Page 3382 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
1. The name of my book is "Hand Over Our Loot", not "the" loot.
2. Nowhere have I ever said that there should be unlimited creation of credit as occurs now with the private banking system. This statement by Mr Connolly cannot be substantiated by fact.
3. There is no fraudulent material in my book. I should not have to give Mr Connolly, who is a solicitor, lessons in the subject of semantics.
4. If Mr Connolly reads the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia he will see that the power of banking comes under section 51 (xiii), not (i) for the Commonwealth, and that same sub-section expressly grants the States banking power. I quote the sub-section;
"Banking - other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money:"
5. Mr Connolly fails to distinguish between coin, paper money and credit.
6. Mr Connolly fails to understand that money/credit is only a forerunner to Trade in all dealings, either domestic or international.
7. Sub-section (i) of section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution pertains quite clearly to,
"Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States:" not to banking.
It is pointless to go on with the mistakes Mr Connolly has made as there are so many.
However, while in Canberra next Thursday morning, I will make, in person, a similar offer to that which I made to Senator Peter Walsh on page five of my book, that is to show that he didn't mislead the House. That full offer is this. I challenge Mr Connolly to a public debate on the matters he has raised with respect to my book, and will give him $50,000 in legal tender of the Commonwealth of Australia if he can legally prove all that he said about myself or my book. I will ask that he invite as many bankers and economists as he is able to muster, as I have a few hard questions to ask them in public, questions that bankers and economists seem reluctant to answer. Mr Connolly should not be surprised if the bankers decline to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .