AUSTRALIA'S TRENDY FOREIGN MINISTER IN ACTION

"The Sunday Press, Melbourne, of November 19th, reports aides of the American entertainer, Miss Shirley Maclaine, as saying they did not know if she would be escorted this week by Foreign Minister Andrew Peacock. Mr. Peacock escorted Miss Maclaine at the Melbourne Cup. "The Sunday Press" report comments that "In Canada it is almost certain she will be entertained by another of her big time political admirers, Prime Minister Trudeau."
Perhaps it is just coincidence that Prime Minister Trudeau and Mr. Andrew Peacock both admire Miss Maclaine's talents as an entertainer. But like a number of other Hollywood "superstars", Miss Maclaine has a long record of supporting pro-Communist causes.

While Miss Maclaine would obviously have a political rapport with Prime Minister Trudeau, what about Mr. Andrew Peacock, Foreign Minister in an allegedly anti-Communist Government? Mr. Peacock is a vain man who likes to demonstrate that he "is moving with the times". He has sought to present a "fashionable" image and at present is the chief political spokesman in Australia for the "New International Economic Order". It is the "in" thing now to reject nationalism and to espouse internationalism although the "New International Economic Order" is in fact a programme for supra-nationalism. This is the programme being promoted by Mr. Peacock's friend, Mr. David Rockefeller.

Speaking at a Melbourne press club last week (November 17th), Mr. Peacock returned once again to the underlying theme of the "New International Economic Order". Mr. Peacock said, according to "The Age" of November 18th that "Australia was seen by many other countries as a large, resource-rich, under populated and seemingly racist society." Mr. Peacock did not name these "many other countries", but indicated who they are when he said, "The Third World wants a more equal distribution of the world's resources between the rich and the poor." This is one of the dominant features of the proposals of the "New International Economic Order".

It is not an original theme, having being advanced by the Marxist-Leninists over many years. It is an extension of the false view that the poor are poor because of the rich. Mr. Peacock said that while Australia should not necessarily concede all the Third World's demands, "Australia should recognise them as an important new dimension of the world scene." The only influence the "Third World" nations, many of them the quite artificial African States, have internationally is through the United Nations, where they generally vote with the Communist bloc.

In his Melbourne Press Club address Mr. Peacock strongly defended the United Nations against its critics, claiming that it was a valuable international forum. He failed to state that it is not only a forum, which serves the cause of the Marxists-Leninists, but is progressively taking on the attributes of an embryonic World Government. The "New International Economic Order" is designed to strengthen this World Government.

Like all such programmes, the initial stages have to be presented in such a way that there will be the minimum of resistance. Any suggestion that the programme must lead to a world monopoly of power is treated as the product of the over-heated imaginations of "right-wing extremists." It was the Peacock's of the British Conservative Party, the "progressives", who assured the British electors that there was no question of the European Economic Community developing towards a Federalised Western Europe in which the United Kingdom would be but a Province. Now it is admitted that a common monetary policy and a European Parliament are essential to maintain the "dynamic" of the European Economic Community.
The Bolshevik leader Trotsky strongly advocated a United States of Europe, as did another well-known Socialist, Adolf Hitler.

Once the momentum towards centralised power reaches a certain stage, it automatically increases. The political Peacocks only strut the stage for a short period, but centralised power becomes a permanent reality. The lesson of history teaches that the only place for power is in the hands of the many, not the few. If a challenge to the present leadership of the Liberal Party emerges next year, and we will not be surprised if it does, then it would be another major disaster for Australians if Mr. Andrew Peacock moves to the top. He and his "New International Economic Order" must be strongly opposed by all freedom loving Australians.

VICTORIAN LIBERAL PARTY TROUBLES

Non-partisan political observers are agreed that only the more rabid revolutionary Socialists can save the Victorian Hamer Government from a massive electoral backlash when it goes to the polls in June of next year. Premier Hamer has indicated his own nervousness by deciding to hold the poll at the latest possible date.
While conceding that the Victorian Government had had its problems when he addressed the Liberal State Council last week, Premier Hamer stressed that his party was a strong supporter of the free society, and that the time had come for unity. But hanging around his neck like the famous Albatros, is the blatant breaking of a pre-election promise not to introduce compulsory fluoridation, and his stubborn refusal to heed the fact that, as demonstrated at the Ballarat by-election, compulsory fluoridation is a "gut issue" which could affect a sufficient percentage of the vote to mean the difference between political survival and defeat.

Now Mr. Hamer is faced with another "gut issue": the Liberal Party Council's decision to re-introduce capital punishment. This decision was a personal blow to Mr. Hamer, as he was responsible in 1975 for introducing a private Member's Bill to abolish capital punishment, a Bill that only narrowly passed both Houses of Parliament with solid Labor support. The call for the death penalty for certain crimes like terrorism, although it has divided the Liberal Party, with senior Federal Liberal Members opposing the proposal, reflects beyond doubt the views of the majority of the electors.

In her address to the Liberal Party Council meeting, Mrs. Joy Mien, President of the Liberal Party's Victorian Branch, did little to serve the cause of party unity when she urged that the Liberals get rid of parisites operating within the party." This was a shaft at those critics who in the main have taken a more conservative stance than that of Premier Hamer. Clearly if Mrs. Mien and those who think as she does have their way, there will have to be many more expulsions similar to those of Members Francis and Jennings.
We will be surprised if Mr. Doug Jennings is not reelected, as an Independent, at the next Victorian State Elections.

Prime Minister Fraser made his contribution to the Council meeting by urging all to "get behind Dick" and presenting more of the tired old clichés that have become so monotonous. Mr. Fraser knows that his own future could be tied to the results of the next Victorian State Elections. After their disastrous performance in the N.S.W. State Elections, the Liberals' major base in Australia is Victoria. If this base collapses at the State Elections, the long-simmering back bench concern in the Federal Liberal Party could erupt in an open challenge to Malcolm Fraser.
Unless the Fraser Government modifies its finance economic policies, the Hamer Government will next year be facing the electors at a time when unemployment will be higher than it is now and the economy overall still in a depressed state.

Much of the relatively successful political progress of Premier J. Bjelke-Petersen stems from his anti-Canberra stand, creating the image of a man who is independent enough to oppose not only a Labor Federal Government, but also a Liberal Government. If the Hamer Government is to survive, it must dissociate itself from the Fraser Government's policies as the first essential. Compulsory fluoridation should be dropped, and all Liberal candidates assured that they would have a free vote on the death penalty issue. But right now the Hamer Government, and with it, Prime Minister Fraser, are in deep trouble.

RHODESIAN REALITIES