STATE MINISTER HITS OUT AT CENTRALISM

"Mr. G. Freudenstein, the Country Party Minister assisting the Premier and Treasurer Mr. Askin, said that the Country Party can no longer tolerate centralism either by force under Whitlam or centralism by stealth and suffocation under Gorton." - Sydney Morning Herald, 18/7/69.

This refreshing clarity of thought deserves careful attention from all Country Party members and supporters. Mr. Freudenstein was speaking at a County Party rally at Lockhart in the fertile Riverina district. He called on the Country Party to intervene against the centralism of power in Canberra before it was too late. Describing the role of the Country Party, he said, "At no time in our history has it been more vital to this nation that it preserve a party committed to a specialist role watching the interests of a minority in the community." He went on to say that whether the Country Party exercised its complete individuality or worked as a coalition, it must be ever watchful for the signs of centralism of power, central money control, centralist thinking and centrally directed policies. "Power in many hands is power in safe hands." he said.
Mr. Freudenstein has grasped a basic truth.

The struggle over the distribution of power among men is a struggle that has existed for thousands of years. Great civilisations have collapsed when all power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. Christianity offers practical teachings on the distribution of power. The centralists of the world reject the specific example of our Lord on the mountain in the wilderness, when He specifically refused the offer of "power over all these things." No man can be trusted with too much power. As Lord Acton pointed out: "All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

INTERNATIONAL PRICE-FIXING

"The Federal Trade Minister (Mr. Mc Ewen) is protecting the Treasury instead of helping wheat growers, Mr. Don Maisey (Country Party) Federal Member for Moore, said tonight." - Daily Telegraph 16/7/69.

The farce, which the International Grains Agreement has become, highlights more than anything else the victories, which the Communists are achieving in selling the West the rope with which to hang themselves. When a number of countries with overproduction problems get together to fix the price of the commodity, it is hardly surprising that it becomes impossible to maintain the agreement in the face of Communist consumer resistance. The Daily Telegraph of July 17th points out that a U.S. Agriculture Department official has stated that the United States has been undercutting the International Grains Agreement. The latest news brought back by Mr. Mc Ewen is that Australia has been enjoying more than a fair share of the International wheat market, and that we must cut back. But it should be asked from what base is this assumption made? Who decides what is a fair share of the market? Is Mr. McEwen bargaining from an international rather than a National point of view? Is the wheat grower required to suffer International quotas as well as National quotas? Some straight answers are needed.

PRESS MISREPRESENTS SOUTH AFRICAN "PRISONS TRIAL"

Mr. Eric Butler comments on the manner in which sections of the South African and world press misrepresented the marathon "Prisons Act Trial" which ended recently with Mr. Laurence Gandar, Editor-in-Chief of The Rand Daily Mail and Mr. Benjamin Pogrund, a senior reporter, being found guilty of contravening the South African Prisons Act:

It was on the plane from Johannesburg to Durban that I read the first press report on the findings of Mr. Justice P.M. Cillie concerning the charge by the State that Mr. Laurence Gandar and Mr. Pogrund had published false reports concerning prison conditions in South Africa. As it happened my host in Durban was a well-known South African journalist and writer who had known Mr. Gandar well when he had worked as a senior editor with The Rand Daily Mail. I asked him for his assessment of Gandar, an editor who has in recent years received world-wide publicity as a courageous editor attempting to expose the activities of the South African Police State." My host said that he was a "typical liberal", well-meaning and honest, but extremely gullible and tending to believe what he wanted to believe about the alleged activities of the South African Government, whose policies he has detested.

A close reading of Mr. Justice Cillie's lengthy findings confirms this view. The judge found that Gandar had taken unreasonable risks in publishing information even after he had been warned by his legal adviser that it should be examined further. He found that neither Gandar nor Pogrund had taken reasonable steps to verify the information they published. Mr. Justice Cillie said that Pogrund the reporter had not been a good witness. "He had given long, argumentative and evasive answers which were not related to the questions. It could almost be said that Pogrund was untruthful."

But in spite of this finding by the Judge, world press comment has misrepresented the trial. Typical of the comment made in an endeavour to whitewash Gandar and Pogrund was that of Mr. Ernest Mayer director of the International Press Institute, who said in Zurich: "I think the South African Government should be happy to have to deal with newspaper men who show such a degree of professional conscience and take such risks as Mr. Gandar and Mr. Pogrund. The Government should be honoured by the criticisms made by such competent newspapermen. I am sure that reaction throughout the world to this case will correspond to this opinion."

Gandar was so "competent" that he was prepared to accept as reliable and authentic, an anonymous letter, purportedly by a number of prisoners at one prison, in which it was alleged that a prisoner had been murdered. All the major allegations contained in four articles in The Rand Daily Mail, headlined in sections of the South African press and then given worldwide circulation had been proved false during the trial.

The following were the main allegations: Prisoners could not finish eating their food because they ran away rather than be assaulted. Shock treatment was normal. All the warders at the Cinderella Prison knew about shock treatment. Certain farmers received prisoners to work on their farms, the farmers coming in to the prisons to choose the prisoners who would do the work.

Covering the trial for the Times, London, Mr. Winston Churchill said that he was "not criticising the judge", but then went on to say that "As a newspaperman I feel that Mr. Gandar and Mr. Pognund should never have been charged. The fact that they were charged in performing a public duty is an infringement of the freedom of the Press. " This viewpoint suggests that journalists and newspapers are above the law.

It is true as Churchill states that, "One of the duties of the Press was to act as a public watchdog against abuses, " But this does not give the Press the right to print serious allegations, which cannot be substantiated. The press is not above the law.

Commenting editorially on "The Prisons Trial "- Johannesburg Sunday Times of July 13 revealed the attitude of much of the press. Mr. Gandar and Mr. Pogrund had "acted honestly, fairly and courageously throughout, in a cause which they believed to be just and honourable. In law - a man - made law passed by legislators who show no great anxiety to preserve civil liberties and civil nights - they are guilty. But judged by the ethics of journalism, there are very few newspaper men who will not congratulate them for upholding the highest standards of our profession."
The "ethics" of journalism apparently give the press the night to publish outrageous falsehoods.

The press of the world has for years been publishing a completely false picture about South Africa, and Rhodesia. When it is at last caught out in a court of law - and not even the press has been able to challenge the findings of Judge Cillie - it does not apologise, but attempts to further distort.

The world-wide press campaign on the South African "Prisons Trial" is merely a reflection of the international campaign of subversion against South Africa. I have no doubt that South African prisons, like prisons everywhere, are not perfect. But if the press has a duty to expose abuses, as Mr. Winston Churchill claims, I suggest that they might tackle some of the major abuses wrecking what is left of Civilisation. But the "courage" of the press does not go that far. This would require an exposure of the international conspiracy directed against one of the West's major barriers against International Communism.

QUESTIONS LEFT ON THE MOON

"Before clambering back into their tiny landing craft yesterday, Armstrong and Aldrin left a plaque on the surface of the Moon. It is inscribed with the words: "For all Mankind". That is an expression of faith. It is now up to the Governments of the Earth to see to it that those works become a statement of fact." - The Age, July 22.

Like the pilots in the Battle of Britain, the flyers that landed on the moon will be remembered for their courage performed in an epic undertaking. There are however other aspects relating to the policies behind both war and the moon flight to which we are not provided ready answers. Before the second edition of the "great" world war, Britain was too poor to build an adequate army or air force. Had she been able to "peace" could have been a reality. The billions of dollars allocated to get man to a waterless wasteland, we are assured is for the "peace of mankind." " America we are told must bring the war in Vietnam to a halt because it is costing too much. The question of who and what group decided the moon project, and the objectives behind it, is a pertinent question. One thing is certain, just as the British people had no real say over the policies which lead them defenceless to war with Hitler, neither have the citizens of the Soviet, or America any real control over those who decide how the wealth of their respective nations is spent.

NEW GUINEA - REALISTIC COMMENT FROM ARCHBISHOP

A news item broadcast on the A.B.C. news from Brisbane on July 11 marked the seventieth birthday of the Anglican Primate of Australia, Archbishop Strong. Archbishop Strong was quoted as saying he hoped independence would not come too soon for New Guinea. He spoke against a rich background of experience in that he was for 27 years the Bishop of New Guinea. Studying his comments, there is a strong parallel with the position adopted by the present Rhodesian Government in regard to giving dominant parliamentary power to the African natives in Rhodesia. In the case of New Guinea, Archbishop Strong said he thought there was a great deal of need yet for the consolidation of the peoples. The most important thing now was the development of indigenous leadership and also the unifying of the different tribes because there were a lot of racial divisions there and if independence came too soon he was afraid there might be a lot of trouble.
Archbishop Strong said he was not so much concerned about divisions between the white and brown populations, but conflict between brown races.

In another comment the Archbishop pointed to the growth of the permissive society. Whether he linked this with the growing refusal of Western peoples to accept their responsibilities towards those who need their help and protection is not certain. The Archbishop said that what was often hailed as liberalisation was really a form of decadence and there was a need for greater responsibility and discipline. Has such been the case in the acceptance by Britain and the other European powers involved we would not have witnessed the regression evident in Africa north on the Zambesi today.