This column has long argued that there is no significant problem in Australia today, which, if it were not created by the politicians, has not been made worse by them.

A horrific problem confronting the nation today is a raging bacillus plague, antisemitism, a core feature of both communist and Nazi rule and incompatible with Australia, one of the world’s oldest continuing democracies. It was negligent and incompetent politicians who introduced this, but it is Labor which knowingly tolerated and encouraged its growth for the most shameful of reasons, cheap electoral advantage.

This has even resulted in illicit change to the foreign policy of our nation, the very badge of our status as an independent state.

This has involved a fundamental and disgraceful diversion from the traditional consensus with our most important and crucial ally, the USA.

This has been effected through application of that base, insidious and dishonourable electoral test first used against prime minister Julia Gillard, expressed in the rhetorical question to caucus, ‘Can the existing policy be defended from the steps of the Lakemba Mosque?’

As discussed here recently, the entirely justifiable deportation of extremist cleric, Sheik Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly, was avoided by Prime Minister Keating replacing a minister so that, instead of deportation, Hilaly was granted permanent residence..

Notwithstanding strong rhetoric from  New South Wales Premier Minns, the police under his government declined to act against a series of shocking public displays of antisemitism, beginning with the riot at the Opera House and continuing down to public demonstrations, which should be limited to the Domain, if necessary through supporting legislation.

The problem began in the very early days of the Fraser government, a point Gerard Henderson later confirmed in a telephone conversation with Fraser in 2006. Fraser, no doubt embarrassed by the mess he had created, claimed he had forgotten what is clearly on the record in cabinet documents.   Approached in late 1975 by Maronite Catholic Lebanese concerned by the effect of the Lebanese civil war, Fraser agreed that Maronites should be allowed to come to Australia as refugees, despite not being able to claim they were fleeing persecution. In a fatally flawed scheme, all applicants had to do was claim they were fleeing the civil war and that they had a relative in Australia. There was to be no regard to three matters considered essential in relation to most immigrants. This was not only concerning their economic viability and  personal qualities. It was also the crucial issue as to their capacity for successful settlement in Australia, which requires a respect for Australian laws and values.

No wonder Fraser affected a failure to recall the concession. How could a prime minister do this?

It should be recalled that in creating the concession he was acting under legislation which the constitution insists is to be made for the peace order and good government of this Commonwealth.

Rather than hearing repetitions of the ubiquitous ‘Welcome to Country’, the politicians should often be reminded of this constitutional prescription for legislation. And why should they not be made accountable on this effectively 24/7, as are Swiss legislators?

As to the Lebanese concession, it was soon demonstrated that the Fraser government should have obtained independent advice as to its need and form. Whatever Maronite leaders in Australia believed, few Maronites in Lebanon were interested.

However, Muslims from backward rural areas, well away from the fighting and often under the influence of ultra-Islamist clerics,  were very much attracted.

In September 1976, a disturbing report was put before cabinet with the disastrous news that the immigration department had lost control of the concession. Worse, the government was on notice that the ‘conflicts, tensions and divisions within Lebanon’ could be ‘transferred to Australia’.

According to cabinet records, Minister Michael Mackellar began to insist on the ‘declining quality’ of many immigrants. A high percentage, he said, were illiterate. Personal hygiene was poor and  90 per cent were Muslim. With families of up to 18 children applying, identification  was complicated.Misrepresentations and deliberate attempts to conceal vital information were prolonging interviews. He put his finger on the serious and fundamental weakness in the concession, the absence of the essential criteria for immigration, above all each immigrant’s capacity for successful settlement in Australia, which surely requires a respect for Australian laws and values.

In brief, the programme was a disaster.

Yet the Albanese government openly ignores the lessons from this disaster. They have done something even Arab countries refuse to do. They have admitted 3,000 refugees from Gaza where any proper investigation is impossible.

Meanwhile back under the Fraser government, the Lebanese concession was closed down on 30 November, 1976. Thereafter the normal criteria for immigrants applied, including an ‘ability to integrate’ .

But with chain immigration (i.e. family reunion) and a high birth rate, the Lebanese concession has left an indelible mark on the nation. So much so that the present leader of the opposition was able to observe correctly when he was minister of immigration that two-thirds of those charged with terrorism-related -offences were ‘from second and third-generation Lebanese Muslim backgrounds’. By that he meant that their parents and grandparents had entered Australia under the Lebanon concession, or as a beneficiary of family reunion schemes for Lebanon-concession ‘refugees’. This has been accompanied by an increase in crime which led to the creation of a since-suppressed NSW Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad.

What can be done? I would suggest six measures.

First, the police should always apply the existing criminal law immediately whenever there appears to be a breach.

Second, proceed with mandatory minimum penalties, stripping any power not to impose a conviction. If deportation is blocked constitutionally go immediately to the people.

Third, do not legislate, as Canberra did, to introduce hate laws which do not require incitement to violence. They will only be abused.

Fourth, where governments exercise executive power not for the public benefit but for mere electoral advantage, they should be exposed in the mainstream media with the drive demonstrated over ministerial car abuse or the award of a knighthood to Prince Philip.

Fifth, state governments should immediately do their basic duty and restore the mission of the schools and the universities to offering old-fashioned common sense education and stop being the propaganda arm of the far left.

Sixth, make the politicians accountable 24/7, as in Switzerland.