COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH BY
The Rt. Hon. HAROLD HOLT, M. P.,
ON
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
[ From the " Parliamentary Debates," 31st March 1966]
Mr. HAROLD HOLT ( Higgins-Prime
Minister) Speaker, my colleague,
the Minister for External Affairs
( Mr. Hasluck), dealt comprehensively with
the matters that the House has been debating.
However, I believed that it would be
convenient if I were to take the opportunity
* provided by the motion that the
House take note of his statement to deal
with the three major matters that have
relevance to the greater part of the debate
that has taken place. Understandably, most
speakers have concentrated a good deal of
their attention on the issues that arise in
South Vietnam and in South East Asia
generally. I hope to discuss three particular
matters in the limited time that I have
available. First, in response -to remarks
made by the honorable member for Fremantle
( Mr. Beazley), who, in a thoughtful
speech, urged that the Government state its
aims in South Vietnam, I shall state those
aimns. This -has been done on other occasions
by -numbers of my colleagues, I
believe, but I shall make a statement on
the subject in response -to the honorable
member's appeal. Secondly, I wish to establish
beyond the doubt of any reasonable
man that the Leader of the Opposition
( Mr. Calwell) misled the House wilfully
and seriously when he assured honorable
members that at the 1965 Federal Conference
of the Australian Labour Party there
had been no change of substance in the
Party's defence policy. Thirdly, as the
Leader of the Opposition has referred to
the demonstrations which occurred at my
4409/ 66 public meeting on Monday night as being
an expression of the pent up feelings of
Australian youth and purporting to convey
some atmosphere of spontaneity about that
operation, I shall bring to the attention of
the House a copy of the Newsletter from
one of the principal organisations concerned,
which will show how highly organised these
demonstrations are at the present time.
Turning to our war aims in South Vietnam,
I shall list the objectives of our intervention
there. Our first objective is to help
the Government of the Republic of Vietnam,
at its request and in the light of our own
assessment of the nature of the conflict in
Vietnam, to resist the armed aggression of
Communist North Vietnam against the South
-an aggression waged through the Communist
agencies of the Vietcong and the
National Liberation Front and by its own
regular armed forces. It is aimed at taking
over the South by a campaign of force,
terror and subversion and thence reunifying
the country under Communist administration.
Our second objective is to free
million people of South Vietnam from the
threat of oppression and terror which would
be their lot under the domination of the
Communists 6f the N46rth, and help establish
conditions under which they will be able
to choose Anid develop fre6 from coercion
of any kihd the forms of government and
society which they themselves want. The
third objective is to leave no one in doubt
that ' we in Australia are prepared Iand
fegolVed to hiofifr our treaty commitmeiits
Anid our Alliances and to stand firm with
our allies in the face of aggression, whether
direct or disguised as it is now in Vietnam
under the label of a war of liberation
or a people's war Fourthly, by denying
victory to Hanoi and Peking in South Vietnam
we will ensure that the spread of
Communism in South East Asia is checked
and we will give encouragement to those
moderate elements in the various countries
of the region whom we are already supporting
in the work of modernisation and
economic and social progress. Fifthly, we
do not seek to overthrow the regime in
North Vietnam or to destroy the livelihood
of the North Vietnamese people. We simply
want the North to stop its aggression. We
seek no widening of the war. We seek a
peaceful settlement of the conflict through
negotiations. We think that a peaceful settlement
can be negotiated on the basis of the
Geneva Agreement.
Our basic aims are not only clear and
limited-they are sound. What, for example,
would be the consequences of our abandoning
these objectives and withdrawing, as
honorable members opposite suggest, with
our allies from the struggle and from the
defence of the independence of South Vietnam?
South Vietnam, a country of 15
million people, would become a Communist
state. This would not be ; because
the people of South Vietnam want Communism.
It would be because they were
unable to resist the armed power of the
Vietcong supported by North Vietnam.
The lives of millions of people who have
resisted Communism, the security of their
families and their properties would be in
jeopardy and opposition in South Vietnam
would be wiped out. There would be a
repetition of the liquidation of -the so
called class enemies, which occurred when
the Communists took over the North. The
political and psychological -impact of our
withdrawal would be felt, not only in the
countries bordering Vietnam, but throughout
the whole of South East Asia. The path
of the aggressors would be smoother as the
countries of the area lost their faith and
confidence in the forces of the United States
and of the free world to protect their independence
and sovereignty. The American
guarantee would come under challenge in
other parts of Asia -and Communist China's
long term aim of d-riving the United States
out of Asia and the Pacific would have had
a significant success. In those countries which have entered into a security partnership
with the United States-Korea, Japan,
Taiwan and the Philippines-the opponents
of the American connection would gain
new strength. Conversely, successful resistance
in Vietnam will contribute to
security and to peaceful co-existence in the
region as a whole.
Australia has a vital interest in the effective
presence and active participation of
the United States as a great power in the
area of Asia and the Pacific. We have an
obligation to support the United States in
this role-an obligation arising from our
treaty relationships, from our role as an
ally in supporting the United States in
international diplomacy and politics, and
from the fact that our international interests
are directly involved in preserving South
East Asia from aggression and from Communist
domination. Can anyone doubt that
the South East Asia region under Comnmunism
or Chinese domination would be
a socially, morally and economically impoverished
and degraded region?
I hope -that that statement is a clear
enough indication of where this Government
stands. If the people of Australia support
that kind of statement of objective,
then they cannot hope to secure the support
that they would seek from honorable
members on the other side of the -House.
I have made a study of -the resolutions and
the policy discussions which, as the Leader
of the Opposition said, were conducted in
the full -light of publicity and which were
reported, not only in the daily Press, but
also in the Press of the Labour Party itself.
They have subsequently been the occasion
for discussion by members of the Party
opposite. Honorable members will recall
-that the Leader of the Opposition told us
that there had been no change of substance.
I shall give the precise language because I
think it is important that I should. I have
pointed out-
Dr. J. F. Cairns.-Why does not the
Prime Minister quote from a Labour Party
document? Mr. HAROLD HOLT.-I have the documents
-here if the honorable member wishes
me to do that. I had them here yesterday
when we were discussing this matter.
Dr. J. F. Cairns.-If the Prime Minister
is going to discuss the matter now, we would
expect him to bring them in.
Mr. HAROLD HOLT.-I had it in
" Hansard" and I . thought -that was
authoritative enough. I quoted the precise
words from the Federal Platform of the
Labour Party, as reported at page 669 of
Hansard of 29th March-
Labour will honour and support Australia's
treaties and defence alliances.
Those words have been dropped from the
defence section of the Labour Party's document.
The Leader of the Opposition said
that they had reappeared, at least in substance,
in the same sense, in the foreign
affairs section of the document.
Dr. J. F. Cairns.-That is correct.
Mr. HAROLD HOLT.-I am glad to
hear the honorable member say that because
the document states-
Australia must periodically review its defence
treaties and alliances to meet new circumstances
as they arise.
Does the honorable member claim, with
the trained mind which he brings to bear on
these matters, that the words " honour and
support" are the same thing as " review"
from time to time? That is what the honorable
member is saying. That was not the
view taken by members of the Labour
Party at the time. I wish to refer now to
the issue of the Labour Party journal
" Fact" for Friday, 20th August 1965. The
editorial states--
Important, too, is the new look at defence and
foreign affairs whereby, for instance, Australia
can face her nearby neighbours on a friendly basis
rather than as a warring opponent as has been
caused by the Menzies Government intervention
: n Vietnam's private affairs.
Mr. Uren.-That is all right.
Mr. HAROLD HOLT.-Yes, that is all
right. These things accumulate. Just give
me a little time. Then in the August 1965
issue of Labour the official journal, the
following appeared-
Despite a strong Press campaign and threats
from the Deputy Leader, Mr. Whitlam, and the
the recently concluded 26th Federal
Conference of the Australian Labour Party was
highly successful.
The Conference refused to be stampeded on
foreign affairs and by an overwhelming vote of
votes to 6 reaffirmed its support for Mr.
Calwell's nuclear-free zone proposals which were
originally adopted by the Labour Party two
years ago.
A number of recommendations from the
Labour Party Foreign Affairs Committee were not accepted by the Conference who were
obviously determined not to be intimidated by the
Press to drop some of its more forward-looking
peace policies.
The Conference expressed concern for military
aspects of S. E. A. T. O. and suggested that new
security arrangements in South East Asia should
be considered by Australia, under the auspices
of the U. N.
The Conference decided by a large majority,
after hearing a speech by Mr. Calwell ( Victoria)
who moved an amendment, to retain the nuclearfree
zone policy. The Foreign Affairs Committee
had recommended its deletion. Only the six New
South Wales delegates voted against this policy.
By so doing, they ignored the 1963 New South
Wales Labour Party Conference decision supporting
the nuclear free zone.
It is quite obvious that there has been a
very significant switch in the strength of the
Australian Labour Party under its Federal
Executive in relation to these matters of
defence and foreign affairs. There was a
rejection at several critical points-if I had
the time I would deal with them-of
proposals brought forward by the then
Foreign Affairs Committee.
The representatives who were displaced
from the Foreign Affairs Committee recently
were, as I think most honorable gentlemen
know, the honorable member for
Eden-Monaro ( Mr. Allan Fraser), a foimer
member for Darebin, Mr. R. W. Holt, who
later became State President of the Party
in Victoria, and Mr. Dunstan, the Attorney-
General in the Labour Government of
South Australia. The three men appointed
to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
Australian Labour Party by the Federal
Executive-and these are the men who
would be carrying out the proposed review
of Australia's treaties and alliances-are the
honorable member for Yarra ( Dr. J. F.
Cairns), the honorable member for Reid
( Mr. Uren) and Senator Cavanagh-and
they threw in Senator Cohen for good luck.
I intend no reflection on the honorable
gentlemen I have named because I believe
they hold their views as sincerely and
earnestly as anybody else in this Parliament,
but it is a matter of either public celebrity
or public notoriety, according to one's
viewpoint, that these men are to be found
on the extreme left of thought on defence
and foreign affairs within the ranks of the
Labour Party. The Labour Press treated
as a rebuff to the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition and the Australian Workers
Union the proposals carried at the 1965
defence conference. It was regarded by the
Labour Press as a significant switch in
attitude on these matters, and quite certainly
it effected a reduction in the support
that our allies, in particular the United
States of America, might have expected
from a Labour government.
The Leader of the Labour Party has
shown significantly the difference in attitude
that he brings to this matter. Anybody who
studies the foreign affairs statement put out
by the Australian Labour Party's information
release No. 2/ 1965 of February last
year on " The Situation in Vietnam will
notice a statement which, as to a great deal
of it anyway, is very much in line with the
general approach of this Government and
its supporters.
Mr. Allan Fraser.-What arrant nonsense.
Mr. HAROLD HOLT.-Well, just give
me 10 minutes more and I will establish to
the honorable member's satisfaction that the
situation is as I have put it. But from that the
Leader of the Opposition has turned to a
statement about the West, as he calls it, and
the only country that fits that description is
the United States of America. In the debate
on Government policy the Leader of the
Opposition used -these words:
The West has no standards and apparently no
scruples. The Americans have already supported
eight so-called governments in Vietnam, and all
of them have been military dictatorships, and all
have been tyrannical and oppressive.
Mr. Uren.-Answer that proposition.
Mr. SPEAKER ( Hon. Sir John McLeay).
-Order! The honorable member for Reid
will come to order.
Mr. HAROLD HOLT.-I have said
enough, I think, to show that the substance
of what I allege regarding honorable
gentlemen opposite and their leader has
been borne out by recent developments. Mr. Uren.-I want you to answer that
proposition. Mr. SPEAKER.-Order! 1 will not warn
the honorable member again. I will deal
with him.
Mr. HAROLD HOLT.-I have only three
minutes left and I want to answer the statement
made by the Leader of the Opposition
that the events at my public meeting the
other night resulted from an upsurge of the
pentup feelings of Australian youth. I have
in my hand a newsletter distributed by the
Youth Campaign Against Conscription.
It gives details of the names and addresses
of the President and Secretary. I shall not
read it in full, but if honorable members
want to know some details of the demonstrations
that have occurred they will find them
set out here. More interestingly, I can give
them advance notice of the demonstrations
for Wednesday, 6th April, Friday,
April, Friday, 22nd April and Friday, 29th
April. But in relation to Monday, 28th
March, the night of my meeting, the document
says-
7 Kew Gardens. Meet at the corner of
Gellibrand Street and Cotham Road, Kew ( just
inside the gaidens) prior to Liberal Kooyong Meeting'at
Kew Civic Centre, Cotham Road. This time,
some will protest silently by standing around the
Hall with signs on a givei signal. Others will remain
part of the audience and heckle and ask
questions.
This was the spontaneous upsurge of Australian
youth to which the Leader of the
Opposition referred. I say in conclusion that
the foolish people who take part in these
demonstrations will find that they are having
exactly the reverse effect to that which they
intend. There are in this country ways in
which people may demonstrate a political
opposition to Government policies or the
views of members of Parliament. But no
Australian who values democracy in this
country will accept as a reasonable demonstration
the methods that were adopted on
this occasion.
BY AUTHORITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA