Harry M. Miller, “Curing our malaise,”
The Australian, October 21, 1975, p. 10.

Let me point out that this new Australian Workers Party is not my idea of what Australia needs at the moment, and it doesn’t seem to me to be the sort of thing that would appeal to most workers, and I am inclined to think that the name is a bit of a smokescreen when I see the names of the people associated.

I’ll say no more than that because I could be whistling in the dark, whatever that means, and certainly I claim no real knowledge; but it does occur to me that names, such as in this case “worker,” are not necessarily any indication of what’s going on.

I seem to remember that Hitler called his party the National Socialists and while I concede that he did bring about social clamour of a kind I think it’s fair to say that Hitler didn’t really have the normal people-embracing, underdog-concern attitude that one in more generous moments applies to the word “socialist.”

But perhaps Australia does need something new. We seem to be at loggerheads, split in two, and there must be a lot of people who don’t really know which side of the fence they belong. If you believe in private enterprise, do you have to also support the survival of the States and God Save the Queen? If you want national health, do you also have to go along with nationalising the banks?

Perhaps some people might say that the answer lies in something like the Australia Party, but they have been such an ineffectual mob that really I think they must go the same way as the DLP — not because their policies are wrong necessarily but because they’ve shown no drive.

And, anyway, this is a time of economic crises … I think we can all agree on that, so perhaps something with a rather special approach is needed.

Which brings to mind Britain. The British are an extraordinary people. We hear all sorts of tales of woe from that island these days, but I bet if you went over there you’d find just as much hilarity in their gorgeous pubs and the same glorious Sunday walks through the park.

Nevertheless, they’ve got more problems than us economically and so there are of course some people who are trying to do something about it. Like the people organisation, Action ’75. Now in fact the Action ’75 people are all unionists and they have set out their plans in a recent edition of Waterfront and Industrial Pioneer, a trade-union paper that has come into my hands.

Let me quote some of the aims of the unionists of Action ’75. Under the headline “The Key to Survival in the Immediate Future is a Year for Britain rather than a Year for Self,” we read: “We, a group of ordinary people from various walks of life and many different parts of the nation, would state that we’re not content to allow economic disaster to overtake us, our children and this nation without action being taken by each of us.”

They go on to say that they believe that the income/prices spiral must be broken and to this end they would accept a standstill in living standards.

Now I don’t know if any of this would work, would make any difference to the overall economic situation, but what I’m attracted to is the attitude of these guys. And let me hasten to say that I would be even more touched if a few of the wealth-holders in British society joined in and said something like that in order to break the income/prices spiral they would accept a lowering of living standards (and they can still drink their French champers at least at weekends).

What about us? Could it possibly have some effect to get people on both sides of the fence looking for overall solutions instead of band-aid jobs devised to protect their own short-sighted interests? After all, even if the economic feasibility is not strong, at least the spirit of such action would be of some help.