UPDATE – JULY

BI-PARTISAN POLITICAL AGENDAS INTRODUCED NEO-LIBERALISM TO AUSTRALIA

In March 1975, the Gough Whitlam Labor Party Government signed off on the “Lima Declaration.”

November 11, 1975 the Whitlam Government was dismissed by Governor-General John Kerr. Opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser was appointed to lead a caretaker Government until his Liberal – Country Party Coalition was duly elected. Almost immediately they adopted and implemented the “Lima Declaration” and it was sustained by following successive Governments led by Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and the present Howard – Anderson Coalition, ably aided and abetted by former ACTU Presidents Bob Hawke, Simon Crean and Jenny George who were later elected Labor members to Federal Parliament.

In the early 1980’s the Fraser Government had trilateral talks with the Governments of the American President Ronald Reagan and the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher re: the formation of a One World Government (Globalisation) by agreeing to introduce Neo-Liberalism by stealth. For this covert plan to succeed the major parties had to create divisiveness amongst the Australian Community with the willing assistance of the Multi-Media including high profile talk-back radio hosts and the print media’s top political journalists Australia wide.

In 1983 Bob Hawke was elected to Govern and almost immediately used the “Americas Cup” (yacht race) by calling for all Australians to fully support our yacht, Alan Bond’s Australia II which duly won with the majority of our population involved in the celebrations.

It is worth mentioning that less than 1% of the United States population are aware of such an event as the “America’s Cup.” Following, is the beginning of Neo-Liberalism which led to tens of thousands of Australian manufacturing workers sacked and the introduction of zero tariffs, on imported goods.

TARIFF CONCESSION SYSTEMS – ORDERS

In 1983 the Customs Tariff was reviewed by the Liberal Party and a final proposal produced to update the substantially change the way in which Australia was protecting it’s industries. The proposal known as the “Tariff Concession System,” was constructed by the Liberal Party and subsequently implemented by the Labor Party in 1984. The alleged intention, put shortly, was to create a mechanism designed to cause manufacturers to upgrade their manufacturing practices to require them to compete with their overseas counterparts. Whilst the final document which had been implemented by the Hawke Labor Government was prima facie complicated and verbose to an extent that it led people to the conclusion that it’s intention as stated by the Government was correct. However, the mechanics of its implementation and its result were far different from the alleged attention.

To explain the result, a simple example is as follows, after which an extrapolation of that example will clearly, in any view, demonstrate what could only be described as the real basis behind which the document was prepared.

A manufacturer who just plodded along with out-of-date machinery and processes, and relying on Tariff protection, was suddenly faced with a mechanism whereby a customer could force the manufacturer to lift output of goods to satisfy a customer’s demand or face the customer being able to import the goods at a free rate of Tariff until the manufacturer complied with the customer’s supply demands. In other words, if the customer ordered 10,000 schooner glasses and the manufacturer could not supply this quantity, then the customer could apply for a Tariff classification order to be issued by Customs to enable the glasses to be imported free of Tariff. This order would stay in force until such time as the manufacturer upgraded the manufacturing processes and satisfy customer demand.

At this point everything appears to be working to an end where manufacturing industries in Australia would be forced to compete on an international basis.

However the implemented system was so designed and never changed, even though the Government was briefed, that the manufacturer could use the Tariff Classification Order to import schooner glasses. Free of Tariff. So, the manufacturing company producing the glasses sacked all their employees, except for a small number who became storemen and packers, and distributed the imported glasses to all their customers while not lifting one finger to meet the alleged intention of this new Tariff Concession System.

In 1984 the goods imported under, Tariff Classification Orders could be found on a Customs’ document, which was green in colour and consisting of two A4 pages. The principle of the glass manufacturer importing his own glasses quickly spread across a kaleidoscope of other locally manufactured goods and the two A-4 pages developed into a document 5 times the size of the 2 Sydney White Page Telephone Directories, and was referred to by Customs’ officers as the ‘Irish Tariff.’

A further exacerbation of the now clearly flawed system was that manufacturing were setting up their own $2 ‘shelf company’ producing half a dozen letterheads with the company name, writing to the parent creator, complaining about the parent company’s lack of supply of goods and receiving a response to the effect that, until further notice, (from the parent creator company) goods could not be supplied. This then resulted in one of the remaining letterheads of the $2 company being sent to Customs seeking a Tariff Classification Order to import the goods Tariff free until their creator parent company was in a position to supply. Of course, once the order was issued, the parent company (like everybody else) dismissed their staff, and imported the goods, Tariff free, using the same Tariff Classification Order even though there was never any problem in the first instance of a manufacturing deficiency either by way of supply or international competitiveness.

One only has to think about the industries that have disappeared since 1984 and only those who have a good working knowledge of the import concessions system could detail the extent to which this awful Tariff Concession System has crippled this country.

This was only the beginning of Neo-Liberalism and don’t forget Bob Hawke was a former President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and was elected to that position to defend his Union Members working conditions and to protect their jobs. Yet, almost immediately on being elected his Government implemented the aforementioned policy (TCO’s) creating massive unemployment which benefited Manufacturers and the Big End of Town.

When it came to future infrastructure re: Water, Education, Rail and Roads the Hawke Government placed it in the too hard basket as did his predecessors Fraser the Whitlam and Keating and the present Howard-Anderson Coalition and the State Governments.

In fact our present Howard-Anderson Coalition have promised to spend almost 12 billion dollars over 12 years to construct a dual carriageway from Brisbane via Sydney to Melbourne. This promise is almost a replica they made previously, prior to the last two Federal Elections the exception being a larger amount of money being promised for the election project.

The following evidence proves beyond doubt that the Labor Party and Liberal – National Coalition have similar agendas which adhere to the Neo-Liberalism Policy in tandem with the “Lima Declaration.”

In the first instant the Hawke Government sold the Australian Airlines which created further redundancies.

In the 1990’s the sale of Government utilities continued when Hawke’s replacement Paul Keating sold the “Peoples Bank,” the Commonwealth without a mandate from the Australian People. For further information:

Link >>>> Banks.

After winning Government from Keating the Howard Coalition sold 49% of Telstra, inviting mums and dads to be part of the Telco by investing in shares. Why would any Australian buy shares in a company already owned by the people? We the Australian Public, own the majority holding in Telstra, and yet the Howard Coalition allow the minority shareholders and the Telstra board to dictate policy to us.

Link >>>> Update – Telstra – February 17, 2004.

To rub salt into our wounds the Howard Government sold our Sydney Airport lock, stock and barrel to the Macquarie Bank, in fact the only profitable utility that we own is 51% of Telstra, as Australia Post has been corpratised.

We must remember that for Neo-Liberalism to succeed the Federal Government needed the full cooperation of the Liberal Coalition and the Labor State Governments during the period of implementation – 1984 to 2004, in which they obliged, by fully selling their State Banks and Insurance Companies. Add to this their corporatisation of our Railways, Water, Gas and Power as well as privatizing our toll-ways (urban roads).

Prime Minister Howard promised there would never, ever be a Goods and Services Tax (GST) “it’s off the agenda.” He lied. Treasurer Costello in the introduction of the GST promised this was a 10% single tax system which would benefit all Australian’s. In fact Peter Costello lied by omission when he failed to point out that there were 600 hidden taxes and levies. For further details hit the;

Link >>>> Picking Our Pockets.

The National Competition Policy was another Keating Government innovation, which they said would create competition.

Proof that this is a political fairy tale or just another of their blatant lies, is when the six State Labor Governments Deregulated the Dairy Industry. For the full story hit our;

Link >>>> Dairy Deregulation.

Trade Minister Mark Vaile on behalf of the Howard Coalition signed off on the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the U.S. with a statement that the only losers of the FTA was the Australian Sugar Industry. Mark Vaile and Prime Minister Howard refuse to tell the Australian Public what concessions were conceded for the FTA deal.

Visitors to our website can discover what the Howard Coalition has failed to tell us, by hitting our main page;

Link >>>> Update – June.

If you doubt our concerns re: the ramifications of the FTA, then we would like you to peruse the expert opinions published by the Australian Financial Review, page 7 June 4, 2004.

The trade deal’s fine print reveals an agreement so lopsided that it’s hard to believe it was negotiated by an Australian Government.

Pandering To Rome

The FTA: By Linda Weiss, Elizabeth Thurbon and John Mathews. In the 130s BC, when Rome was emerging as a world power but did not yet have an empire, the various small kingdoms and principalities of Asia Minor vied with one another for Roman preferment. But one kingdom outdid all others in its pandering. This was the kingdom of Pergamon, ruled by the tyrant Attalos III. When he died in 133BC, he left the city-state to Rome as a bequest-without consulting his countrymen. They were none too pleased, and when Rome claimed its prize, they fought back, under their national champion Aristoricos. After a bloody war Rome eventually emerged triumphant in 130 BC, bringing Pergamon under its sway and renaming it the first province of Asia Minor. Thus began the Roman Empire.

History has never known a comparable example of a political leader so pandering to the interests of another power as to give away his principality. But the parrallel with what the Howard Government has done in Australia US Free Trade Agreement is not so far-fetched.

Reading the small print of the FTA, it is amazing that a deal so utterly lopsided could have been negotiated by an Australian Government. Consider the following features of the agreement which can be verified by reference to the Department of foreign Affairs and Trade website, and even more tellingly to the website of the office of the US Trade Representative:

Under the agreement, we grant the US total and immediate access to our market in areas in which it is strong (manufacturers and services), but remain effectively shut out of the US market where we are strong. Our competitive fast ferries, for example, remain completely excluded from the US market. Worse still, perhaps, are the insultingly long periods our exporters must wait (16 to 18 years) for their comparatively minuscule concessions in every thing from beef and dairy to stone fruits and other horticultural products such as avocados, which mean during our peak avocado production periods, we are not allowed to export to the US. Even our greatest champions of the deal – steel and wine – see the main benefits of the bilateral agreement as buying them protection against US harassment (via the unpredictable and frequent imposition of price safeguards) rather than in securing major increases in market access.

The worst (most nationally damaging) feature of the agreement is the way in which it dictates the “harmonization” of Australian institutions, procedures and laws with their US counterparts, ensuring that any remaining differences (differences that might give Australia competitive advantages) are systematically eliminated. This is the sense in which the Howard Government may be compared with Attalos III.

Quarantine is essential for an island nation, and for any country seeking to maintain a successful agricultural industry. Strict quarantine has been well understood as a part of nation-building by the US for the past 200 years, and vigorously enforced. But under the agreement Australia is voluntarily abandoning its long-established, independent quarantine procedures. The deal stipulates the creation of a new “oversight” committee – including US Trade Representatives – to monitor Australia’s science based quarantine decisions. In effect we are about to downgrade the scientific rigour of risk assessment in favour of Trade Politics. Under the new rules of this bilateral game, Australia’s quarantine restrictions- wherever they may impinge on US exports – are to be treated broadly as trade barriers in a guise amenable to negotiation and removal by trade representatives. It should come as no surprise then that US farmers have already put dollar values on the gains they expect to reap from the “elimination” of Australian quarantine standards.

And don’t bet on our representatives holding their own under US pressure. Our authorities have already revealed their inability to resist relentless pressure for quarantine concessions even when science dictates otherwise. Bio security Australia’s recent back-flip to allow banana imports from US companies in the Philippines. Even though its last scientific report recommended otherwise – is a case in point. The recent decision to allow the importation of diseased Californian table grapes “decontaminated” with methyl bromide (a known carcinogen banned in the US from 2005 except for export purposes) also reveals the dangers to which Australians will be exposed should we allow the further politicisation of quarantine standards.

Pharmaceutical companies are the most profitable sector of the US economy – thanks largely to the exorbitant prices they charge for their drugs. Now these companies deploy to support their drugs. Now these companies are using FTAs as a means to raise drug prices (and hence their own profits) worldwide. Australian negotiators have apparently fallen for the phony arguments these companies deploy to support their case for higher prices that we should all share the burden of their expensive R and D. The simple fact that these companies spend, on average two to three times as much on marketing as they do on R and D exposes this bogus argument. So does the fact that these companies’ R and D ((“innovation”) costs are already heavily subsidized by their own Government. Nevertheless, we have agreed to a deal under which the price of existing drugs in Australia will rise by $1.5 billion, and the prices of new drugs reach US levels (more than three times their current price).

Inevitably, this will leave US with one of two outcomes. It will either make the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) unsustainable, or force our Government to channel resources away from other parts of the health system to support it.

All countries utilise Government procurement to bolster their own industries, deploying the power of public purchasing to encourage local innovation technological upgrading and employment. In particular, the US has over the past two centuries used public purchasing to build new industries, notably the semiconductor industry through military and civilian procurement in the 1960s. The US enshrines Government procurement its laws through the Buy American Act, now being strengthened under the new provisions in the Buy American Improvement Act (2004).

In Australia too we have benefited greatly from the power of Government procurement notably with the Snowy Mountains Scheme in the 1950s and 1960s, and latterly with the building of a national software industry through Government purchasing policies at State and Federal levels. The Australian negotiators have given all this away by agreeing to abandon any “Buy Australian” clauses or conditionalities and these are totally unreciprocated by the US side.

So why is our Government prepared to agree to such lopsided concessions, and to sacrifice Australian interests in this way? This draft agreement raises in an extreme and urgent form the key issue for our future: will Australians roundly reject this agreement, or will we sign up to become the first overseas province of the new American economic empire?

Link >>>> Update – June

Linda Weiss is Professor of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney’s School of Economics and Political Science.

Elizabeth Thubon is a Lecturer in the University of NSW School of Politics and International Relations.

John Mathews is Professor of Management at the Macquarie Graduate School of Management.

The Keating Labor Government introduced creative accounting re: unemployment statistics in that any recipient of the dole who worked five hours per week would receive full payment and statistically would be in the count as having full time employment. In fact this system worked so brilliantly that the Howard Government embraced it and to this day it is utilized. The latest unemployment figures 5.5% is in reality 13% plus.

Since 1983 successive Government’s from Hawke to Howard have been very professional but deceitful in creating diversions to hide their true agendas, with the aid of the Multi – Media both electronic and print. This was covertly done by introducing divisive debates. i.e. The stolen Generation, Indigenous Reconciliation, Abortion, Gay Rights, The Constitutional Monarchy – Republic Referendum, International Sporting Events and the Illegal boat people and their incarceration.

Another finger pointing exercise between the Howard and State Governments involves who is responsible in regards to our failing Health and Education Systems.

We’ve received thousands of complaints that we are over-governed with suggestions that one of our three tiers of Government should be abolished, preferably Local Government for the following reasons:

1. That the Major Political Parties use Local Government as a breeding ground for their political weeds.
2. That members of a political party should be ineligible to stand for election.
3. That two councilors, 1 Liberal and 1 Labor Member were dismissed from Rockdale (NSW) Council for allegedly accepting bribes from developers.
4. Another Labor controlled Council Liverpool, (NSW) against all professional advice went ahead with the “Oasis” Development in which they lost a conservative twenty five million dollars of Resident/ratepayers money.

We’ve mentioned previously that the GST introduced by Treasurer Costello with the promise that this single tax system would be a fairer tax for all Australians, is a complete sham. The Treasurer omitted to point out that their were 600 hidden Federal and State taxes. Those Australians most susceptible to these hidden taxes include, Self Funded Retirees, Pensioners including the Disabled, Small Business Owners and those who are leasing or renting property, i.e. Home Units, Houses and Shop Fronts. The escalating rents have been an ongoing bi-partisan plan created by both the Liberal-National Coalition and Labor Governments, whilst the Greens and Australian Democrats remain silent on the major issues affecting the Australian Community.

Countless visitors to our website have vented their concerns re: Premier Carr’s NSW Government and the powers they have passed on to Labor controlled Councils. A perfect example is the power of the Labor controlled Canterbury City Council who introduced a 5% Roads and Footpaths Levy in July 2001 for a three year period ending June 30, 2004. This was double dipping the Canterbury ratepayers, as the council rates already covered the cost of repairs for Roads and Footpaths, and this cost was not subtracted from the bill when they first introduced the 5% Levy.

Just when the Canterbury ratepayers thought the state of affairs could not deteriorate, they learn that their Labor controlled Council has put forward a proposal to have a 7.5% Levy for Roads and Footpaths for a further 15 years, but requires the approval of the NSW Labor Minister for Local Government Tony Kelly before it can be implemented. Does this mean the present 5% Levy was approved by the Minister? One can be forgiven for their belief that the NSW Government and the Labor Controlled Councils are not dissimilar in the way Hitler ran Nazi – Germany and Stalin Controlled the USSR.

It has been brought to our attention that successive Federal Governments have failed to rescind the Menzies “Dual Reciprocation Tax Bill” introduced in 1953 with only two dissenters.

To this day this Bill allows Foreign Companies based in Australia to pay very little or no tax to our Government in lieu they pay taxes to their country of origin. It is quite obvious, regardless of your political leaning, Liberal – National, Labor, Green or Australian Democrat you are comfortable in paying higher taxes to subsidise Foreign Based Companies.

We must remember that the bi-partisan agendas imposed on us by successive State and Federal Governments for the past thirty years would not have been “possible” without the financial support of their Branch Members.

When you consider tens of thousands of Australians were seriously wounded or paid the supreme sacrifice, in wars in the hope of providing a better future for all Australians. For this reason we are disgusted that two million Australians, eligible to vote have failed to enroll to vote whilst an average 15% of voters choose to sit on the fence by voting informal.

In closing, it is evident to the majority of Australians that the Howard-Anderson Coalition appears to be protecting the NSW Carr Labor Government re: their legislating of invalid Drug Laws and the illegal licensing of the Kings Cross injecting room. These NSW Drug Laws are invalid under the Australian Constitution and illegal under Federal Law. We are not debating the merits of the argument re: an injecting room, we are asking whether Governments are above the law? For what appears to be a monumental cover-up click on to website for the full facts on this subject.

Link >>>> Invalid Drug Laws

For those Australians who fail to exercise their Democratic Rights by casting a vote, we suggest if your alibi for not doing so is due to your distrust of our Political Parties and our voting system, that you give serious consideration to supporting a Fair Dinkum Independent, Candidate in an effort to revert back to a fairer voting system. To reject a major party at the ballot box i.e. the Liberal – National Coalition for the Labor Party although both parties have similar agendas is in fact a case of electing a Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dumber party to govern.

Whereas Independent member’s i.e. Peter Andren, Bob Katter or Tony Windsor work over-time for their electorates. In other words if an Independent candidate fails to do the hard slog he can be voted out at the next election which is more than you can say with the major parties.

We often hear talk back radio hosts and print media journalists espouse the benefits a high profile candidate brings to a political party, yet you rarely hear how they’ll benefit the Australian Community. I.e. Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Garrett.

It must be noted that the Labor Opposition hired Bob Hawke and Neville Wran as consultants to draw up a future blue print for the direction of the party.

How could any party accept advice from Messrs. Hawke and Wran considering the major part they played in implementing Neo-Liberalism politics to Australia.

We welcome your comment’s

Contact—email: annapaulfoley@optusnet.com.au

STOP PRESS

Mark Lathams’ Labor opposition on June 24^th 2004 deserted the Australian Community when he crossed the floor to vote with the Howard Government in support of the FTA.