Anti-Racial Vilification Legislation:

An Authoritarian Response To
Criticism Of Immigration/Multicultural Policy

by Jim Saleam

October 1995
(Edited September 2005)

On August 30 1995, the Federal Government accepted Senatorial amendments to its Racial Hatred Bill. As a result the amended Racial Discrimination Act (1975) permitted the "victims" of racial vilification to affect civil penalties against their persecutors. The Federal initiative was the product of some twelve years of lobbying and activism which had already brought results in most of the States; the achievement could be cited as a revolutionary political development.

There exists a sizeable activist bureaucracy dedicated to the political application of Human Rights ideology; this State activism has been endorsed, supported and developed by a vociferous academic group. Particular interest groups, from police agencies, business forums and ethnic spokesmen, have focused together in action to create a climate of opinion supportive of "Anti-Racial Vilification Legislation" (hereafter: ARVL). Opposition to "racial discrimination" has been a key symbol of this mobilization.

This paper queries whether:

a) State "anti-racism" has proceeded to the point where an authoritarian repressive solution has been advanced to the perceived problem of racial vilification and violence in Australian society; and if b) there is a connection between ARVL (and related "anti-racist" strategies) and definable political, ethic and economic forces which have goals outside of the enlightened Human Rights liberal programme.

In this discussion, various agendas in operation are assessed in relation to ARVL. In some cases it appears the liberal protagonists of ARVL are in tandem with interests which have little commitment to the other planks of the "Human Rights" platform and this relationship casts a shadow over the motives for ARVL and raises concerns as to its future operation.

This paper confronts one other problem. In any discussion of State policy some material cannot be publicly known; certain lines of internal debate cannot be determined. The researcher is left with traces of evidence, impressions and stray facts. Conspiracy theories are unfashionable although conspiracies occur; in this case ARVL, if viewed in its context could be viewed as the fruit of a concerted effort, although points of linkage between the actors are often obscured. What follows does not suggest that every advocate of ARVL has pushed a secret agenda, nor that every aspect of the logic for ARVL is flawed on its own account. However, ARVL is criticised within a particular political-economic context; generally it is regarded as a dangerous attack upon civil liberties in Australia possessed of ulterior objectives.


There is a problem of definition of Orwellian proportions in this debate.

ARVL advocates have asserted that United Nations "Conventions" (and European Parliament pronouncements) upon racial vilification have a quasi-legal and moral standing in Australia. (1) The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination has been touted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) as a model for Australian law. Article 4 condemns:

"all propaganda and all organisations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures disguised to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination".

In his Second Reading Speech on the need for a Racial Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill (1992), Attorney General Michael Duffy asserted Australia had an "obligation" to give legislative force to this Convention so as to curtail "extremist organisations" and "serious" public acts to the detriment of certain minorities (2) The logic was not concealed; the "extremist" organisations (sic) (i.e., those of any significance) could only have been (at that moment) Australian National Action (ANA) and the Australian League of Rights and the public acts would be demonstrations or public meetings.

The HREOC has also written favourably of European Parliament pronouncements of similar quality. The European Parliament (June 11 1986) issued a Declaration Against Racism and Xenophobia passed a Resolution on the Fight Against Racism and Xenophobia (May 29 1990) and created a Declaration on Racism and Xenophobia (December 29 1991); these 'enactments' advocated an array of legislative, educational and coercive measures to overcome "incitement to hatred and violence" against migrants to the European Economic Community. (3) Most European governments have enacted laws upon these predications. However, it appears that it is not disaffected youths, violent skinheads or foul-mouthed members of racist sects who have been the systematic targets of such laws. Rather, regular targets have been nationalist political parties and their officers - National Front (France), Republican Party (Germany), Flemish Bloc (Belgium), Centre Party (Holland) and similar Extreme-Right parties. The European legislation and pronouncements may mix terminology ("racism", "xenophobia") and define such entities as expressions of hatred and intolerance; however the intent has been to blunt criticism of the growth of Third World communities in Europe and restrict the expansion of parties which could capitalise upon concern at this trend. (4) Although the European legislation has generally been a failure, Australian observers have not been deterred. Rather, the European experience has been studied closely for lessons and arguments.

Two anomalies in the discussion are noticeable. Firstly, there is an assumption made by proponents of ARVL that criticism of immigration into European societies (including Australia) is "racism" and that racist ideology as expressed in any racist sect (e.g. by neo-Nazi groups in Germany) must also motivate the leaders of the "nationalist" parties. Secondly, whilst there are major organisations of the "Extreme Right" in Europe (as mentioned), the same cannot have been said for Australia in 1995. Australian ARVL might therefore have been "pre-emptive" in character; while some "racist violence" may have existed along with some grouplets which are labelled "racist", there were only tentative signs in 1995 that any anti-immigration party could advance beyond the margins. "Hate organisations" were/are inconsequential and eschewed by Extreme Right groups.


The HREOC is itself in an anomalous position, it is a mechanism for the enforcement of particular legislation and has been an active lobby for the adoption of "anti-racist" strategies including ARVL. The Commission can also serve to engender a moral-political climate to sustain ARVL; it may be fair to say that it has done so. In 1988, HREOC Race Discrimination Commissioner Irene Moss announced the National Inquiry into Racist Violence; the fruit of this Inquiry was a weighty Report published in 1991. Moss chaired the Inquiry.

Moss, who is of Chinese ethnic origin, could not be considered as an unbiased investigator. Moss has said:

... estimates are that Asians will comprise 7 per cent of Australia's population by 2020. This growth is magnifying the visibility of Asian Australians ... it is part of a broad Asianising of Australia as we recognise that our future lies in Asia. (5)

Moss's figures were false and misleading.' However, given that Moss could scarcely sympathise with any criticism of "Asianisation", a question could be raised as to the integrity of the Inquiry. Indeed, before the Report was published, Moss wrote material about its processes and the collected evidence in Without Prejudice, a Zionist publication dedicated to the enactment of ARVL .(6)

In contradiction to Moss some experts like Bob Birrell have predicted a 20 per cent Asian population by 2020. Birrell would be more reliable than Irene Moss. Media misrepresentation of the numbers of persons of Asian origin in Australia has regularly taken place.

A Federal Attorney General's document said of the 1992 ARVL said of the ARVL proposal:

"The legislation largely stems from the findings and recommendations of a National Inquiry into Racist Violence ... (and) was motivated by a widespread community perception that racist attacks both verbal and physical were on the increase. During 1988, a number of church and community leaders and other prominent anti-racists were subjected to what seemed to be a well-organised campaign to intimidate and deter them ..." (7)

This "campaign", if it existed, was largely ascribed (by innuendo and indirect allegation) to Australian National Action in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide; an implication was made that the present writer was involved in this campaign. Whilst the denials of the accused do not necessarily carry much evidentiary weight, they were made to the Inquiry.(8) It can be shown that some of the Sydney incidents nominated as expressions of racist violence could have been the labour of a neo-Nazi cell of the Australian Nationalists Movement (ANM) which was an organisation certainly involved in Perth in semi-serious violence in 1988-89. However, this cell may have had a provocateur quality in that an informer-connection was later proved between its NSW "leader" and the Police "Special Branch" (9) Even so, the violence which prompted the establishment of the National Inquiry was directed at liberal "anti-racists" and not at migrants or citizens of non-European origin. Of course, any such violence, whether part of a "campaign" or otherwise, may be blameworthy; nonetheless to predicate an Inquiry into racist violence upon the existence of violence directed at Australians by other Australians, was a curiosity. A putative campaign of violence aimed at Australian liberals would suggest a political struggle in operation between a radical force and an element of society which worked in favour of a State 'policy'. It may be the Inquiry's existence was partly an ideological statement in support of open-immigration multiculturalism.

Indeed, Duffy's pronouncements (1992) would indicate that ARVL was not simply about the harmonisation of Australian race-relations but about a political struggle over national identity. He said:

Australia is a multicultural society. Its survival as a multicultural society demands that communities ... live in peace and harmony. Inciting hatred and hostility against sections of the community is an affront .." (10)

It cannot be denied that any struggle over Australian national identity, over the position of Australia vis--vis "Asia" (such a "campaign" would cover not only foreign policy issues, economic questions and immigration) could only place the strident "critics" (who are best described "nationalists" since this term implies sovereinty and a definable sense of identity) in a position where some "affront" must be caused. However, the essential issue would remain the political contention between the two sides of the "debate" (i.e. State and the Nationalists); there would be an absence of intention to create tensions.

An analysis of the Report of the National Inquiry is necessary that the campaign for national (Federal and State) ARVL be understood. This Report was a gem for what it implied and threatened; it may be the quintessential document of the ARVL debate.

(i) The Report began by referring to HREOC as a product of legislation pursuant to Australia's "international obligations" and noted various measures already undertaken to eliminate "Racial Discrimination". It reviewed ARVL proposals in the context of Commonwealth Crimes Act provisions on "sedition" but concluded this Act was unsuitable for the purpose; the Report maintained the definition of sedition had an "excessively wide application to curb political expression". However, the Report did observe various State laws on "violent disorder" and "affray" were available to deal with particular political displays of racist sentiment." (11)

Some conclusions follow:

* HREOC likened "racism" to a sort of political crime otherwise the discussion of the (flawed-for-the-purpose) Commonwealth Crimes Act could not have occurred.

* HREOC did not consider "racism" any form of legitimate political viewpoint.

Allowing the definition of racism to be that established by the United Nations Convention quoted above, such reactions would have some collateral moral merit; however it would be open to dispute if racist organisations have any strength or presence in Australia. Other than some members within ANM (1985-90), a couple of minor Skinhead fractions that contained intemperate elements, a crank "Nazi" party and some individual bigots, no serious racist organisations were known to the author during the previous period. However without doubt the definition is, for every interest group, elastic - which is a serious problem.

All the foregoing notwithstanding, the Report was clear that organised racism was the enemy. The issue is whether HREOC was actually more concerned with opponents of immigration (specifically non-European immigration) and advocates of some sort of Australian Nationalism than with "racism" as by definition established. Certainly HREOC has ignored real divisions in 'multicultural Australia' and pursued only native-Australian organisations which it has attainted to the moral obloquy of racism. (12)

(ii) The Report developed themes of violence and discrimination directed at Aborigines. (Significantly, no political organisation was cited for such present day conduct.) There was one central fault in the rendition of this victimisation.

If Australia's future is "Asian", as the Report suggested, the place of a structured "Land Rights" allocation was not defined; the place of Aborigines in the new order was not explained. It is most unlikely that the Pacific Rim Economic Order (PACRIM) could offer much in the resolution of justified Aboriginal grievances against "White" Australia; the notion that Aboriginal Land Rights could be protected by a State which has abrogated its independence to PACRIM may be a dangerous fiction. As the pattern of demographic and economic Asianisation proceeds apace, Aboriginal Australia may be faced with a new (and perhaps 'fatal') challenge. The authors of the Report reasonably knew all of this. Graeme Campbell's conclusion that references in the Report to anti-Aboriginal racism served as type of propaganda designed to induce "white guilt" and to delegitimise the European State has some validity. (13)

Ironically then, the Report was a racist document.

(iii) The Report analysed the public distribution of material which was supposedly "racist". It said:

"Witnesses stated that constantly seeing posters and graffiti made them feel unwelcome and dispossessed in Australia (141); and ... the existence of an environment in which members of minority groups felt under threat from unidentified and probably unidentifiable assailants is likely to lead to both psychological stress if not damage and to a defensive attitude which enhances the probability of violence (150).

The Inquiry gathered the testimony of a few "witnesses" to formally establish this point. The Report did not call for Australian ratification of the Genocide Convention which cites "mental harm" inflicted upon a minority as an element of genocide, however it raised this theme. How psychological damage could be assessed reliably was not explained. Nonetheless, the implication stood that certain "racist" material was a moral-evil and an effective-evil which had no remedy.

Officially, this issue is much of the raison d'etre of ARVL.The problems ARVL is meant to address could be summarised as: i) injured dignity; ii) personal anguish; iii) dissemination of-group-libels which demean collective character; iv) stereotyping or group-imputation which would serve to incite persons to acts of violence; and v) creation of fear and alienation in target communities.

Particular types of "racist literature", it is conceded, could on occasions achieve any number of the wrongs cited (although assessing the degree of "harm" would always be problematical). It would not be conceded all persons collectively libelled would feel "vilified"; it would be difficult to know if some cases where a truthful exposition of a wrong might yield to opportunistic allegation. With these qualifications there would be for example grounds to consider motivation in the sentencing of an offender for property damage or assault, if the crime was one which arose merely out of "racial" considerations; as a factor in sentencing it would be a powerful one. However, ARVL implies a separate legal recourse.

The author has examined the ARVL logic in the process of composing academic material on the politics of the 'Right' in Britain and in America. For one, the UK Race Relations Act has certainly dealt with offenders who vilify; some persons set out to vilify and enjoy doing it. There is an element of the psychological - and hence ARVL is, without pejorative, thought-crime legislation.

The type of "racism" decried is an entity difficult to expiate. Unemployed, impoverished, marginal, alienated lumpenproletarian youth are not likely to modify their slurs, crude graffiti or violence because of the ARVL sanction. Even a criminal prosecution would give their victim(s) only the relief of - the imprisonment of the offender (a sanction available under criminal law). Nor would autodidactic publishers of group libels be deterred from continuing to publish; their own intellectual stupidity would drive them on. Other examples could be rendered. These objections to ARVL have been explained throughout the theoretical contributions of both the pro and contra lobbies. There is an element of futility in the construct. While this paper would dispute the amount of such vilification (it is not widespread and could be theoretically "treated") it is actually not capable of easy counteraction. Symbolic ARVL would not assist every "victim" of vilification or "racist crime". Powerful lobbies are more likely to monopolise the complaints system - which would distort the supposed purpose of ARVL. They would decide what material was "offensive".

Lastly, it was likely that the material condemned at the Inquiry was not generally 'racist' material, but material pillorying Asianisation. Whilst some "racist" material has certainly been issued until even recently, it has not enjoyed wide public circulation. The fair conclusion would be that the National Inquiry deliberately cast the allegation of racism upon criticism of immigration-multiculturalism and economic-political Asianisation.

(iv) The Report strongly implied that discussion of public interest topics needed some control:

"... racist violence is particularly linked to debate about the ethnic composition of Australia, immigration policy or the economy. Ethnic community organisations maintain that when issues such as foreign investment, immigration and multiculturalism receive extensive media coverage ... they can expect an upsurge in racist violence ... (21. ... The role of organised racism is essentially one of inciting and maintaining prejudice ..." (221).

It is to be noted that the Federal ARVL does not penalise public interest discussion of immigration/multiculturalism issues. However, the Report's logic contained a recipe for information-control; this may suggest something negative about the character of HREOC. Given that the National Inquiry produced recommendations for the policing of the media, the authoritarian cast of mind is demonstrated. This policing can proceed by "regulation" and "policy guidelines".

(v) The Report maintained:

"The activities of racist groups, some of which have resulted in prosecutions, show a clear connection between racist propaganda and racist violence (388)."

It is conceded that in particular cases this could be demonstrated or be inferentially reasonable. The case of the ANM would establish the proposition. The ANM Perth campaign of Chinese restaurant burnings was based upon The Turner Diaries, a work of racist fiction from the United States. However, other racist and anti-immigration propaganda has not produced any similar result. One or two cases cannot establish a general rule and the notion that "propaganda leads to violence" may admit to vicarious liability. (l4) The issue is a broad one. The National Inquiry ignored the Constitutional and other free speech issues arising from the High Court of Australia judgment on the Communist Party (Dissolution) Bill 1950-1951. If there was any link between Marxist theory on the state and revolution and political violence and sedition, Australia disavowed suppression of the free discussion of ideology as a means to overcome violent and subversive elements. Nonetheless, HREOC has not resiled from its position since the Inquiry; hence when, in 1993, the High Court determined an implied right to freedom of expression resided in the Constitution, it raised a barrier to the enforcement of ARVL. (15) But HREOC has been silent.

There may occur the ultimate irony in the enforcement of Federal and State ARVL. The legislation may call calumny upon fringe racist crankery while political expressions of "nationalism" may escape the net. Environmentalist anti-immigration parties such as Australians Against Further Immigration and Reclaim Australia (which also criticised Asianisation) escaped prosecution in the period through to 1998. So far the various State ARVL has not produced a prosecution where Constitutional arguments could be involved.

(vi) The Report envisaged a comprehensive strategy to curtail "organised racism" through integrative social-police methods. Firstly it quoted approvingly the UK (1989) Report of the Interdepartmental Racial Attack Group:

".. one agency, usually the police, should take the lead in establishing multi-agency groups ... represent(ing) education, social services and housing departments of the local authority, involve community organisations and be chaired by someone independent (247).

Secondly, it argued:

".. that higher priority needs to be given by police and intelligence agencies to the investigation of racially motivated offences. This would encompass both the activities of organised racist groups and sporadic incidents of racist violence (316).

Thirdly, it demanded:

"... police training should include appropriate education in cultural issues (330) (with the) ... screening ... (of) ... new recruits (331) ... and ... (with the appropriate anti-racist attitude being one of the) ... prerequisites for promotion ... (333). (16)

The proposal was clearly for a sanitised anti-racist police force involved in the close investigation not only of crimes of "racist" motivation but of political organisations on a community level; such police would oversee the establishment of new social-political structures to 'combat' as well as "monitor" racism. Whether Australians would sanction such a role for police is problematical, but the blandness of these declamations is disturbing. HREOC clearly favoured the foundation of a new order of political surveillance and control; those "ad hoc" forces currently in the field against "racism", and other existing structures, would be centralised, formalised, empowered and funded.

ARVL on its own account should not be assessed for its credibility outside of a consideration of these questions; indeed, the HREOC raised these matters in the document which lay at the base of the 1992 and 1995 ARVL Federal proposals.

(vii) The Report did not disregard the instruction of Australian youth. It said schools presented:

"... unparalleled opportunities for developing anti-racist strategies (346) (where) ... multicultural and anti-racist education ... (can occur) ... (Indeed) ... each campus or education centre requires an anti-racist policy (352)."

It was also suggested:

"Some education courses are important to any wider action against racism ... (and) ... should all incorporate core units in cross cultural studies and anti-racist strategies ... (353)."

Without overstatement, HREOC was advocating the politicisation of Australian education; perhaps the Commission desired Australian students to be taught to accept that Asianisation was a praiseworthy course for Australia. This is stated in the knowledge that HREOC confuses (albeit: consciously) racism with opposition to Asianisation. (At the least HREOC was in favour of propaganda in favour of multiculturalism, a policy which has critics even in academic circles.) Such strategies and courses now exist.

(viii) The Report did not neglect infiltrating youth subcultures either:

"... specific strategies could be linked with ... the growth of an urban youth culture for whom particular forms of music, dance and style may be more important bases of identity and friendship than presumed race or ethnicity (383)."

HREOC was probably cognizant of organisations such as the Anti-Nazi League (Britain) and SOS Racisme (France). These bodies link indirectly with establishment parties and media and employ the strategy indicated. They unite urban alienated youth across racial lines; these bodies are counter-criticised on the basis that they animate decultured youth. (17) It appears HREOC was advocating the organisation of specific youth subcultures into a generalised anti-racist mobilisation; some of these subcultures may themselves be antisocial in character. ARVL would thus be buttressed by mass-pressure, irregular, structures. (Some trace evidence may suggest this 'process' is under way.)

(ix) The Report advocated the use of mass-media for "anti-racist" education. It was noted the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Australian Journalists' Association enforced codes of ethics against racist-reporting (366-7). It was recommended that awareness of cultural and inter-racial issues be included in cadet journalists' training (372). Perhaps these "new" journalists would thence report and interpret the news in ways favourable to State policy and, as noted above, avoiding issues which fuel 'racism'. (18) In such a system the public would receive 'managed' news. Indeed, the Report urged:

"Broad based public information campaigns using the print and electronic media can be a useful part of a strategy to influence peoples behaviour and attitudes (380)."

The Report did not explain how such campaigns would be organised; none- theless HREOC must have understood that either itself or some related agency would be required. While various methods to influence "people's behaviour" have been noted by the author in recent years ("multi-racial advertising" "We are Australian" and others), no agency seems to manipulate such processes.

It may be reasonable to conclude that ARVL is the bludgeon for those who fail to think correctly.

(x) Local Government was also to be mobilised (and some evidence would be available to indicate it has been):

"Their attitude to racist posters and graffiti and their public commitment to all residents can affect the whole climate of an area (377)." Councils could bolster unresourced community organisations with their "wealth of knowledge" of racist violence".

The Report suggested Councils sponsor "area Committees". "Schools may be the best focus for coordinating committees" (378).

The phrase a wealth of knowledge could have dual meaning; given HREOC's scheme that police become involved in local community anti-racist structures, a question arises as to whether a local-informer network akin to Neighbourhood Watch was not flagged. In the contrived environment of antiracist correctness, social acceptability (and advancement?) this could easily develop. Informing of any description would be reprehensible. A taste of the programme was informally developed in 1988-89 with a Sydney Community Alert Against Racism and Violence. Posters appeared in inner-Sydney calling upon people to report "racists" to police if a suspicion existed persons were engaged in property damage against "antiracists". A thin-line separates reporting crime - to naming suspect people. Informers could also recruit complainants who may then enmesh persons in the ARVL penalty process.

ARVL was linked by HREOC to a local programme of action; the debate should concern a political system of control of thought and deed. Some general conclusions can be advanced. Firstly, no commentator has drawn the parallel between the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the "Petrov Commission" and the Victorian "Royal Commission on Communism". Similar processes of vilification operated; similar moral judgments were passed against the evil of the day. While it cannot be denied some racist violence was detected by the Inquiry, its measure was overstated. The ANM case (which came to light during the Inquiry) shows that police-intelligence methods were effective in destroying ANM. ARVL could not have achieved any similar result. ARVL would not have deterred ANM violence. So, what was the point?

The National Inquiry not only envisaged the passage of ARVL but the establishment of a new system to manage Australian race relations. The patchy collection of evidence on violence and vilification (with the exception of ANM and a couple of National Action incidents) could not sustain the thesis that Australia was in that period a society plagued by generalised violence and rancorous hatreds and group libels. There was a McCarthyist-type hysteria at the Inquiry which demanded racism be found everywhere.

This may have partly arisen from the input of a mass of anti-racist activists. A tangled network of groups - People Against Racism, Community Alert Against Racism and Violence, Anti-Apartheid Movement, Campaign Against Racist Exploitation - were involved. In the period 1988-89, these persons were reputedly the victims of that violence which justified the establishment of the Inquiry. (19) The Report recommended (but it failed to be implemented) that such persons be protected by Federal ARVL. It is yet to be verified that those persons will be empowered by either State or Federal ARVL to staff "area committees", assess the operation of "racists", report racist violence and recruit complainants.

The National Inquiry conceived ARVL as only one link in a chain. However, the observer is left to ponder whether the new order is te be established because of a perceived need or because there was always an overriding agenda quite separate from whatever quantity of violence and vilification was actually in existence. Cranky publications may "upset" but can be ignored; localised violence could be dealt with by energetic police. Political violence is the province of special agencies. It seems demonstrated ARVL is not really about racism but primarily about political opposition to economic, political and cultural Asianisation; it is desired the opposition be prosecuted for a crime it does not commit such that favour be earned from elsewhere. The Report confirmed this argument. It quoted Ross Garnaut's The North-East Asian Economic Ascendancy (1989) with fervour and favour. The Report discussed Australian economic advancement through integration with Asia: "These positive achievements are only possible in a society which disavows racism and racist violence" (225). (20) If this is the bottom line, ARVL was the result of a "conspiracy", howsoever the desired result was procured.


The debate on Federal ARVL began in 1973 with Al Grassby's proposal for a Racial Discrimination Act which would have created offences of incitement to discrimination and hatred. The Liberal Senate amended the Bill and the Act was proclaimed devoid of such provisions. Transient propaganda concerning the "outlawing of racism" surfaced occasionally until the Blainey Debate on immigration (1984) drew the issue into the public arena.

In 1983, the Human Rights Commission had discussed "anti-semitic" propaganda and this internal debate intensified over the furore surrounding Professor Blainey's criticism of immigration-multiculturalism. Majority community support favoured Blainey. The HRC replied with the Proposal for Amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act to Cover Incitement to Racial Hatred and Vilification (1984).

This document was a major position statement. It urged that jury trials for two projected offences (incitement and vilification) should be avoided since juries may "sympathise" with the racists' case. (21) A Star Chamber logic affected this document; the Commission sought to "try" such cases (under the present Federal ARVL, HREOC will conciliate the current contenders and award civil penalties) which would probably have precluded procedural fairness. An examination of this Proposal reveals a lack of tangible cause for ARVL; again, it had the pre-emptive quality. (The later National Inquiry might therefore be seen as the eventual mechanism to "find" the cause.)

The push for State ARVL in Western Australia and New South Wales directly arose from the activities of ANM and National Action. Pierre James commented:

".. the Law Reform Commission of WA was asked by the Attorney-General in November 1988 to investigate possible changes to the law ... to deter acts which incite racial hatred. This was in response to the activities of the Australian Nationalists Movement (ANM) which had been placing racist posters and printing over signs ... (in) Perth ... a very important aspect of ARVL is its symbolism ... a direct attack on racist organisations . . (designed to) ... create a social norm which ... most people will conform to." (22)

Some of the ANM material was, by any standard, offensive; some of the material was rational criticism of immigration-multiculturalism and designed by persons who may have not endorsed the idiosyncratic opinions of the leader of the organisation, Jack van Tongeren. ANM however had little actual community support and perhaps only one hundred supporters across Australia. The reaction was an over-reaction. The ANM violence, however, appeared to justify the contentions asserted against it (further below).

Meanwhile, the NSW debate gingered after December 1988 when a (Chinese) Liberal Member of Parliament was heckled at a semi-private Party function by members of NA. There was a strong indication that the 1989 NSW ARVL was a public order consideration arising from this and similar National Action incidents. (23) The degree of "criminality" was minor.

Whilst NA's support was greater than ANM's and the organisation more sophisticated, it was greeted with some hysteria. Taken together, neither NA nor ANM were sufficiently strong entities to warrant special legislation for their effective suppression. This never excluded it as a target for supporters of ARVL. Quite the contrary. NA was an increasingly effective propaganda organisation which warranted suppression on that account alone.

The various State ARVL enactments (Western Australia, Queensland, NSW and South Australia soon to follow) generally created the two categories of offence: incitement to racial hatred and discrimination and an offence of vilification where persons are held up to serious contempt. The first offence being also criminal would proceed only by direction of an Attorney-General.

James added:

"There is a danger that the consent of the government to such trials may indeed politicise this aspect of the judicial process, raising questions as to the true motivation of the government. In England, the Attorney-General has been accused of bias in deciding whether or not to prosecute for what is often a quasipolitical offence." (24)

Setting aside any prosecutions of eccentrics or malcontents, major prosecutions could only really be brought against members of political organisations. Politicisation of the prosecutorial process would be inevitable; allowing this was certain, it could be queried whether ARVL proponents accepted that as the purpose in hand.

The brief overview of the emergence of some State ARVLs reveals that it was political legislation. The review of the National Inquiry Report also suggests Federal ARVL arose from political considerations around "organised racism". The "criminalisation" of political conduct should be the substantive issue of public discussion (rather than a debate over "hurt feelings" and "libels"). The "sources" for the ARVL mobilisation should demonstrate this in practise.


The State enactments of ARVL and the National Inquiry took place in a special political environment which was indicative of a concerted offensive. From 1984 when the Proposal appeared until the 1989-90 National Inquiry the tempo of Asianisation had intensified and some resistance had unfolded. It appeared that a political struggle had begun over those questions; there was substantial public contention. The debate on Australia's future is continuing.

ARVL cannot exist in a vacuum; nor could the pressure for its adoption have been simply the agitation of liberals ensconced in HREOC and "victims" directly and through their agents. This paper detects four groups which laid the basis for the adoption of ARVL. Each of these forces has been positive towards economic Asianisation; each has opposed "racist" organisations; each has operated as a representative of power and legitimacy (this paper will deal with class, state and power below) in a liberal society.

a) Political Police

Of course, political police have existed long before the period under review. However, with the wind-down of the Cold War, the function of such agencies has been publicly reassessed. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) redefined its role in its Report to Parliament (1991): ... (to) develop and execute the Organisation's intelligence collection and analysis effort against ... those activities in Australia relating to acts or threats of violence or other unlawful harm to pursue political objectives ... (to) reduce as far as possible within the scope of ASIO's legislation the level of any identified threat. (25)

ASIO Director General, David Sadlier, said of the "racist Right" (1993):

"Generally, these groups are liable to remain small and politically isolated though we shall need to keep a close watch on them so long as unemployment offers recruits from angry and alienated youth and our universally based immigration policy provides a grindstone for prejudice." (26)

ASIO played a role in the suppression of ANM once it was suspected of, then connected to, arson and other politically motivated violence. That Premier Brian Bourke toured Asia to reassure investors the ANM campaign was contained indicated State concern. ASIO's writ to act would likely have been exercised because damage to trade and investment through violence was "sabotage". Premier Dowding also used strident language about ANM (27) and urged legislative and police action to ensure the ANM was not revived. Some strands of evidence and reasonable reference suggest ASIO formulated a programme to destabilise and undermine ANM (and National Action) some time in late 1988. (28) Once police obtained evidence of criminal ANM conduct, ASIO acted to streamline police efforts to a successful outcome. It might also be the case that an informant, code-named CC18 by the NSW Police Royal Commission, provided information on ANM's involvement in the restaurant arsons some time before another informant was obtained to provide court-room evidence. If CC18 gave earlier evidence, it suggests ASIO was not beyond allowing "racist crime" if it served the higher result.

ASIO meanwhile worked with NSW Police Special Branch (which was working with the anti-racists who were linked to the National Inquiry) to initiate and sustain prosecution against NA members.(29) ASIO later said it:

"... increased effort under the Politically Motivated Violence Programme ... to maintain coverage of the activities of Australian right-wing racist groups with a proven history of violence ... During 1990-91, ASIO achieved considerable operational success against violent racist right groups ... (with) ... the arrests of members ... concluding intensive investigations with police." (30)

Special Branch "briefings" of NSW Cabinet Ministers probably played a role in encouraging the passage of ARVL in June 1989 (31) In this way, the integration of Intelligence, police action and legislative process, the prescription for a broad anti-racist effort per the Report, was actually anticipated eighteen months before the tabling of that document in Federal Parliament. This could not really be accidental.

Noam Chomsky argued that whilst Western liberal-democracies seldom murder their political opponents, they are adept at the management of the opposition. (32) Political police are a vital feature of the system. The Australian method appears to have become a politicised Northern Ireland model: surveillance of "targets", information collection-assessment, special harassment programmes, legal actions against radical leaders, physical-violence intimidation, support for legislative sanctions, supergrass witnesses, infiltration of target organisations, support for provocateur organisations and disinformation campaigns. Britain's Special Branch/MI-5 has applied such tactics to mainland Britain as tactics for dealing with the Extreme Right (1984-90} with some success. (33)

Given the broad similarities of applied method and the special relationship of Australian and British intelligence forces, a transfer programme has probably occurred. (34) The Report's references to area committees and local surveillance also has a Northern Ireland odour; the recommendations of the Report for the effective ghettoisation of political-racism and the willingness investigation thereof, is suggestive of a special input into the National Inquiry or other HREOC deliberations.

This paper would reject the confluence of HREOC and political police prescription for the anti-racist fight, being the result of osmosis. The work of political-police in "proving" the existence of racist-Right violence was a justification for ARVL in 1988-91; such agencies have continued their labours into the present. Political police would necessarily view ARVL as a weapon of control over a particular form of dissent.

(b) Australian Capitalism: Business Lobbies and the Political Economy of ARVL

Economic force has produced an array of public policy advocates and other persuasion agencies, on the issue of multiculturalism-immigration, far stronger than critics of Asianisation. (35) Australia's immigration policy in the 1980s was a plaything of business. The Committee for the Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) 1985 Report, The Economic Effects Of Immigration On Australia, served as the basis of national immigration policy for 1985-7. (36) CEDA, which is more than a think tank but less than a party of Big Business, has generally asserted that Australia's progress in PACRIM is served by immigration from the region; CEDA's corporate membership is a who's-who in Australian capitalism. One CEDA member, Phil Ruthven, has called for massive migrant intakes - to "Asianise Australia". A CEDA connected New Right think tank writer, John Hyde, said:

". . there are two good reasons to increase Australia's population density by accepting more ... (migrants) ... Immigration is likely to improve the functioning of the economy, particularly if the newcomers do not come from a unionised workforce." (37) )

Ross Garnaut's CEDA-sponsoredThe North-East Asian Economic Ascendency was adopted by the Federal Government as a mandate for 1990's economic development. This document (as above) inspired the National Inquiry. Significantly perhaps, CEDA member, Macquarie Bank Director John Moss, was (is) the husband of Irene Moss. (Macquarie Bank has issued material lauding Garnaut's thesis.) Interestingly also, CEDA writer Professor John Niland was (is) the husband of former NSW Anti-Discrimination Board President Carmel Niland - another supporter of ARVL. Whilst these points should not be overdrawn they suggest linkage of various agencies in the ARVL debate.

CEDA's "vision" is one of an Australia open to Asian trade, immigration and investment; deregulation of the economy is a moral imperative. Professor Wheelwright's criticism of 1980's Australian capitalism was one involving an assessment of internationalisation-rationalisation and its link to attacks on labour rights and civil rights. (38) Australian capitalism would remake the country a merchant's republic attuned to Asian development needs. This unconcealed programme has been endorsed by commentators as diverse as Gerard Henderson (who has called, since 1989, for political police resources to fight racism and for ARVL) to William Keys (the ex-RSL President who operated a Korean contract labour company) who demanded a public commitment in the fight against "racism". (39)

The Wheelwright critique may be capable of logical extension to ARVL. Breaking militant unions and smashing "racist" organisations implies no great moral leap. It should also be remarked that dominant liberal-capitalist open borders-free trade principles were espoused by vociferous media throughout the 1980s; hysterical abuse of various critics of immigration/multiculturalism ensued.(40) This abuse needed no HREOC advice, but approximated the admonitions of the Report. The independence of media under capitalism has been questioned by various studies; its line was demonstrated by CEDA journalist Peter Robinson who asked in 1978 "do we sincerely wish to be rich or white?" (41)- a theme continually developed thereafter. In 1988, many media outlets took up the themes of racist violence and reported on the martyrdom of those anti-racist activists victimised by racist violence. These themes have also been developed in Adelaide (1994-5) concerning National Action demonstrations and the "need" for restrictive ARVL.

This paper does not argue a mechanistic-materialistic relationship exists between the political requirements of capitalism and ARVL. Nonetheless, capitalism has a Gramscian ideological hegemony the political process is one attuned to the sustenance of this economic order; government agencies develop policies to ensure the best operation of the free-market Asianising system. Marx's prescription, "the modern state is an executive committee for the management of the common affairs of the bourgeoisie", neatly applies to the Australian State. Either we assume HREOC's "creation-logic" for ARVL involved an independent process based upon the input of objective community groups or aggrieved individuals or we should conclude ARVL was a response to the requirements of dominant social-economic forces; logic inclines to the latter position.

(c) The Zionist Intervention.

The major ethnic player in the ARVL debate has been the "Zionist lobby". Various representations were made to the National Inquiry by Zionist spokesmen (1989). Zionists marshalled some "ethnic leaders" to complain of racism and -libel. The intervention became heavyweight in 1994, when a major Prime Ministerial statement in favour of ARVL was made before the Zionist Federation of Australia. Immigration Minister, Senator Bolkus, also told the meeting:

"Some Australians have not had direct experience of racial hatred. Many in this room have families who have perished as a result of it." (42)

Although the United States achieved (purchased?) the rescinding of the United Nations Resolution which equated Zionism with racism (1991), doubts would certainly exist in Australia's Middle Eastern communities as to the credentials of the Zionists as non-racists. Islamic communities seem not to favour ARVL (43) The pitch of the Zionists and the acceptance of Zionist impact includes an element of the absurd: there is no anti-semitism in Australia. This is not to say that some anti-Jewish incidents did not occur in the 1980s, around the time of the Gulf War and so forth; nor does it exclude the occasional distribution of-anti-Jewish texts and the episodic pasting of offensive posters (as ANM did, and skinheads do, on various occasions). However, anti-semitism is an assayable entity.

Anti-semitism could only be defined historically as a social-cultural movement against Jewry. In that way, anti-semitic platforms in Russia, Poland, Germany and France (1880-1945) could be assayed. However, to defend the Federal ARVL proposal with a contention anti-semitism of a genocidal nature existed at a time and place outside of Australia - and that anti-racist legislation could prevent it again (or atone for it) would demonstrate that ARVL has no intellectual credibility. An untutored mind may make the leap in logic; an academic analysis could not concede the point.

The Zionist interest in ARVL was endorsed by fanfare. There were concerns directed at the "historical revisionist movement" (which denies the historical basis of the Holocaust), criticism of Israel and worries of some fringe anti-Jewish hate propaganda (which commands no public acceptance). (44) There may also be a general Zionist suspicion of Nationalist movements, whereby it is imagined somehow that the extreme Right is "neo-nazi", although a long bow would have to be drawn to establish that point.

Zionist pressure for ARVL has been intense over the last years; however there is hypocrisy. Isi Liebler, President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, commented:

"Intermarriage rates of Jews across the world are astonishing and communities must take steps to stem the tide (of assimilation) which is fast approaching" (45)

In his The Israel-Diaspora Identity Crisis (1994), Liebler developed his argument to advocate forceful intra-community policies to obviate cultural-physical assimilation; Liebler would set Jewry apart from all other communities.(46) This "racist" view received no criticism from the ARVL lobby. Liebler, a leading proponent of ARVL, established two value systems: one to maintain a ghetto and another open-society ideology for consumption by the wider community. Senator John Stone and Philip Adams observed this contradiction in Australian Zionism: it was both liberal and-anti-liberal in the ARVL debate. (47) (They recognised the organised Jewish lobby as the main "ethnic" protagonist of ARVL.) Further, Liebler demonstrated the postulate that ARVL is enmeshed with a general civil liberties danger; he has previously established Zionist domestic surveillance of suspected "anti-semites" and some extreme-Right figures (the Anti-Defamation Commission}, liaised on this basis with political police agencies and propagandised against opponents. (48) Recently, Liebler aides have worked closely with David Greason, a possible provocateur who has mobilised ultra-left activists against extreme-Right groups. (49) Liebler's connections with the US "Anti-Defamation League" may also be ominous: ADL has been cited by California District Attorneys for spying and illegal activities. (ADL has also been linked to fake anti-semitic incidents.) Today, ADL style activities centre in the Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs from whence propaganda attacks are launched at a plethora of conservative and radical Right groups; the columns of Australia Israel Review are usually the medium, although Without Prejudice magazine has performed the role. AIJA was, naturally, an ARVL lobby force.

The Zionist intervention in the ARVL debate was one where a specific agenda was in motion. The involvement of Jewish organisations in "anti-racist" activities is an international phenomenon and not surprising. In Australia it may be a demographically explainable obsession set to weaken with the enfeeblement of the Holocaust generation (which is massively-over-represented in Australian Jewry), assimilationist trends and diffusing of Middle East tensions.

Disturbingly, Ron Castan, Co-Commissioner of the National Inquiry, was close to Australian-Israel Review indeed he guardedly "predicted" in its columns the general findings of the Inquiry eighteen months prior to the publishing of the Report. (50) Castan's commitment to ARVL was recorded prior to the Inquiry during his period at the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission in the 1980s. His neutrality in the collection of evidence and its interpretation would be suspect. Castan's close relationship with other Jewish ARVL lobbyists (Colin Rubinstein and Michael Kapel) is unfortunate in that their extremism upon the subject has coloured their objectivity over several years in the assessment of alleged Extreme Right racist groups and the need for the legislation. (51) Lastly, Doron Ur, President of the Western Australian Council of Australian Jewry and Without Prejudice contributor, may have let the mask slip in 1994:

"If it was up to me, we would have a Bill to sentence all people who incite racial hatred to death". (52)

Ur's 1980's career in the Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission led him to sponsor ARVL in relation to the ANM and make a submission to the National Inquiry.

It is fair to comment that prominent Zionists, given their access to political leaders, have ensured their impact was pivotal. This lobby has publicly sought to induce general community support for ARVL. Its last mobilisation in favour of "war crimes legislation" actually engendered ethnic tensions; there was a gap to bridge and not all ethnic groups were in support. The Jewish community is clearly sensitive to particular criticisms; its endorsement of ARVL may actually encourage some prejudice symbiotically creating the deplored situation. Nonetheless, "holocaust denial" has been assailed in various ways, criticism of Israel has not been historically confined to the extreme-Right and some minor anti-Jewish incidents have been dealt with by police action (i.e. synagogue damage). Sometimes "anti-anti-semitism" has gone too far, as in the July 1995 desecration of Jewish graves in Adelaide; it spurred the ARVL debate and legislation is was advanced in the State Parliament. It transpired finally that the incident which sparked parliamentary action was the labour of ordinary vandals However the media has not corrected itself for its effusive claims of anti-semitism.

The Zionist role in ARVL while strident and weighty could be a false one. The Zionist leadership appeared to be playing a complex game concerned with the maintenance of community solidarity and the preservation of its "influence" in Australian society. The Jewish community considered it was under some amorphous threat whether this was rational or otherwise; whatever agenda arose from these concerns, it was an idiosyncratic one, but its siren call was acknowledged. How the Zionists will use State/Federal ARVL may be illustrative of the themes of this paper.

(d) The Liberal Intelligentsia and ARVL: An Intellectual Logic for Repression

Australian liberal opinion has been divided about ARVL. A survey of some major newspapers produced many editorials dismissive of ARVL in 1994. (53) The Free Speech Committee denounced the proposal, as it had the NSW legislation of 1989. (54) Peter Costello, speaking for some liberal "Liberal Party" opinion, said:

Our response will be based upon the balance between our commitment to act against people who vilify or incite violence against others on the basis of race and our concern to protect the right of free speech. (55)

However these fractious liberals would be under pressure from a more energetic and sizeable array of liberal intellectuals. Katherine Betts has located the existence of a new intellectual caste which emerged in part from the former leftist milieu; this group, now middle-aged, financially secure and internationalist, is ensconced in the Social Policy areas of universities and government. It has embraced anti-racism with vengeance, as the anvil for the reshaping of the social order. (56) Betts composed these thoughts in 1988; the caste at issue achieved its prominence upon the exegesis of anti-racism earlier that decade. Mark O'Connor of Australians for An Ecologically Sustainable Population described this "class":

"... as different from a traditional aristocracy in that it does not depend upon inherited wealth. Its ... is largely intellectual ... many members of this class entered the bureaucracy ... By the 1980s if racists (i.e. anti-egalitarians) had not existed, it would have been necessary for the new meritocracy to invent them." (57)

A roll call of its "representatives" would include Joan Pettman, Kay Sanders, Kath Cronin, Greg Tillet, Mary Kalantzis, Stephen Castles, Jock Collins, Andrew Markus, Andrew Jupp and Colin Tatz. Some were coruzected variously with the National Inquiry; each cited author has contributed to the trenchant criticism of Australia's historical "racist" legacy. Graeme Campbell criticised liberal intellectuals for their domination of the race debate:

"Though many instinctively know that this white guilt view is biased and unfair, they are unable to match the sophisticated assaults of people who have the resources of universities and other publicly funded bodies ... So at the very time Australian History comes to be widely studied, it is studied as a history of shame." (58)

This caste has posited the non-existence of a contemporary Australian Nationality in favour of a "multiculturalism" where diversity is the expression of singularity (!). These ideologists favour an Australian identity as a reflection of a cross-community commitment to a liberal civic culture; they have denounced the Old Australia as a creature of genocidal colonisation, anti-Asian paranoia and prejudiced assimilationist migration policies. The Report, in drawing upon the work of such persons, empowered their theoretical description of Australia; it notionally also endowed contemporary "racists" with the sins of Australia's "racist heritage". Their delegitimisation would be the essential psychological political basis for ARVL.

Essentially, this "denationalisation" of Australia delegitimised the claim of Australia to independence - vis--vis "Asia" - or to a right to control its borders. The value of such an ideology to a PACRIM system would be inestimable. The intertwined relationship between the National Inquiry and such theories implied the illegitimacy of protest against immigration patterns or multiculturalism. Such intellectuals symbolise the hegemonic nature of liberal-internationalist principles in the broad Australian race debate; their labour therefore assists in placing ARVL within its context.

Some general conclusions emerge from the discussion of these four pillars of ARVL.

The input into the discussion of Australian race relations was/is varied; however in the actual struggle to restrict those who challenge immigrationmulticulturalism it has been political police, business, Zionists and the liberal intelligentsia who have been the most vociferous. There was a pattern of linkage of personnel, principles, and legal sanctions involved in the 1980's/1990's march to a national (Federal and State) ARVL mecharusm. ARVL could not have existed without these forces; without their input, government would have been left with the lobbying of the "victims" and occasional unpleasant harassment or violence or "libels" but no ideological and generalised justification for legislative action. Nor would a motive have existed to politicise the issue into a crusade against organised racism; the stability of the multicultural system and economic-political stability may not have been discussed without these major players.

Whatever else may be said of ARVL, it must be tainted by the means of its gestation.


This paper has advanced the proposition that ARVL was/is part of a broad strategy: i) to achieve the marginalisation of organisations and persons who publicly oppose Australia's "Asianisation"; and ii) to ensure the intimidation (imprisonment, penalisation) and isolation of persons who harbour such opinion. An historical overview is appropriate.

The Australian State is no newcomer to the politics of marginalisation and intimidation. Michael Cathcart detected the old Imperial Establishment of the 1920s/1930s achieved not only a cultural-ideological hegemony over its left and labour-nationalist opposition, but ensured their suppression. Various legislative "emergency", "essential service" and "sedition" enactments were available. On occasion, violence was affected in defence of ruling class interests. It would be theoretically possible to transpose this methodology upon ARVL; it is noted, of course, the present "ruling class" lineally and corporately descends of its forebear. Significantly, also, Cathcart reasoned these methods to be, in various degrees, similar to those employed by Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, and Australian multiculturalism (59)

This "secret history" of Australia has been revealed over the last two decades in a growing academic literature. David McKnight has demonstrated the extent to which the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, behind the shield of the dominant-anti-communist ethos, waged an intense three decade struggle to ensure Australia's commitment to the American Alliance and the defeat of the left; but he noted the modern ASIO is directed at "the racist Right". (60) ASIO once operated through Royal Commissions in the 1950s, ensured the gaoling of some communist leaders for sedition or treachery, demonised the left and paraded its secret-police "dirty tricks" methods as protection of the majority from hateful individuals. McKnight's observation of the new ASIO should distil the logical comparisons: reasonably, the methods of yesteryear are being adapted to the present and ARVL may serve as a secret state recapitulation of the anti-communist laws of past decades.

Andrew Monre developed Cathcart's themes; he demonstrated the close union of imperial faith and capitalist class rule. Moore maintained the vision and the sentiments of imperial-nationalism had considerable moral power to the point where opposition was characterised as incendiarism, social pyromania, beastly nihilism. The ultimate sanction was not so much legislative but violence; he noted the "absorbing" of actual secret armies into a more regular political police methodology in the 1950s did not change the realities of class rule.(61) It could be queried what has changed since the 1950s to alter the capitalist basis of the Australian State. If anything, the system has become merely more sophisticated and "racist extremists" are the new Bolshevik "beasts" and "Asia" our new "great ally".

Joan Coxsedge also argued Australia (1950-1980} had a "clandestine" history; she referred to a pervasive political police arranging surveillance, informing, fake prosecutions and media demonisation of opposition (usually Left} groups. Coxsedge noted such methods were assisted by various other restrictions on speech, movement and assembly. (62) Such references echo portions of the Report of the National Inquiry Into Racist Violence.

The 1980s also produced an instructive "conspiracy" which approximates the ARVL mobilisation and the National Inquiry method. The New Right assault on industrial unionism, the media vilification of Norm Gallagher's Builders' Labourers' Federation and a Royal Commission in Victoria which produced evidence that led to Gallagher's imprisonment, demonstrates the point. While it could be disingenuously said the BLF was a maverick union which strayed beyond the law, and Gallagher a corrupt official, it could also be argued an agenda was in operation to ensure not only his fall but the destruction of militant unionism as the pace of "restructuring" was intensified. Dissembling on 'public order' matters is not uncommon. Speaking in favour of Federal ARVL, Senator Chris Evans said:

"Public speech with the intent of inciting racial hatred is not an expression of opinion or ideas. It is dangerous conduct that is designed to intimidate, frighten, harass and discriminate." (63)

In view of this analysis of the Australian State such a representative declamation in favour of ARVL could be reinterpreted as moral propaganda.

This paper noted the advocates of ARVL established a broad definition of racism. It has analysed the Report of the National Inquiry Into Racist Violence and found it in favour of an authoritarian order and predicated upon false assumptions. ARVL was a response to what the State labels as "organized racism" and that issue was the crux. ARVL was pre-emptive in character designed to ensure no challenge to "Asianisation" could emerge. It was questionable if ARVL had much to do with simple violence and libel which had some recourse in ordinary law. This paper located political police, business lobbies, Zionists and liberal intellectuals as intermeshed forces bearing upon the ARVL debate as part of a system of "authority"; in motion, each could represent the exercise of State power. As observed, the Australian State has never been remiss at the utilisation of weapons of self-protection.

The only proper conclusion is that ARVL is an authoritarian response to criticism of Australian immigration policy and multiculturalism. As dangerous legislation, it is certain to be a focus of contention as opposition to Asianization intensifies. The debate about ARVL could be seen as an existential one with the State and its opposition at loggerheads, the State in fear of its own population and acting to defend specific interests behind a Kafkaesque facade.



Journals/Newspapers/Miscellaneous Documents

Reference Notes


1. Advisory Council on Multicultural Affairs. Towards A National Agenda

For A Multicultural Australia: Goals And Principles. Canberra: AGPS 1988.

2. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Report To Federal Parliament, 1989-90. Canberra: AGPS, 1990.

3. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Report To Federal Parliament, 1990-91. Canberra: AGPS, 1991.

4. Betts, Katherine. Ideology And Immigration. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1988.

5. Cain, Frank. The Origins Of Political Surveillance In Australia. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1983.

6. Cathcart, Michael. Defending The National Tuckshop: Australia's Secret Army Conspiracy Of 1931. Melbourne: cPhee/Penguin, 1988.

7. Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing Consent. SBS Television, December 15, 22, 29, 1992.

8. Coxsedge, Joan (and others). Rooted In Secrecy: The Clandestine Element In Australian Politics. Melbourne: CAPP, 1982.

9. Committee For The Economic Development of Australia. The Economic Effects Of Immigration On Australia. Sydney: CEDA,1985.

10. Duncombe, Lionel. Immigration And The Decline Of Democracy; In: Australia. Canberra: Kalgoorlie Press, 1992.

11. Duparc, Chistiane. The European Community And Human Rights. Bruxelles: Commission of the European Communities, October 1992.

12. Garnaut, Ross. Australia And The North-East Asian Ascendency: Report To The Prime Minister And The Minister For Foreign Affairs And Trade. Canberra: AGPS: 1989.

13. Gouldner, Alvin. The Future Of Intellectuals And The Rise Of The New Class. New York: Seabury Press, 1979.

14. Greason, David. I Was A Teenage Fascist. Melbourne: McPhee/Gribble/Penguin, 1994.

15. Griffin, Nick. Attempted Murder: The State-Reactionary Plot Against The National Front. Norwich: NT Press, 1986.

16. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Report Of The National Inquiry Into Racist Violence. Canberra: AGPS, 1991.

17. Human Rights Commission. Proposal For Amendment To The Racial Discrimination Act To Cover Incitement To Racial Discrimination. Sydney: AGPS, 1984,

18. Keys, William. A Personal View: The People Of Australia - A Special Report. Canberra: Office of Multicultural Affairs, 1989.

19. Leibler, Isi. The Israel-Diaspora Identity Crisis: A Looming Disaster. Melbourne, AIJA, 1994.

20. McKnight, David. Australia's Spies And Their Secrets. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1993.

21. Moore, Andrew. The Secret Army And The Premier: Conservative Paramilitary Organizations In New South Wales 1930-32. Kensington: University of New South Wales Press, 1989.

22. Rimmer, Steven. The Cost Of Multiculturalism. Adelaide: Flinders Press, 1991.

23. Saleam, James. We Accuse!: The State Conspiracy Against National Action And The Australian Nationalists Movement. Sydney: NA, 1990.

24. Smith, Joseph W. The Remorseless Working Of Things: AIDS And The Global Crisis - An Ecological Critique Of Internationalism. Canberra: Kalgoorlie Press, 1992.

25. Smith, Joseph W. The Beginning Of The End? Technology, The Environment And MFP-Australia. Canberra: Kalgoorlie Press, 1992.

26. Wheelwright, E.L.(ed.) Australia And World Capitalism. Sydney: Penguin, 1981.

27. Wheelwright, E.L. The Third Wave: Australia And Asian Capitalism. Sydney: Penguin, 1989.

28. Wilkinson, Paul. The New Fascists. London: Pan 1982.


1. Castan, Ron. "Inquiry Into Racist Violence," Australia-Israel Review, Vol. 14, 10, 27 June - 9 July 1989, p. 12.

2. Gibson, John. "The Issue Of Racial Vilification," Law Institute Journal, August 1990, pp. 709-711.

3. James, Pierre. "Legislating Against The Racist Right," Without Prejudice, December 1991, pp. 30-37.

4. Moss, Irene. "The National Inquiry Into Racist Violence," Without Prejudice, No. 1, September 1990, pp. 7-16.

5. O'Connor, Mark. "Where Does The Politically Correct Line On Immigration Come From?," AESP Newsletter, No.21, March 1994, pp.3-5.

6. Seaman, Jacqui. "Racial Vilification Legislation And Anti-Semitism In New South Wales: The Likely Impact Of The Amendment," Sydney Law Review, 12(2/3), March 1990, pp. 597-615.

7. Stone, John. "How Prejudice Push Upset An Enjoyable Long Weekend," Financial Review, June 16 1994.


1. Australians Against Further Immigration Manifesto, Melbourne 1993.

2. Australian Jewish News, Sydney, 1994-5.

3. CEDA Bulletin, newsletter of the Committee For The Economic Development of Australia. Mixed numbers, 1985-91.

4. Duffy, Michael. Second Reading Speech by Hon. Michael Duffy, M.P. and Attorney-General. The Racial Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill, 1992.

5. National Action, Sydney, 1988-89.

6. National Action News, Adelaide, 1994-5.

7. A large quantity of newspaper reports, commentaries, radio and television news etc. as cited.

8. A quantity of material issued by various "Radical Right" organisations, as cited.


1. John Gibson, "The Issue Of Racial Vilification," Law Institute Journal, August 1990, pp. 709-711, p. 710.

2. Michael Duffy, Second Reading Speech by the Hon. Michael Duffy, M.P. Attorney-General, House of Representatives, Canberra, 1992.

3. Christianne Duparc, The European Community and Human Rights, Commission of the European Communities, Bruxelles, October 1992, pp. 35-37, 43-47.

4. P. Robert-Diard, "Time To Ban The National Front?," Le Monde, in The Guardian Weekly, 27 May 1990, p. 13; I note also John Tyndall of the British National Party, "Just What are Our State Security Services Up To?," Spearhead (reference lost), passed comments upon MI-5 and "racial hatred and xenophobia" legislation. Tyndall has been imprisoned thrice for "incitement to racial hatred" in obviously political prosecutions.

5. Irene Moss, "Plotting A Path To Change," The Weekend Australian, May 30-31 1992, p. 21. Moss also wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald on Feb. 5 1994 a letter to the editor; here she took a keen interest in Asian trade and investment.

6. Irene Moss, "The National Inquiry Into Racist Violence," Without Prejudice, No. 1 September 1990, pp. 7-16.

7. Attorney General's Department, Factsheet: Racial Vilification, Canberra, 1992, p.2.

8. James Saleam, letter to the National Inquiry Into Racist Violence, January 1989.

9. Peter Coleman in evidence, Transcript, R v James Saleam, Parramatta Local Court, November 22 1990; Detective Neville G. Ireland gave confirmatory evidence saying Coleman had been a Special Branch "contact". Coleman was "state leader" of ANM in NSW and he distributed material which advocated racial violence.

10. Duffy, op. cit.

11. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Report Of The National Inquiry Into Racist Violence, AGPS, Canberra, 1991, pp. 30-31.

HEREAFTER, because of the number of references to the Report in the text, the page number will be given there.

12. "Multicultural Australia" can produce many tensions/vilifications based upon historic rivalries. Greek-Macedonia 1993-4 tensions are a case inpoint. No prosecutions were launched under State ARVL.

13. Graeme Campbell, "The National Inquiry Into Racist Violence," The Record, Spring 1993, pp. 39-46.

14. An argument for ARVL in the case of The Turner Diaries could be made - although other mechanisms could be found to deal with its import into Australia or distribution. This book advocates racial murder and other criminal conduct to achieve racist ends. Some persons in Australia (beyond van Tongeren of ANM) have used the book as "inspiration" although few (if any) offences have come of it - and these would not have been serious.

15. I refer to R v Theophanous (which involved Bruce Ruxton), as reported in the media.

16. Such programs are now in place in NSW and Western Australia Police; I refer to various media reports.

17. The Anti-Nazi League is a cause-celebre on the Left, noted for "anti-racist rock carnivals" and violent demonstrations against "racist" organizations. I have examined Socialist Workers Party material per ANL and the National Front's Lifting The Lid On The Anti-Nazi League.

18. A personal observation based upon dealings with a swathe of journalists including - Malcolm Brown, Graeme Williams, Elizabeth Wynhausen, John Birmingham, Sandra Cook, Mari Mohr, Andrew Olle, Ray Martin, David Margin, Marti Georgieff, Howard Gipps and up to another 40 or 50 persons of similar disposition. The liberal sentiment was absolute; it could be said the National Inquiry scarce had to proclaim the need for a more faithful media. It was already in existence.

19. Ross Garnaut, The North East Asian Economic Ascendency, AGPS, Canberra, 1989, p. 330. The timing of Garnaut's tome was interesting: congrous with the Inquiry and suppression operations against "racist" organizations.

20. From a mass of journalism in the Sydney Morning Herald in 1988-89 which quoted Rev. Dorothy McMahon, Betty Hounslow,

journalists and Special Branch detectives; all claimed "harassment".

21. Human Rights Commission, Proposal For Amendment To The Racial Vilification Act To Cover Incitement To Racial Vilification, Sydney 1984; the document was launched almost in secret.

22. Pierre James, "Legislating Against The Racist Right," Without Prejudice, December 1991, pp. 30-37, p. 30.

23. "Jail For Racists Under New Law," Sun Herald (date uncertain); I reprinted the article, but lost the reference. It quotes from NSW Attorney General, John Dowd.

24. Pierre James, op. cit., p.31.

25. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Annual Report ToParliament 1990-91, AGPS, Canberra, 1991, p.16.

26. David Sadleir quoted by Bernard Lagan, "Spies Still Needed Says ASIO Chief," Sydney Morning Herald, 22 April 1993, p.3.

27. Dowding quoted by Debra Read, "Dowding Blasts Race Hate Group," Western Australian, July 1989, p.1 (exact date lost; I reprinted the article; clipping in possession). Van Tongeren was arrested a few weeks later.

28. James Saleam, We Accuse! The State Conspiracy Against National Action And The Australian Nationalists Movement," NA, Sydney, 1990, passim. The document brought together various strands of material,direct evidence and hearsay in support of the argument.

29. New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, Judgment in R v James Saleam, February 11 1994; it was shown ASIO conducted contemporaneous "enquiries" with Special Branch into National Action; ASIO staged electronic surveillance operations and thereby acquired knowledge of legal preparations in defence of Special Branch charges; the allegation is to be tested that ASIO provided such informationto Special Branch in order that it pervert the course of justice.

30. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, op. cit, p. 37

31. Hon. E. Pickering, Hansard: The Legislative Council, 3 May 1989, pp. 7225, 7226. Pickering expressed the quot;outrage" over the harassment of the anti-racist activists cited by the Inquiry. He referred to Special Branch arrests. He noted officers had supposedly been threatened. Helen Sham-Ho, MLC, another "victim" of National Action moved the question and was cited subsequently as a symbol for NSW ARVL.

32. Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, SBS Television, December 15, 22, 29, 1992.

33. Nick Griffin, Attempted Murder: The State-Reactionary Plot Against The National Front, NT Press, Norwich, 1986. See particularly pages: 24, 25, 29, 54-55.

34. Frank Cain, The Origins Of Political Surveillance In Australia, Angus and Robertson, Sydney 1983, linked Australian Intelligence organizations to British parents (McKnight, Coxsedge as below, concur). The formation of ASIO, reform of Federal Police after the Hilton Bomb etc., all involved British Intelligence. A British Special Branch officer was imported in 1978 (Norman Ferris) to

combat the National Front.

35. Lionel Duncombe, Immigration And The Decline Of Democracy In Australia, Kalgoorlie Press, Canberra, 1993, pp. 81-104.

36. Committee For The Economic Development Of Australia, The Economic Effects Of Immigration On Australia, Sydney, 1988; Minister Hurford regularly referred to the document and the Immigration Department praised it as a rationalisation for policy.

37. John Hyde, "Why Growth In Population Is Environmentally Sound," Australian, 1 June 1990, p.9

38. E.L. Wheelwright (ed.) Australia And World Capitalism, Penguin, Sydney, 1981; The Third Wave: Australia And Asian Capitalism, Penguin, Sydney, 1988; assorted Transnational Brief. Wheelwright argued that the "Asian model" of successful capitalism and te pressures upon local business to "compete" would force political leaders to attack structures which inhibited the free market and other "reforms."

39. William Keys, A Personal View: The People Of Australia - A Special Report. Sharing Our Future, Office of Multicultural Affairs, Canberra, 1989.

40. From extensive clipping files maintained by the author upon subjects such as - pro-immigration,denigration of anti-immigration/multiculturalism, use of multiracial actors' groups in advertising et al.

41. Peter Robinson, The Future of Australian Capitalism, The Financial Review, Sydney, 1978, a chapter title.

42. Senator Bolkus, quoted in, "Ministers Differ Over Race Laws," Australian Jewish News, 3 June 1994, p.2.

43. "Race Laws Criticised," Australian Muslim News, 15-28 November 1994, p. 1

44. Jacqui Seaman, "Racial Vilification Legislation And Anti-Semitism In New South Wales: The Likely Effect Of The Amendment," Sydney Law Review, 12 (2/3) March 1990, pp. 597-615,pp. 600-602.

45. Isi Liebler quoted in Australian Jewish News, April 29, 1994.

46. Isi Liebler, The Israel-Diaspora Identity Crisis: A Looming Disaster, AIJA, Melbourne, 1994, passim.

47. John Stone, "How Prejudice Push Wrecked A Good Long Weekend," Financial Review, June 16 1994; Stone attended with Adams the Without Prejudice Melbourne seminar on ARVL.

48. Liebler's "strategy" in dealing with critics of Israel has been longstanding. His Anti-Defamation Commission was first reported in the Age on May 30 1974; he explained his anti-Right ideas in Australian Jewish News, 15 July 1988 and he once authored a booklet (which illustrates anti-semitism has been an obsession) The Escalation Of Anti-Israel And Anti-Semitic Agitation, Melbourne 1974. The scourge of anti-semitism has been a long-time-coming.

49. National Action News (various numbers) 1993-93 has covered Greason's work with the International Socialists; The New Citizen of the Citizen's Electoral Councils noted the Liebler provocations affected via Greason. Greason's I Was A Teenage Fascist, McPhee/Gribble, Melbourne, 1994, was raised up by liberal media as "fact" rather than a fiction about a plethora of Extreme-Right personages.

50. Ron Castan, "Inquiry Into Racist Violence," Australia-Israel Review, Vol. 14, 10, 27 June - 9 July 1989, p.12.

51. Colin Rubinstein and Michael Kapel, "Racial Vilification Bill Is A Crucial Test For the Coalition," Sydney Morning Herald, November 7 1994, p.13.

52. Doron Ur's words were quoted in Hansard by Graeme Campbell per his 1994 broadsides at ARVL. Ur once wrote in Without Prejudice to the effect that ANM was a movement with no public support which would raise the question as to why ARVL was necessary.

53. "Tolerance Is Not Made By Laws," Canberra Times, 30 May 1994;"The Coercive Utpoians," Herald Sun, 30 May 1994; "Dangers In Racial Laws," West Australian, May 31 1994; "Race Case Unproven," The Age, 31 May 1994.

54. Tony Katsigiannis, "How The NSW Anti-Discrimination Laws Threaten Free Speech," Policy, Summer 1989, pp. 29-31; Australian Civil Liberties Union, Your Rights, Carlton, 1994, develops the same theme at several points. Its editor, John Bennett, is also a denier of the Holocaust.

55. Peter Costello. Speech To The 36th Biennial Conference Of The Zionist Federation Of Australia. Melbourne, May 29 1994.

56. Katherine Betts, Immigration And Ideology: Australia 1976-87, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1988, pp. 99, 118-119.

57. Mark O'Connor,"Where Does The Politically Correct Line On Immigration Come From?" AESP Newsletter, No. 21 March 1994, pp.3-5.

Alvin Goulder, The Future Of Intellectuals And The Rise Of The New Class, Seabury, New York, 1979, argued a similar position had been arrived at inAmerica by the mid-1970's. Joseph Smith in two works, The Remorseless Workings Of Things, AIDS And The Global Crisis: An Ecological Critique Of Internationalism, Kalgoorlie Press, Canberra, 1992 and The Beginning Of The End? Technology, The Environment And MFP-Australia, Kalgoorlie Press, Canberra, 1992 - contended that the liberal intellectual caste had hegemony over other rival schools of thought and pursued an intellectual terrorism in the enforcement of their opinions.

58. Graeme Campbell, The Record, op. cit. p.42 If Campbell was referring to S. Castles, M. Kalantzis, B. Cope, M. Morrisey, Mistaken Identity: Multiculturalism And The Demise Of Nationalism In Australia, Pluto Press, Sydney, 1988 - he was correctly stating the position. By these authors, there is no Australian Identity.

59. Michael Cathcart, Defending The National Tuckshop: Australia's Secret Army Conspiracy Of 1931, McPhee/Penguin, Melbourne, 1988, pp. 123-126.

60. David McKnight, Australia's Spies And Their Secrets, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1993, p. 300 and passim.

61. Andrew Moore, The Secret Army And The Premier: Conservative Paramilitary Organizations In New South Wales 1930-32; this is the central theme of Moore's work.

62. Joan Coxsedge, Rooted In Secrecy: The Clandestine Element In Australian Politics, CAPP, Melbourne, 1982. Coxsedge's long campaign against political police and dirty tricks was waged for over 15 years.

63. Senator C.V. Evans, Current Senate Hansard, 23 August 1995, p.222