Lang Hancock, The Sydney Morning Herald, April 16, 1978, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.

Sir, In view of your editorial of April 9 and your comments about me on April 2, I would appreciate the freedom of reply.

Judging by the veritable avalanche of unsubstantiated criticism heaped on Mr Bjelke-Petersen, one must ask just what is the press’s interpretation of the word “freedom.”

Is it freedom to vilify? Is it freedom to suppress the truth? Is it freedom to sensationalise at the expense of presenting a true picture? Is it freedom to indulge in character assassination?

If this what is meant by “freedom,” then surely the media are embarking on a path of self-destruction because, in trying to destroy Bjelke-Petersen, they will be destroying one of the main bulwarks of protecting themselves and the decent citizens of Australia from anarchy, violence and the total bureaucratic control of every fact of Australian life.

“Power grab”

This so-called “freedom of the press” as indulged in by certain journalists has encouraged Canberra to ignore the all the serious problems that are facing Australia today in favour of wasting its time in trying to score points to reduce the Queensland Parliament to a position of complete impotence.

Canberra’s action are simply a naked grab for power resulting in the expansion of their departments at the expense of the Australian taxpayer.

Illustrative of this action is the drug trafficking evil which everybody in Australia wishes to see stopped.

The lame excuses that they are interfering with the Queensland Government to help the unfortunate Aboriginal or to slave off “the greed of the mining companies” over bauxite are as weak as Mr Viner’s claim that the Commonwealth Government is acting against Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s government in order to protect the Aborigines against an impending cyclone.

Just in case Mr Viner doesn’t know it, the Australian Aboriginal has survived against cyclones, without the aid of Canberra, for thousands of years before Mr Viner’s department attempted to force unwanted Western civilisation, with its so-called education and religion, on to the Australian black fellow.

On no account do the facts show that Canberra and the “anti-Joh” forces have any regard for the black fellow. An analysis of government spending in this regard shows a budget of something like $160 million for Aborigines, of which only $9 million finishes up in the hands of the black fellow.

The genuine Aboriginal is not interested in high sounding phrases such as “self management” etc. He is happiest when left alone.

A classic demonstration of this fact can be seen in noting just who it is that is doing all the stirring. A genuine observer would admit that there are very few genuine Aborigines involved.

In fact, if the truth were known, the noise is coming in the most part from professional agitators with little or no Aboriginal blood in them.

The truth about the mining of bauxite is that the Aborigines desperately want to see it mined because the Queensland Government, some seven years ago passed an Act which gives the Aborigines special privileged rights to royalty when the mineral is mined, without them having any obligation to first discover the mineral — an obligation which applies to all other Australians.

Obligation

I am not against “freedom,” but the word “obligation” is one which I feel the media (when appealing for “freedom of the press”) should consider seriously because surely there is an obligation to the country that supports them not to promote and make heroes of the sensation-seeking subversives who are doing their best to bring about the “quiet revolution.”

Why aid them to denigrate their strongest stumbling block — “Joh” — the man who alone among political leaders in Australia stands out as a man of character: something which is sadly lacking in leaders in every sphere in Australia today.