Letters to the Editor
In
1974 a double dissolution was held. That was when the current PM was
first elected to Federal Parliament. The Liberal-National Coalition,
using their Senate numbers, blocked legislation and brought on the poll. It was
that "side of politics" which pushed Australia one step further
toward constitutional crisis by breaking their own standards of Parliamentary
conduct, and ever since this alliance has sat back and required the
nation to wear their lack of political principle. Now the PM, in the twilight
of his career, proposes to bring the Constitution into line with the Liberal
Party pragmatism that brought him into office. Until he publicly admits he
was wrong to allow himself to be elected as a representative for that party,
a party that in 1974 began its famous retreat from on its own
standards of parliamentary conduct, he can't be taken seriously. First an
apology, Prime Minister, then we might think about considering
your constitutional proposal.
The Government now not only
attacks the ABC, but via Gary Johns, it aims to forbid NGOs from criticising
Government policy and legislation. Since the Liberal Party of Australia
receives public funding to mount its election campaigns it cannot be excluded
from the NGO category. Does this not require the long-awaited end of the
Liberal Party's involvement in political debate?
Before Richard Alston opens his
mouth to endorse his own criticism of the ABC he should tell us what he is
doing, as a Liberal Party member, to ensure that his party is avoiding all
bias. For instance, let him tell us what his party proposes to do to reform the
unjust ballot paper which requires that a valid vote can only be cast if it
ends up in support of one of the two major parties. Until Howard, Alston et al
dissent from this injustice, their allegiance to the principles of national
competition policy cannot be taken seriously. Without such open and fearless
dissent from their own side's self-interest Government criticism of ABC bias not only looks biased
and self-serving; it is an unjust use of Parliament to promote Liberal Party
primacy. Or is the Liberal Party merely trying to safeguard the possibility
that they, as a never-to-be-criticised NGO, can shovel public money into their
party coffers come next election? Is the Liberal Party is on the verge of
bankruptcy, perhaps? Is that where the election speculation comes from?
Will the PM and Richard Alston
tell us whether they support citizens who, during an election campaign, promote
dissent from our unjust Ballot paper? Or will they imprison them for violating
sacred electoral laws? Self-serving electoral machines who rely upon an unjust
Ballot do not deserve public funding. Rather, and in the interests of electoral
justice, funds should be available to promote authentic electoral reform!
Bruce C
Wearne, Point Lonsdale
13 August
2003