colour of this bureaucracy? In fact does it have a political colour at all? Or is it a neutral and dispassionate instrument created for the benefit of the voter, taxpayer and ordinary citizen, as it is expected to be?

It is instructive to look at the educational background of this grouping. Fortunately they are mostly located in the same place, which makes this superficial analysis easier than would otherwise be the case.

The Australian public service actively recruits graduates through its cadetship programs, and the statistics show that these employees are overwhelmingly arts, law and social science graduates; less than 10% of these graduates have science or engineering degrees. What is not in dispute is that the arts, social science, and law faculties at Australian universities provide lecturers whose political views are overwhelmingly left-wing, and students whose views are overwhelmingly aligned with those of their lecturers. It is no accident that left-wing causes and student unions at all Australian universities are more actively populated by students who mostly come from these faculties.

When it comes to the politics of the ACT, the political left is located between the Labour, Green and Independent voters. In the 2012 elections, these three groups polled over 121 000 votes out of 229 000. This gives the left a substantial majority.

A bureaucracy develops a culture of dependency. It is clear to a bureaucrat that their job is dependent upon the good offices of the government which brought it into existence; so it is unlikely, for instance, that those working in the new super-department which contains the former Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency would be likely to vote themselves out of a job.

What is anecdotally clear is that when there is a change of government from Left to Right, there is often an institutional inertia in the Public Service when it comes to the implementation of policy decisions which are at variance with a left-wing social agenda. The number of draft papers, documents and policy discussion papers which are leaked from the Public Service to the press at such times is consistently and substantially higher than when the political pendulum swings the other way.

Does this mean that we can’t trust the Public Service? To answer the question definitively would mean weeks of research and access to detailed statistics carefully derived from relevant data. In the meantime, they bear watching.

Frankly, it’s not looking good.

[Graphics guy, determined to show the world that he is not just a techie, has imported latin into his image. This has caused delay while the staff tried to work out whether it was rude, immoral, blasphemous or not politically correct. In fact, the words stand for "Looking after ourselves first."]

(Name provided but withheld)

Disabled Veterans prove you just can’t trust them!

A. Essery

Allan’s continuous support for veterans casts a dark shadow
of shame upon this Labor government. Considering
savage budget cuts to the Australian Defence Forces and the disgraceful
treatment of war veterans It is obvious to all that the Gillard regime harbours a deep resentment toward
our armed forces.

With punitive actions as such described herein Australia will soon find that there are insufficient enlistments to protect the nation. GC.Ed@L.

During Julia Gillard’s recent week long crusade into the supposed Labor heartland of Western Sydney she was confronted by a group of Veteran’s representatives wanting to know why a fair go in regard to the indexation of their superannuation was being dismissed by her Government.  She ignored them, refused to talk to them in public and breezed past them as if they were lepers.  Later and probably after being told by her advisors that her ignorance could have undesirable results at the ballot box, she promised to meet with them personally.

Another broken promise,  another insult.  She didn’t turn up!!!  Instead she sent along one of her ‘senior advisors’ to say that she was just too busy.  The advisor advised that there would be no decision made on the matter of ex-service superannuation because the associated costs had not yet been finalised.  Not finalised??  This recalcitrant Government has had five years to get the funding organised and they are still using it as an excuse.  They just don’t intend to honour their contracted debt to Veterans.

Now, to add further insult to injury, this miserable Government is ignoring the injustice of their surreptitiously passing legislation denying disabled Veterans the right to have their pensions indexed in the same way as Aged and Disability Pensioners who are on Centrelink pensions.

Let us understand that we are not talking about the army of supposedly disabled who are quite able to work but wont and are sucking our welfare system dry, we are talking about disabled Veterans who went to war for this country and were disabled to the point that they could not and can not do a fair days work for a fair days pay as a result of their incapacities.

I will not bore you with numbers and percentages, but simply say that any parity that existed between Veterans disability payments and those payments made to welfare recipients was lost in 2009.   As a consequence of the review by Dr Jeffrey Harmer into ‘The Reform Of More Secure And Sustainable Pensions’ or ‘The Harmer Review’ Veteran’s disability pensions were deliberately excluded from the review.  This omission occurred despite assurances from the then Minister of Veteran’s Affairs Alan Griffith, Treasurer Wayne Swan and the ‘Minister For Everything Else’ including Disability Reform Jenny Macklin that Veteran’s disability pensions would be included in the Harmer Report.

An oversight you may say. No, it was no oversight, it was the intention of a specific clause inserted into the Veteran’s Entitlement Act Amendment Bill by the Government to circumvent the parity established by the 2007 legislation and so prevented the increases recommended by the Harmer Report from flowing through to disabled Veterans.

The Government adopted Harmer’s recommendations that to maintain the relationship with wage levels pensions needed to be increased by 2.7% of the MTAWE.  Department of Veterans Affairs disability pensions remained, and continue, to be based upon the original 25% of MTAWE and the recommendation to increase Veteran’s disability pensions annually by 2.7% above the MTAWE was deliberately ignored.

This is and remains a blatant and deliberate act of discrimination against disabled Veteran’s.

Every year the increase of 2.7% that Veterans have been denied amounts to a loss of approximately $3,300 to those TPI or Special Rate disability pensioners and approximately $1,200 to the all of the General Rate Pensioners, while all other Veteran’s disability pensions also suffer on a pro-rata basis.

While the Government cries poor and claims that it cannot afford to pay ex-servicemen and women at their contracted pension rate they do make sure that they themselves are adequately looked after from the ‘Golden Pig Trough’ of the public purse. 

A change of government in September will see Labor politicians retire on exceedingly generous packages that they gave to themselves;  Gillard $177,520 p.a. or a lump sum of $5.33m, Swan $168,106 p.a. or a lump sum of $5.04m, Conroy $152,189 or a lump sum $4.57m, Smith $154,530 or a lump sum $4.64m and so on while ex-service personnel struggle by on pensions up to as much as $27,000 p.a. with lump sums up to $810,000.

The bottom line is that those who put on the uniform of this country’s armed services and went to war only to be disabled in one form or another have then been ignored, disrespected and shabbily treated by a dishonourable excuse for a Government.

Alan is an ex-RAAF officer retired from active duty. He was a flight instructor and charter pilot. He also writes on matters political and is a staunch battler for ex-service superannuants. He is also rumoured to be a savvy fossicker for the yellow stuff.

Politics defined and reviled

New MH2


From which to choose? For whom to vote?

Two musty old parties that boredom and disinterest has rendered indistinguishable in many ways. Such is the sorry state of politics in Australia caused by what is essentially a two-horse race. Horses too haggard for the glue factory.

The remedy is simple but to date unachievable. A few parties have tried to break the vice-like grip held on the levers of power so long held by the Labor and Liberal duo. The Democrats, One Nation, and the Greens were the more recent contenders, only the Greens have survived—for now—for what?

The two major parties are like old furniture, they don’t take kindly to being moved or threatened by an interloper to their patch. In fact, Labor/Liberal, supposed political enemies by nature, will unite in villainy should their positions be threatened by an outsider. Their sense of entitlement has become a genetic imprint.

This assumed inheritance is also a savagely protected right to the taxpayers’ purse and the only change tolerated, reluctantly, is a parliamentary swap from one side of the house to the other. Either way, salaries, pensions, and perks are assured.

Should a third party manage to dislodge one or the other “born to rule” parties, the vanquished, Labor or Liberal, would be walking the streets begging a job. Such a prospect cements an otherwise unlikely alliance. The Democrats and One Nation discovered that a decade ago.

Archived are the days when politicians actually won office through their forthright explanation of policy, oratory skills, charisma and character of decency.

Today, we ask, “Who will win the election?” Political parties, and candidates haven’t actually “won” elections for decades. The prize of government has become an award by default. For example, at time of writing in the Abbot/Gillard contest the Coalition can take government of the day by saying and doing nothing between now, and polling day. With no third party threat, forget the Greens, we have their measure; Labor will be voted “out” for unprecedented incompetence.

That means the Coalition “wins” you say. I say not! If a boxer stands in centre ring, gives himself a knockout uppercut, and goes down for the count, did his opponent exact the “win” through skill, substance, or popularity? No!

A political career was once a noble pursuit, a sacrifice of commercial aspirations to become a servant of the people. That’s how it was. Their success was a mix of professions, trades, and experiences in life. In an atmosphere where members with sworn oath in mind worked tirelessly to formulate policy, they steered the nation to measured prosperity—and it was never overtly for the money—not so today.

Anyone can become a politician and take charge of Australia’s $1.5 trillion economy. There is no licence, certificate, degree, diploma or common sense required. A hairdresser, a mechanic, or a plumber must have a licence to work. A certificate is required to make bloody sandwiches for emergency volunteers working in the field. If a mechanic misses something in a 15 minute rego check he can lose that licence. But a politician can implement a policy that causes death, (pink bats) and financial disasters (live stock export) and nothing happens. Talk is all you need to run Australia. The ability to lie and avoid questions is ministerial qualification enough—even for the highest post.

There has been much in media recently lamenting the lack of respect for politicians, especially the office of prime minister. Do they need to be told why? Politicians of yesterday were, by and large, considered intelligent. They also received respect as an Officer of the Crown. The political pond had yet to become a cesspool. 

No longer do political combatants prosecute their policies with truth and substance. No longer are speeches delivered without notes in statesman-like manner. Speechwriters and spin-doctors now craft instruments of obfuscation, and illiterate ramblings of invented language designed to confuse—or impress. Kevin Rudd’s, “…detailed programmatic specificity,” for example.

Both major parties have lost their way, governing is now a tedium along the path to re-election. Policies hatched by the incompetent fail before implementation. Various illegal immigrant policies, the NBN, the Building Education Revolution, Media control and vilification laws, the list is long.

Political pundits remark that fundamental differences between Labor and Liberal have narrowed to where many voters have lost interest in politics and were it not for punishment under law they would not vote at all. If ballot papers included the option of not giving any party their vote, politicians might smarten up. The loss of millions of dollars in electoral funding would be strong incentive.

Until a viable third party surfaces that will stamp their foot and pledge to ignore the PC pests and address the solid issues that worry voters; until a party vows to protect and govern Australia for Australians, and until Australian voters are prepared to take a chance and give them their primary vote, this disgusting circus of incompetent, abusive politics can only worsen.

Politicians have reversed their mandate. They now serve their party, themselves, and to hell with constituents.

Charge of the Crean brigade

New MH2


It was déjà vu as the parliamentary circus unfolded last Thursday. Simon Crean’s move to be “circuit breaker” might have been magnanimous had he not finished up electrocuting himself and is now a discharged capacitor on the back-bench—a lifetime of dedicated Labor service evaporated like ozone.

Images of the Western Front came to mind where soldiers were massed in the trenches, ready to pour over the top into no-man’s-land to face the deadly rake from enemy fire.

There stood Captain Crean amidst the smoke and noise yelling, “follow me men, let’s charge to Labor glory” But, glancing over his shoulder not a man followed, they remained, cowering in safety.

Armed only with his tin whistle, and felled by a barrage of lead, Simon’s last words: “you bastard Kevin.”

And so went a day of Australian politics that ricocheted around the world.

The UK Telegraph: “The Australian Labor Party is surely one of the world’s most dysfunctional political organisations…Down under, the process of changing leader is called a ‘spill’ and the Labor Party manage to switch their main cast with a regularity rarely found outside of television soaps.”

The Toronto Globe and Mail Editor’s Pick: “My boyfriend wants to take erectile dysfunction medication to enhance his performance. Why would he want to do that?” No interest there!

This from The New York Times: “…But the day of high political drama gave rise to serious questions about what impact the spectacle would have on Labor’s ailing political fortunes, and on those of the deeply unpopular Ms. Gillard as she pushes ahead with her campaign.”

“Hey buddy, gimme more ketchup on the hotdog!” Is Australia near Austria?

What, in Labor's continuing saga did terrible Thursday and frightful Friday accomplish?

Captain Crean lies dead in no-man’s-land and most Rudd supporters have been hunted to the naughty-corner leaving gaping breaches in Labor’s ministry.

Labor’s clumsy performance did establish if anyone needed more evidence, that the Party is fractured in both unity and direction—policy disasters at every turn. The recent withdrawing of two showcase policies, the undemocratic and draconian Anti-discrimination changes and the pathological push to punish News Ltd for exposing government failures and hobble free speech were harmful. Not to mention blowout costs to the NBN and its attendant delivery failures.

Labor now has about seven weeks to raise its stature above comedy level to where it might survive the Coalition’s plan to bring on a vote of no confidence on the first sitting day of the House of Representatives on May 4th. Should the motion be carried an early election is likely.

But Abbott’s success depends on numbers, as he well knows from previous failures. Essential will be support from the independents. Traitors Oakeshott and Windsor knowing their chances of re-election are none will likely ignore the nation’s wellbeing  and continue topping their Super to the last day possible. Oakeshott’s wife wants him out of politics. Rob blames re-election doubt on an alternate candidate and a poisonous talkback radio. Oakeshott voted to control media.

Bob Katter’s erratic behaviour cannot be fathomed for a reliable decision or support.

The Greens Adam Bandt will never support the Coalition and the election may see him at CentreLink. A fight for control between the adolescent Hanson-Young and Whish-Wilson (who?) should further diminish their votes.

Andrew Wilkie, however, could be one to stymie Labor. Wilkie lives 95kms from the penal ruins of Port Arthur. He tasted Gillard’s sincerity when she thriced him up to Labor’s flogging triangles to experience her flaying lash of treachery over his “signed” pokies deal. Yet, the Tasmanian crossbencher remains, “genuinely open minded.” What does it take Andrew?

Gillard’s sixth cabinet shuffle since 2010 instils doubt that the stench of administrative incompetence will be expunged any time soon. New faces and seldom-encountered names of newbies will have their collective baptism by fire with the election so near. There will be no time for learning the ropes and gaffs will be plenty, as it is with anyone in a new job.

Amanda Rishworth: South Australian seat of Kingston since 2007. Served as president of the Student Union at Flinders University. She takes on Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water, and Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers.

Placating the unions is Matt Thistlethwaite with no experience with Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs but plenty as an organiser for the AWU—anyone surprised?

Jason Clare retains Minister for Justice and Minister for Home Affairs. He is the klutz that along with Senator Kate Lundy announced to the entire world that drugs, crime and cheating was entrenched in Australian sports—all without any evidence at the time.

The current polls have no sympathy for Julia—any remaining faith now lost. Her lengthy lectures about “her” and Labor successes, totally ignoring any failure are annoying—most are no longer listening—they’ve heard enough.

Not long ago when changing tactics Gillard announced herself as “the real Julia.” That McTernan ploy has worked but not as hoped, most voters now despise “the real Julia.” Ironically, Gillard’s strategist John McTernan may make history as the man who saved Australia. Where will he work next? Not in Australia one hopes.

Gillard’s greatest sin of all

James Allan writes in Quadrant Online that Julia Gillard's election call is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors ruse. He also suggests that this election aught seriously be fought on the battlefield of freedom of speech. And that means Tony Abbott needs to champion that cause with zeal instead of his customary fence-sitting. GC.Ed.

Imagine my surprise, over here in San Diego, to wake up a while back and learn it was being reported Prime Minister Gillard had called an election for September of this year. This came as something of a shock to me, because Ms Gillard has no power to have an election campaign go on for that ridiculous length of time.

Full story:

How to Rule: A Statists Guide

38e8fe1Austen Erickson pens this biting satirical "how to rule" guide for budding big government meglomaniacs… although I suspect the Australian Government has acted upon this already! TVA

Congratulations on obtaining your new country! Whether you were elected by a majority of citizens who could be bothered to vote, appointed by the previous (and outgoing) party elite, or you have just staged a military coup, be assured that you have not only the 

power to rule – but the right to do so! The people – your people – have implicitly agreed to a social contract listing you as the ultimate authority, so be confident in your reign!

However, ruling a country is a difficult task; radical, anti-social, elements will always exist at the edge of society seeking to criticise or even undermine your administration. Its important not to pay any attention to what they have to say, since self-doubt is the most poisonous affliction for any sovereign. After all, if they know so much, why are you the one sitting in the driver's seat while they clamour for attention at the back of the bus?

This guide will teach you how best to quash these dangerous dissidents, so that you can more easily realise your utopian vision for the nation – your nation. The techniques here are presented in an order that our experts think will be the simplest for a first time ruler, but feel free to improvise! Jump around a bit as circumstance demands, or just to watch those fringe elements squirm. Even someone as dedicated to advancing the greater good as you deserves to enjoy themselves every now and then.

Remember, the most important thing while you build the great society – your society – is to have fun!

Step 1 – Disarm the Dissidents

An armed population is an unruly population! Just like a de-clawed animal makes the best pet, defenceless people are the easiest to domesticate. Obviously, you'll have to take away their guns – but don't be afraid to go further! Knives, axes, scissors and knitting needles – all can be used against you or your agents.

Start by outlawing dangerous weapons in public places, and when this proves an ineffective deterrent to criminals you can push for more regulation and registration. Ideally you will end up with a list of every legal gun-owner. Don't worry about the illegal owners, they will always be around and are such a small minority that they don't pose a threat to your regime.

Timing is everything when you are finally ready to start taking weapons away – statistical evidence and rational argument will not be on your side, so wait for a tragedy before you make your move! Declining crime rates are no match for a pile of bodies – so stand atop it with pride while you paint your opponents as heartless.

PROTIP: While you gradually reduce the power of people to defend themselves, take the opportunity to more heavily arm your own forces in the name of “public safety.” Every local police force should have assault weapons, and at least one tank, if possible! (Armed drones are also a great idea – see Step 5)

Step 2 – Seize the Schools

Children are the future – your future. A young mind is fertile soil for growing the followers of tomorrow, and as any good farmer will tell you – if you want a good crop come harvest, nationalise education!

Its no secret that all children have the same needs and capabilities, and that's why a national curriculum is so important to your success! Of course, funding schools can be difficult with all the other great projects you will be working on – so don't be afraid to cut programs that won't serve your goals. Art, economics, mathematics and science are all fat to be discarded if necessary; but never, ever get rid of history. The social studies classroom is your arena! Its a sad, outdated notion that history is an objective study of the past. Those of us in the know are aware that its actually a perfect medium for selling ideology to impressionable youth.

PROTIP: Remember to tack these three magical words onto every educational edict you issue “…for our children.” No one can argue with that – it would mean that they wereanti-children. Its just logic.

Step 3 – Bolster the Bureaucracy

Depending on your predecessors – your rightfully unlimited power may be unfairly constrained by silly things like constitutional law or other branches of government. But modern science has given us a fantastic tool to overcome such hurdles – the bureaucrat!

A simple rule of thumb: if you can't legislate it, regulate it! Is an impasse among underlings getting you down? Create an entirely new agency to bypass the whole process! Between the Department of This and the Agency of That (not to mention the Board of the Other), there will be dozens, if not hundreds of different subordinates who you can instruct to pass any given order.

PROTIP: People love wars and they provide a great opportunity to expand the scope of state power! But sometimes a war on a neighbouring country is impractical – which is why its such a good idea to declare war on more nebulous, abstract foes: “War on Poverty,” “War on Drugs,” “War on Terror,” “War on Obesity,” “War on Badwrongness” – be creative!

Step 4 – Neuter the Newspapers

[CENSORED] (Ed. Note: Good job! You are catching on!)

PROTIP: A great way to get started on this is to establish an 'independent' agency to monitor the press – it can all be done in the name of “creating and maintaining a balanced and free media.” We couldn't have any private parties injecting their agenda into the news.

Step 5 – Surveil the Citizenry

Its no coincidence that The Police sang “Every Breath You Take,” because they'll most certainly be watching you (or rather, your subjects)! By now you might have upset some of the coarser plebeians, and the first step to removing a cancer on society is detecting it.

Thanks to the marvels of technology, its easier than ever to keep track of the average Jane or Joe Citizen. Who will complain about wanting “a chicken in every pot” when you give them “a camera on every street corner?” No one – at least not for long!

Don't forget to keep up with all the new-fangled gadgetry either – phone-tapping, internet data retention, microwave scanning, mandatory blood and saliva testing; the possibilities are just endless. The best part is, it can all be done in the name of “national security!”

PROTIP: Before you take the reigns, be as vocal as possible in your opposition to a surveillance state – then your supporters will take for granted that anything you do mustbe necessary, since you oppose it so strongly on principle!

Step 6 – Jilt the Judiciary

To paraphrase the great thinker and statesman, Benjamin Franklin “People… deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Truer words have never been spoken! You've accomplished a lot so far, and its OK to congratulate yourself for a job well done. In fact, why not declare a national day of celebration in your honour? We'll still be here when you come back, champ!

We bet that was fun! The hard work is almost done – if you haven't already all you need to do is to start enforcing your laws as arbitrarily as you create them. The notion that everyone has to follow the same rules is a ludicrous relic and has no place in an advanced society.

Besides, if you've completed Step 3 odds are everybody is guilty of something. You may as well pass sentence now and define a charge later. In fact, you can probably just drop the pretence of charging people with crimes altogether. You are the state and if you say someone's guilty, that's the way it is!

PROTIP: Setting and expanding precedent is key here! If you can get away with something once, you've proven that its always acceptable. Use a missile strike on foreigners yesterday to justify an assassination of one of your own citizens tomorrow. Dream big!

Step 7 – Profit!

Congratulations on completing the guide! You should now be in a great position to enforce your policy whims, whatever they might be! Soon your world-view will come to its full fruition. You may be interested in our companion work – How to Cope with Societal Collapse: A Statist's Guide. Until then – all hail the glorious leader!

 Originally published on Austen’s personal blog under a creative common license 


A. Essery

Several Labor heads have mentioned Global Governance in various speeches. But just how "all inclusive" do they mean? Agenda 21 suggests far more than know or want. The matter needs investigative efforts. Allan Essery puts the ball in play.

GLOBALISATION:  A deceptive term that to the more alert minds reads as the incremental installation of the New World Order. (Fairdinkum Radio.)

 For many years the elite around the world have sung the praises of Global Governance.  For Australia it became more of a reality with the Government signing the United Nations 1975 Lima Agreement.  This was and is an instrument that was specifically designed to by-pass, in the case of Australia, the Constitution and undermine the sovereignty of our country.

Australia’s sovereignty is being eroded away and our government no longer makes decisions in the best interest of its citizens, those decisions are now made to satisfy the many and varied United Nations treaties and agreements that Australia’s Foreign Affairs Ministers have signed while supposedly representing you.  The problem is that they didn’t bother telling you about it or what it meant.

There is nothing new about Governments ignoring the Constitution to introduce something that the Australian people didn’t want.  Anna Bligh did it and  Paul Keating did it.   The difference now is that it is being done by the United Nations and its many, varied and powerful off-shoots with a view to World Government.

What does the Lima Agreement & Declaration do?  Firstly it required Australia to reduce its manufacturing industries by 30% and hand them over to Third World developing countries.  That has expanded to a point where it is now estimated that Australia has lost 90% of its manufacturing capabilities with a corresponding loss of jobs.  Our thriving steel industry is all but gone, as has our shoe, clothing and textile industries, food processing, our once thriving fishing industry, our farming industry and so on.  For instance, business closures went up by 48% in 2011 with 2,700 businesses closing in the last quarter of 2011 alone.

The results are many-fold and detrimental to the well being of Australians.  Not only do we lose our industries but we lose the ability to feed and clothe ourselves without foreign imports, we lose millions of potential jobs and importantly we lose the manufacturing and trade skills that previously made us independent.  Now we have to import food, seafood, clothing, whitegoods, motor vehicles, medicines, electronics, etc.  In other words we are now reliant on cheap imports from “Preferred” countries, such as China, for our day-to-day survival.

Have a look at the seafood counter in your local Cole’s and Woolworth’s stores and see how many products are imported.  Look on the shelves at the packaged food that has labeling that says “Processed and packaged in Australia from local and imported products.” or words to that effect.  The only local product is probably the label on the bottle, can or packet.

To assist the Third World “developing” countries such as China (?), Australia is required to remove its import tariffs and tariff barriers.  This would be accompanied by increased taxes or a failure by government to create tax concessions for businesses, increased compliance measures, increased labour compliance measures, environmental restrictions based on deliberately misleading science and the increased cost of employing people because of industrial relations meddling.

The agreement says that developing countries should be granted access to technological know-how and advanced technology, whether patented or not.   Under the laws imposed by yet another powerful UN organisation The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) patents and intellectual property will simply be taken from its owners and given to any Third World country that the WIPO decides should have them.

In December a United Nations Development Programme conference in Beijing, China was promoted by the United Nations as one of the emerging powers benefiting from the UN’s world economic trading system.  The UN says that China has an important role to play in improving global governance and strengthening the global rule of law.

The UN went on to say, “At a critical juncture on both domestic and global levels, this High-Level Policy Forum is an example for concrete collaboration between China, the UN and various partners from different continents that provides input to the development of China’s own position as a leading figure in thinking and shaping global governance.”

The United Nations is fearful of a collapse of its Global Governance plans and is enlisting the strength of China, that it quaintly declares is a developing country, to reduce the threat of failure.

Australians might be interested to learn that Australia gives foreign aid to China.

Allan is retired from active RAAF duty. In civilian life he was a pilot and flight instructor.  He was also the commander of an Royeal Volunteer Coastal Patrol maritime rescue unit on the South Coast of NSW and senior officer for the Far South Coast.  He fights for a fair go for ex-servicemen and women and is a harsh critic of the government's treatment of serving and ex-service personnel. 


A lesson from French history

F.-WallerMenzies House welcomes Frank Waller, a new contributor who is concerned about the erosion of rights and freedoms occurring in Australia under a Labor government. Remediation will require more people like Frank to voice their opinions to force change and restore our freedoms.


What does the Magna Carta, the storming of the Bastille and media censorship have in common? If you believe they have nothing in common, you would be wrong.  Even worse, you may be ignoring one of the most important lessons in history.

Let's begin with one of the most important documents ever written—the Magna Carta, (The Great Charter of the Liberties of England).

By 1215 the power and control exerted by the king of England was out of hand, and much of the population was becoming uneasy. There existed few restraints on royal power, and one could readily end up dead or permanently imprisoned if one fell from royal favor.

No trial was necessary—the King’s word was final. Gruesome tortures or worse, awaited those (traitors) who displeased the King for any number of reasons. However, enough became enough and the Feudal Barons eventually came together to challenge the King face to face, presenting the first version of the Magna Carta as a direct ultimatum to his unchecked power. The powerful barons eventually prevailed and the rest as they say is history. This brings us to one of the most powerful articles of the Magna Carta itself, article [29] (still on the books today).

[29.] NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right. [44]

 Note the reference to "lawful judgment of his Peers". This simple phrase is the circuit breaker that makes it difficult for the powerful few, to exert tyranny over the citizen.

Now let's travel through time to the morning of 14 July 1789, to revolutionary France and the "Storming of the Bastille" in Paris.

The storming of the Bastille and the role it played in the French revolution are historical fact. Not so well known is the actual building’s purpose, or the reason that it became such an important flashpoint for the people at that time.

The Bastille or "Bastille Saint-Antoine" was not a palace, or a place of residence. It was primarily a royal prison. Although the Bastille played various roles including document storage, its most controversial role was as a political prison. A place where "enemies of the state" were jailed for "crimes" as trivial as disagreeing with King Louis XVIIV and breaching government censorship rules of printed media. (

Thus the Bastille prison came to represent the very aspects of heavy-handed repression that the Barons had attempted to overcome in Britain nearly 550 years before. It was a hated place; a symbol of totalitarianism and when it was over-run by the people it was torn down and demolished one brick at a time. Today, "Bastille Day" in France commemorates this important mark in French history.

Moving forward to the present, the Gillard government considers recommendations in its recently conducted "Finkelstein enquiry". These recommendations, if followed, will set up a new regulatory body whose main purpose is greater control the news media and further restrict free speech in Australia.

The Hon Ray Finkelstein QC, a retired Federal Court Judge, openly admits the purpose of the proposed new body when he says. "It could not be denied that whatever mechanism is chosen to ensure accountability, speech will be restricted. In a sense, that is the purpose of the mechanism."

Thus, a new question arises; what will happen when an Australian inevitably falls foul of such government censorship rules?  Will the offender be issued with a fine or a cease and desist order? What happens if the fine goes unpaid or the remarks continue?

Is the Gillard government really going to use taxpayer money to incarcerate an Australian citizen if they continue to speak freely in contravention of government policy?

Will there be provision in the federal budget to set up a modern-day Australian version of the "Bastille Saint-Antoine" where political prisoners can be incarcerated?

Hopefully, for the sake of all Australians the costly lessons of history will not be lost on our present Government, but instead inspire our elected representatives to consider this extremely important issue.

Frank Waller is a fourth generation Australian whose pioneering ancestors came to Southern Victoria from England over a century ago. He balances time between his young family, a busy career in aviation, and the demands of his Gippsland farm.

Frank’s libertarian ideals philosophically favour smaller Government, greater personal responsibility, and peaceful social interaction free of intrusive state intervention. He considers free speech to be one of the foremost pillars of western civilization and its free sharing of thought to be fundamental in the advancement of human understanding.