'IN WAR OR UNDER THE THREAT OF WAR'

During the Depression of the thirties, produced by the same financial groups responsible for the current Depression, there emerged in Britain a movement known as Political and Economic Planning (P.E.P.). This movement brought into the open the nexus between International Finance, Big Business and Marxism. P.E.P. was a forerunner to movements, which have developed since the end of the Second World War - The Bilderbergers, the Club of Rome and The Trilateralists.

P.E.P. stressed that it was only "in war or under the threat of war" that British people would submit to large scale centralised planning. Bearing in mind its source, this statement provides a key to an explanation of the deepening world crisis. The threat of military war, sustained by the Soviet Union, itself a creature of the International Financial groups which have sustained the Soviet and its satellites with massive credits, is now augmented with the threat of a disastrous international trade war as desperate nations seek to solve their internal problems by feverish exports.
The United States, for example, threatens to retaliate against the European Economic Community's policy of subsidising its vast agricultural surpluses on to the world's markets, and virtually giving some of the surplus to the Soviet, by "dumping" its own enormous food surpluses on to other countries.

]As the international crisis deepens, the constant theme is being advanced that the only hope for mankind is planning on a global scale. Talk of "reforming" the international banking system, and the increasing promotion of the New International Economic Order, are all part of the Big Idea. Australians should carefully note that not only Prime Minister Fraser and associates like Mr. Andrew Peacock are keen supporters of the Big Idea, but that it is also endorsed by both Mr. Bill Hayden and Mr. Bob Hawke, although the lure of support from some of Australia's threatened secondary industries has resulted in the ALP suggesting that these industries are entitled to some protection against foreign imports.

Although we believe that the Fraser Government and its advisers are reading the results of the Flinders by-election incorrectly, there appears to be little doubt that the "wage freeze" political gimmick did help to sustain the Liberals. For what it is worth, one public opinion poll claimed that 52 percent of the electors supported a "wage freeze", with 42 percent against. But 72 percent supported a policy of a freeze for twelve months on both wages and prices.

The Premiers' Conference was an extension of the Federal Government's political gimmickry and was designed to try to provide Prime Minister Fraser with a policy on which he might attempt a Federal election early next year, arguing that he is attempting to provide "stability". Premier Wran of N.S.W. is reported to have said at the Premiers' Conference that it reminded him of the disastrous Premiers' Conference in the Thirties, which drastically reduced purchasing power and eventually resulted in the political defeat of most of those who participated.
It is disappointing that not one of the Premiers, Labor or non-Labor, offered one constructive alternative to what Treasurer John Howard and his "advisers" virtually demanded.

The central truth about the worsening crisis in Australia is simple; there is inadequate purchasing power to buy the existing production. The policies of the Fraser Government, including the coming increase tax on petrol of 5 cents a litre (approximately 20 cents a gallon) are mathematically certain to maintain inflation at the present high level, which means that a "freeze" on wages will result in a further reduction in effective purchasing power.

Many public servants are grossly overpaid in relationship to what they do, but "freezing" their wages and using the money "saved" to finance "job creating" schemes will not increase total purchasing power by one cent. The whole concept is an extension of the socialist programme. The total result is going to be a further undermining of important sections of Australian secondary industries. This is welcomed by the international planners and their local agents and dupes, who continue to insist that Australian industry must be "restructured".

Part of the Big Idea is to reduce Australia to a type of off shore quarry to feed international industrial complexes based in Asia. Australia's future as an independent nation can only be secured by internal financial policies which free Australia from the alleged necessity to participate in the international trade war. The first essential step is the complete abolition of Sales Tax, followed by the policy of consumer price subsidies as promised by the Menzies- Fadden Coalition at the 1949 Federal Elections.

EDGING CLOSER TO THE N.I.E.O.

Both Australia and New Zealand have obediently signed The Law of The Sea - a United Nations concept that is part of the New International Economic Order package, and also recommended in the Brandt Report. So far the United States has refused to sign and the Reagan administration is coming under increasing pressure to do so.

What is wrong with the Law of the Sea?
On November 4th, 1982, "The Press", a major New Zealand daily, reported: "Britain and other countries were urged this week not to sign the draft Law of the Treaty because an independent report claimed it would allow terrorist organisations to share in revenues from international mining operations on the ocean floor.
The report, published by the London based Institute of European Defence and Strategic Studies, said the Treaty permits United Nations recognised liberation groups, such as the Palestine Liberation organisation to join the administration of a proposed international seabed authority and to receive some of its income. Of 150 nations that took part in negotiating the draft treaty, 130 voted last April to back it. But 17 nations, including most East and West European States, abstained. Four countries including the United States rejected the first draft...."

The Institute Report went on to point out that one of the areas likely to be affected by the Treaty was the Antarctic, which is of major economic and strategic concern to Australia. This was followed by a most significant report in "The Weekend Australian" (Dec. 11-12, 82) as follows: "The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Mrs. Jeane Kirkpatrick, yesterday spoke out strongly against the Law of the Sea Convention, which the USA and other Western nations - but not Australia - refuse to sign. The international bureaucracy running the UN is committed to achieving "global socialism" Mrs. Kirkpatrick charged. It advances a Marxist ideology based on the assertion that all poverty is the fault of the rich...." Mrs. Kirkpatrick is right.

The documentation is overwhelming. The Brandt Commission was a Socialist International project set up by that body at its Vancouver Conference in 1978. Willy Brandt is current chairman of the Socialist International, which will be meeting for its Congress in Sydney next April, hosted by the A.L.P. Senator Don Grimes has announced that amongst those attending will be the Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme (Member of the Brandt Commission), Mr. Bettino Craxi of the Italian Socialist Party, the new left-wing Spanish Prime Minister Mr. Felipe Gonzalez, the leader of the British Labor Party, Michael Foot, and Chilean Radical Party chairman Anselmo Sule.
The Socialist International Congress should be highly pleased with Malcolm Fraser's performance in pushing the N.I.E.O.

Meanwhile, the movement - Parliamentarians For World Order - has just sponsored a "United Nations parliamentary meeting on global development issues" from November 15th to the 17th. Attending on behalf of Australia was the Liberal Member for Higgins, Mr. Roger Shipton, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. According to reports, the conference was designed specifically for foreign affairs and development committees from key parliaments with the intention of exploring possibilities for progress in global economic negotiations.

Mr. Shipton described the PWO as "a United Nations centered group of 600 legislators in 25 countries devoted to strengthening international institutions for the maintenance of world peace.... Principal discussion items will include food and raw materials, energy, trade, development assistance, and monetary and financial questions...."
The Parliamentarians For World Order pamphlet makes it clear it is committed to the Brandt Report, set up by the Socialist International. To the Liberals of this world, the Socialists must be saying with amazed incredulity "Come in, Spinner."

WOOL OVER THEIR EYES

Eighteen months ago, just after it became apparent that Poland was bankrupt, Australia lent Poland $40 million "To buy Australian wool". Whoever dreamed up such a deal should have been sent to a psychiatrist. "The Financial Review" (30/11/82) said: "Poland is again in default of payment for wool purchased at auction during October and has again had its roll over cover on a $40 million line of credit, guaranteed by the Federal Government, temporarily suspended by the Export Finance Insurance Corporation.

This is the third time in under 18 months Poland has failed to make a prompt payment for wool purchases, being in default of about $6 million in July last year and about $2 million in late September this year.... A spokesman for the wool brokers said yesterday that Poland had this time failed to make the prompt payment on wool which was worth considerably more than $2 million but less than $10 million. He said brokers had paid woolgrowers in expectation of receipt of the money and were now carrying the debt on behalf of Poland...."
It may be that the bankrupt Poland can borrow enough money from some international source or other to make payment this time. But the time is coming when Australia doesn't get paid at all. Australian politicians must be held responsible for the treacherous support of Communist regimes.

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION 'STOOD ON ITS HEAD'

Many actionists have been campaigning with the special issue (September '82) of the League's monthly journal of current affairs - Intelligence Survey on "The Threatened Destruction of the Federal Constitution". Now Mr. B.A. (Bob) Santarmaria, of the National Civic Council, has added his strong voice to sound the dangers involved in the now notorious "Koowarta Case" decision of the High Court of Australia of last May.

In The Australian (November 30th) in an article headed - "An undammed flow of power from the States", Mr. Santamaria endorsed our own views: we can quote only in part for obvious reasons:
Last May in what is known as the Koowarta Case, the High Court decided by four votes to three that the Commonwealth had the power to make laws to give effect to international treaties and conventions and could override powers otherwise reserved by the Constitution to the States. The question is not whether or not the Franklin Dam should be built. It is whether the Federal Government should take a State matter out of State hands. To use foreign affairs to usurp the power of the States on a subject, which has nothing to do with foreign policy, is an abuse of the Commonwealth Constitution.
"History being at a discount, it may be unfashionable to point out that the six Australian colonies made a strictly limited bargain when they brought the Commonwealth into being. Essential to the federal compact was the grant of specified powers to the Federal Government, the residue, unspecified, remaining in the hands of the States….
"On the vast majority of occasions in which the Commonwealth has sought to expand its own powers by referendum, the people have said 'no'. "Despite this, a series of majorities on the High Court bench over the past 60 years has substituted its views and its will for the will of the people expressed in a series of referendums....
"The Constitution has been stood on its head. The Commonwealth now holds all effective power, and the States only what it permits.... "The most effective revolutionary force in transforming the nature of the Australian political system has thus been not the Carmichaels or the Gallaghers, but many of the judges who have sat on the High Court bench. (Our emphasis)

From Hansard
The Senate (November 25th): Senator MacGibbon (Qld): Heritage Properties Protection Bill:
".... Senator Mason a year or so ago was talking about the abolition of State Governments and the setting up of the old socialist doctrine of regional seats of government or some equivalent shire scheme such as that to administer Australia from some central source. I find that a heretical belief from someone who also holds a seat in the Senate, which is the States' House. Ever since Federation the sovereignty of the States has been maintained. Indeed, if we had not had a federation we would not have had a Commonwealth of Australia because we had six States that all had a proud and successful history of achievement before 1901….
.... the characteristics of the federation are that we have to respect the diversity of human nature, of human achievement and it also relates very well to the geography of Australia, the great distances that are involved and the different regional attitudes that come from having this Federal system. A consequence of that which is lost by people here is that States must, therefore, be different and States can be different. They can quite legally, legitimately and properly have different values as to how they want the societies in their States to be run. It is impossible for Canberra to decide what needs to be done in my own State, in Burketown or Birdsville and it is even less possible for someone in New York or Paris to make that decision for us…"

Senator Crichton-Browne (W.A.):
The Australian Democrats are on record as saying that they would abolish State parliaments. Mr. Hawke is on record saying that he would abolish the States' House as I recall. Mr. Hayden said that he would abolish the Senate. It is the same thing. If you abolish the Senate you abolish the States' House. There seems to be some misguided concept amongst some honourable Senators opposite that all wisdom resides here. It is interesting how they are all equal in their own States. It is just a question of the luck of the draw as to whether a person gets an endorsement for the Senate, the House of Representatives, or the Upper or Lower House in the State from which that person comes. We have all been through that process. Suddenly, once honourable Senators opposite arrive here they feel they have a superior knowledge that overwhelms, overcomes, and imposes itself far above that of the poor plebians who seek to make judgment and laws in respect of their own States.
"As long as I have been in the Senate I have noticed that State governments and State politicians have been treated as minors, mendicants, and second class citizens. As I said, frankly that is not the view that members of parliament take when they go back to their own State councils for preselection. The States and the members of the State parliaments more than anybody else ought to be sensitive, and conscious and ought to be aware of the need, the wishes, the ambitions and the aspirations of the people in their own States. If they make a mistake they are ignominiously removed from office in a very short time. I would have thought that they would be the best judges of the consequences of their decisions. They are very mindful of the needs and the wishes of their States. Primarily, they are concerned only with their own States. They are best able to make judgments on the balances between conservation and development and growth and the stifling of growth. They are accountable to their voters.
"As long as I have been a member of the Liberal Party, particularly the Liberal Party of Western Australia, I have always understood one of its basic tenets to be a belief in the devolution of power away from Canberra, not towards it. This is another of those classic centralist pieces of legislation, which are so enthusiastically embraced by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. It flies in the face of everything that I have always supported as a Liberal. It seems perhaps unnecessary to remind ourselves that this parliament had powers vested in it as a result of the original States coming together in the first place to hand over certain specific powers clearly written in the Constitution, the residual power remaining in the lands of the States. It is a very poor excuse to use the external affairs powers to surreptitiously undermine the fundamental intentions of those powers to provide a capacity to introduce this type of legislation. I am very much opposed to it.
"I am always interested to note that in referendums on these sorts of issues the people in Canberra overwhelmingly support decisions in Tasmania or elsewhere. I suspect that a great majority of people in Canberra are civil servants who would probably get lost once they went past Queanbeyan. I wonder how many of them have been to Tasmania to enable them to make these sorts of judgments. I wonder how many of them have been to Western Australia to see its magnificent countryside and to decide whether people in that State have the capacity and the sensitivity to distinguish among growth, development and conservation. I have no doubt that were there a referendum in Australia to introduce this sort of legislation it would be overwhelmingly defeated not only in W.A., Tasmania, and Queensland, but also in many other States...."