THE VICTORIAN STATE ELECTION

"The studied silence of the Federal Coalition leaders on the result of the Victorian election is already being seen as having ominous implications for the Fraser Government.' - Trevor Hawkins, in The Sun (Melbourne); May 7th.

Time may, indeed, well demonstrate that the major effect of the Liberal mauling in Victoria in May 1979, was the sudden decline in the fortunes of the Fraser Government. At the time of writing, the electoral picture in Victoria is incomplete; but not so incomplete as to assess what has happened. We shall not rehash the columns upon columns of comment in the dailies by the current affairs jockeys. The disappointing performance of the Victorian National (Country) Party under Mr. Peter Ross-Edwards will carry with it dangers for Mr. Doug Anthony in Canberra, who has been pushing too hard for his own good in his confrontation with Sir Charles Court in Western Australia on mineral export guidelines. Mr. Anthony will have to back off now, or else. His position in the Coalition is now weaker than it was before the Victorian election.

The political "prognosis" for Senator J. Webster is negative, also. He is unlikely to retain his No.2 position on the Government's Senate ticket, and therefore looks a loser. Some of Mr. Malcolm Fraser's victims in his own Party will now be restive, and sniffing the air for the sweet smell of revenge. We can go no further than Senator Reg Withers, and Philip Lynch. Mr. Andrew Peacock, ever ambitious, will be looking over the horizon to see what's coming up for him. We can hear the knives being sharpened in Melbourne and Canberra: blood should flow before the year is out.

MR. JEREMY LEE REPORTS: BUREAUCRATIC TAKEOVER IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Although former Premier Don Dunstan has temporarily left the Stage, there has been, if anything, an increase in the rate of socialisation in this State. Two bills passed through parliament in March and April are destined to cause some tragedies before much longer. The first is a new set of planning regulations which will apply to all those living along the Murray Valley. Under the old guise of conservation, this is a ruthless attack on freedoms and liberties. The Act in question is the Planning and Development Act, and the new regulations are called the Murray Valley Planning regulations. Within the zones set, nobody can change the use of their land or any building on it; neither may they "construct, convert or alter any building or structure" without the consent of the State Planning Authority. The powers the Planning Authority has are absolutely horrifying. Consent may be given or held on any terms that the Authority thinks fit, and may be withdrawn at a later date. Further, the Authority has the power to order owners to complete building or repair works at their own cost to a schedule set by the Authority.

Central planning in South Australia has gone further than any other State, and with zones, planning authorities and conservation activities that take no account of the rights of the individual, the nightmare world of the compulsory State described by Shaw and Orwell is becoming a reality.

The second Act, which only went through Parliament in April, is the Heritage Commission Act - the same concept that is causing such traumas in New South Wales. Now that the Act has been passed there will be a host of regulations established which will never pass before Parliament. The Commission has the enabling power to make its own regulations according to the Act. A rather gullible Liberal parliamentarian told me that the Act "was not too bad" and he didn't feel the present government would misuse the powers the Act provided. But he agreed that a ruthless government could go much further than the bounds of reason. This attitude smacks of the common argument that, even though the Act sets out excessive powers, "we would never use them". It is never explained why it is necessary to include powers which will never be used!

It can safely be said that the people of South Australia will never wake up until the powers have been put into practice. New South Wales is only feeling now the effects of an Act passed almost two years ago. But if a minority gets informed and work out strategies and tactics now, a genuine reform could well be achieved when the time is ripe in South Australia. Perhaps they will receive added incentive in the fact that the Act provides for a $5,000 fine for any infringement such as building a garden shed without the permission of the Authority with a fine of $1,000 per day for every day the change is not rectified.

FROM NEW ZEALAND ON TARGET

Fluoridation and the Right not to choose
By David Thompson: (Issue of May 4th, 1979).

"To believe that the fluoridation controversy is primarily a medical argument is to prolong a delusion. The medical argument has been astutely sustained - perhaps even deliberately using false data - to divert attention from the primary question of mass medication. That question is simply freedom of choice - no more and no less. This is a primary concern of the League of Rights. The freedom to choose one's music at leisure is no less important than the freedom to choose not to listen to music at all. Freedom of speech is no less important than the right to remain silent, or the right to personal privacy. Even the freedom to breathe fresh air is no less important than the freedom to smoke a pipe. The wide choice of medical advice is no less important than the freedom to reject all medical advice - it might save your life! Although people must be free to seek relief from suffering, it is their God-given right to suffer it if they so choose.

In his Harvard University address in June 1979, the great Solzhenitsyn spoke of the slogan - everyone has the right to know everything". He said...'(it) is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk....' "Genuine freedom must be qualified by personal responsibility. The rule of law should restrict freedom only when the exercise of freedom infringes on the freedom of others, or puts them in danger. Those who choose to listen to loud music, or to smoke a pipe should recognise their responsibility to the comfort of others. It is considered courteous to ask if smoking offends.

Those who choose to consume fluoride, for whatever reason at all, have no right at all to impose the ingestion of fluoride upon everyone else: much less without their consent. Compulsory mass medication is an odious, totalitarian policy because, in effect, it denies the freedom to reject medical advice.

"It is perhaps ironic that the core of 'democracy' is the freedom to reject it entirely. We have the right to choose to decline the right to choose, but that is a choice that is exercised only once. We are, in fact, quite free to vote ourselves into oblivion, as the white Rhodesians seem to have done. "The case of religion is identical. Men cannot be forced to be good men, they are free to be evil. In a civilised society they are forced to accept the consequences.

Although Christ offered everlasting life to those who reject evil and choose Him instead, He insisted that the choice be a free choice! Herein lies the basic difference between Christianity and Judaism. The Judaic principles embody a trend away from freedom towards order, authority, the State. "If, in the opinion of the medical experts, it is unwise to consume unfluoridated water, then so be it. In my opinion it is far better to choose unwisely, and suffer the consequences, rather than permit well-meaning do gooders, or the State, to assume the responsibility of making my choice for me. It is this perverse twist in the nature of the British people that enabled them to refine the finest civilisation in the history of men, and it came from a clear understanding of Christianity."

FROM NEW ZEALAND ON TARGET BULLETIN

(Issue of May 4th, 1979) Prostitutes - Yes. Churchmen - No

"Members will recall that I was invited to London in July, 1978 to speak at the Conference which set up the International Christian Network. The organisers had booked the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster for the Conference, but the Methodist leaders, Dr. Greet and Dr. Barnett, abruptly cancelled the booking when they heard that the Conference was likely to be critical of the World Council of Churches. At some inconvenience, another venue was arranged. "The sequel is interesting.

In December 1978 the same Hall was let to a vociferous group of prostitutes who met to organise a campaign to legalise prostitution. In other words, the Christians couldn't use the Hall, but the whores could!"
Rev. Matthew Calder, Regional Chairman of International Christian Network.
Electoral Comment authorised by E.D. Butler, 273 Little Collins St., Melbourne.