THE BRITISH POLICY ON RHODESIA EXPLAINED

"There would he no independence for Rhodesia before majority rule, the British Deputy High Commissioner in Australia, Mr. J. C. Morgan said in Perth yesterday." West Australian March 4.

The above statement should clarify the position for the Australian Government to evaluate their own policy in regard to Rhodesia. In the past the Australian Government has evidently laboured under a misapprehension that the British Government genuinely sought a return to independence based upon the 1961 constitution. Correspondence from the Prime Minister's Department has been received to that effect.

The Australian Government has concurred and hacked a stand, which if Mr. Morgan's statement is a correct outline of official British policy is not in line with the Australian Government's. For as correspondence received on behalf of the Prime Minister makes it clear, the 1961 Constitution outlines the basis of participation between the African and the European which makes clear the principle "that majority rule could not come about immediately but should be reached through merit and achievement".
The Rhodesian Government practices this principle; the British Government now says there will be "no independence for Rhodesia before majority rule". Where does the Australian Government stand?

If we can take a line through the latest pronouncement of the Government on New Guinea arising from the remarks of Mr. Barnes, then it would be blatant hypocrisy for the Australian Government to take a dissimilar attitude to the Rhodesian Government.

THE BOONAROO FIASCO

In Parliament yesterday the Minister for Labor and National Service, Mr. Bury, attacked the executive of the Seamen's Union for being more concerned with the triumph of Hanoi than with the welfare of union members ...he said that several unions had been most anxious to sail and man the Boonaroo and the Jeparit. But the key is the Seamen's Union which is communist-dominated, he said. "The aim of the Communist Party is a Communist victory." The Australian March 3.

Once again we have a leading spokesman of the Government speaking with two voices on the Vietnam War. The Communists in the Seamen's Union are working for a Communist victory in Vietnam, they are perfectly clear about their objective, they want victory and no holds are barred to obtain that victory. Not only will they refuse to man the Boonaroo but also they will supply shock troops for any demonstration against the Government's policy anywhere in Australia. But Mr. Bury is helpless to take constructive action against them. Why? Simply because the Government will not heed the advice of another Union leader who put the position clearly earlier this year as we reported in On Target February 3, the statement by Mr. Tom Dougherty, General Secretary of the AWU
"... if there is a fight to be fought, let the Government declare war and let us go in strength ... The Government insists that it is not a war, Then what the hell is it?..."

The Government cannot clap the Communists in the Seamen's Union behind bars because they are acting as ordinary peaceful citizens in a country, which is not at war with anyone!
What is it we are doing over in Vietnam, playing tiddlywinks?

DENTAL TOTALITARIANISM

"No public health measures would succeed if it depended on public co-operation." Dr. Elizabeth Fanning, Head of Preventive Dentistry. Department of Adelaide University. The Herald February 28.

The recent Dental Congress held in Melbourne at which Dr. Fanning was speaking was notable for one thing if newspaper reports can be judged as reliable. That is that addition to the public water supplies of one of the most highly toxic substances known, sodium fluoride, will prevent tooth decay, which is depicted as a national scourge. We are a little suspicious of this high-powered propaganda from a professional group, which would normally be labeled conservative.
The statement quoted above by the lady is that of a complete totalitarian.

Our Thought for the Week at the head of this journal should be brought to her attention. But even this lady had to take second place to a Mr. J. N.Phipps the honorary secretary, Victorian Association for Fluoridation and Dental Health (you cannot have one without the other!) who in a letter to the Melbourne Herald March 6 suggested, in fact demanded, that the Government should indemnify any authority for the costs of any action brought by citizens who wished to protect their rights.

Like all true totalitarians he wants the whole weight of the State brought down upon any individual who doesn't agree with Mr. Phipps' particular brand of poison.

THE INTERESTING CASE OF ADAM CLAYTON POWELL

"Mr. Powell, the flamboyant Negro Congressman, had his seat declared vacant by 248 to 176 votes in the House of Representatives, which ordered a new election in his ghetto constituency… "Almost without exception the Negro leaders - and many Negroes on the streets of Harlem saw the exclusion of Mr. Powell as an act of racism." The Age (Melbourne) March 3.

Adam Clayton Powell was found guilty of redirecting public funds to his private uses and flagrant disregard for the dignity and responsibilities of his office. On the moral side his behaviour resembled that of an alley cat. A nine man investigating committee chaired by Mr. Emmanuel Celler proposed that he be censured, fined $40,000.00 and stripped of seniority. This proposal backed by Democratic and Republican party leaders would have left him his seat in the house. Congress however decided that this was too lenient hence the above news item.

The description in the report of this repulsive criminal as "flamboyant" is a fine example of interpretive reporting. To resent his exclusion from public office without questioning his guilt and describe it as "an act of racism" condemns these Negro leaders of the most blatant "racism" or worse. It suggests that because he is a Negro he deserves preferential treatment.
An old Latin tag freely translated as "When criminals lead the guards, then who will guard the city?" seems appropriate.

A SOUND APPROACH TO EDUCATIONAL FINANCE

"The Liberal MLA (Mr. Brian Dixon) yesterday criticised Australia's 'basically economic' approach to education ...! It is more important to solve the question of the best way to educate people first, then seek finance for it." The Age (Melbourne) March 7.

The Socialists in Australia's educational structure are working like beavers to completely centralise control, financial and curricula at Canberra. After all it is the logical objective of communism, and communists are intensely practical people.
Mr. Dixon went on to say, "By concentrating on the problem of finance, we have caused a centralised system."

In reality it is the centralised system of finance which has caused the problem, but at least Mr. Dixon is half way there which is more than can be said for many trying to wrestle with the problem.
When individual credit is destroyed through the burden of the tax structure and continuous inflation, fewer individuals can choose the school or type of education they require for their children. Add to this the selective control of funds available so that the States are increasingly limited in the services they can provide and the screw is given an added twist. And who gains?
Ask Jim Cairns or any Fabian who understands what Keynesian economics is about.

Dr. Coombs gets it both ways, control of the Elizabethan Trust and his guidance of the Australian economy, both fulfilling his dream of a socialist state.

MR. FRANCIS JAMES WEEPS FOR HO CHI MINH

"The Federal Opposition Leader, Mr. Whitlam, has been strongly criticised in an editorial in the independent newspaper, The Anglican, over his statement that Labor would not press for the withdrawal of Australian troops from Vietnam." The Australian March 6.

We are amused at the description of The Anglican as an 'independent' newspaper. Behind a facade of reporting church news the gatherings of churchmen in their various comings and goings, the editorial policy of The Anglican pursues an undeviating apologia for international left-wing policy. If you don't already know it The Anglican will tell you the people behind the iron curtain really love Communism, they chose it and they are working out their destiny under it.
You don't question the genocide practiced in Tibet by the Communists because Tibet is really a part of China, etc, etc.

We are not surprised therefore that Mr. James and Mrs. James, Managing Director and Editor respectively, should attack Mr. Whitlam for pursuing deviationist tactics from the true course of the revolution. Mr. James, who referred to Mr. Ian Smith and his fellow Britishers in Rhodesia as "white scum", has a very soft spot for Ho Chi Minh and the Communist tyranny imposed upon the unfortunate people of North Vietnam.

In an editorial of Match 3, 1966 The Anglican wailed, "Oh! for a few Australian vessels carrying meat, wheat, wool, and even motorcars, to the Vietnamese in Hanoi. They need them. And the import duties are not, like those of the US, prohibitive."

Incidentally if it is any comfort to Mr. James, there is really no need to worry about Gough (if anything I'm further left than Jim Cairns) Whitlam.

THAT STATEMENT OF MR. BARNES

"Independence for Papua New Guinea will not be achieved for very many years if at all." The Australian March 4.

We are not surprised that subsequent reports indicate that this was a case of selective reporting. Within the context of development in this century, or the next, the above statement may well be true. But in the present political climate few politicians would be so forthright. What was interesting about the report in The Australian was that when one dug down through the impressive list of names attacking Mr. Barnes we read, "most members from the primitive highland areas agreed with Mr. Barnes and welcomed his statement."

Undoubtedly if New Guinea is to progress a greater degree of sovereignty and local control as they develop will have to be assumed by the responsible New Guineans, black and white. But the question of foreign policy is one of extreme importance to Australia and consequently the national Parliament.

VICTORIAN LIBERALS AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

"A move to raise the capital punishment issue at the Liberal party's Victorian State Council meeting yesterday was defeated unanimously. The Age (Melbourne) March 2.

We appreciate the remark of the State President (Mr. R, J. Southey) that the meeting would have to decide whether the issue was urgent enough to warrant the suspension of standing orders to discuss the issue. We have seldom witnessed a greater cohesion of forces controlling Press, Radio and Television to ensure that abolition of capital punishment was the most urgent issue of the moment; therefore Mr. Southey's gentle underplaying of the question of "urgency" delights us.

The Government carried out the law as it stood. If it is deserving of any criticism it is that there has been a lamentable failure to be consistent. Having weathered this storm it is to be hoped it will repair its fences in the future.

ON TARGET BULLETIN
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION : THE PROFESSIONS AND THOSE THEY SERVE

Our Subject for Discussion this week is prompted by the resurgence of the forces behind that hoary old monster, compulsory fluoridation of the water supplies. At the Dental Congress in Melbourne last week speaker after speaker attacked those who either on philosophic, religious or dietetic grounds reject Fluoridation and wish to obtain their water supplies uncontaminated by it.

Now the fact is that those who are responsible for such attacks are members of what is generally looked upon as an honourable, if secondary part of the medical profession. They have been educated to a high degree and they chose a profession, which has as its objective the rendering of a service to those who choose to partake of it. They expect, and generally receive adequate remuneration for their service. As new developments from research etc come along it is the wise man who presents the findings to his customers, or in this case, patients.
The patient has always had the right to reject such advice.

The dentist - or doctor - equally has the right to say, "that is my advice and if you will not accept the treatment then I refuse to give you my services". Both parties have the right to contract out.

We can well imagine the outcry from the professional people if out of the blue there arose a concerted movement to force them to practice their calling according to laws pushed through parliament by a militant minority of lay people.

Question: Do you agree there is no distortion of principle involved here?

TARGET FOR THE WEEK

This mainly concerns Victoria and NSW. Victorians should write or contact their members and seek an assurance that Parliament will not legislate to force those in control of water supplies to install fluoridation plants. There should be no question of requesting referendums etc. The issue should be confined purely to that of retaining individual choice. It should be stressed that those wanting fluoride can obtain tablets and that several councils such as Seymour have offered these free or at reduced rates.

Mr. Phipps to whose totalitarian qualities we referred to in On Target quoted with approval the NSW act "which provides in express terms that domestic supplies may be fluoridated".
NSW actionists should challenge their Liberal Members on the morality of such legislation and call for its repeal.