Speech by the Prime Minister. Mr. Harold Holt,
at Commonwealth Correspondents' Association Lunche \ a'f
at Waldorf Hotel. London .1
I have always been a Commonwvealth man as long as I have been
in the Parliament of the Commonwealth, but using the first reference
to Commonwealth in that very much broader sense which embraces the
many Parliaments of our Commonwealth of nations, and indeed I have
seen that number grow very considerably from my first Commonwealth
Parliamentary Conference here in London in 194, w'" hen the only three
new Commonwealth countries admitted to the old club were India,
Pakistan and Ceylon, to the time today when those of us who belonged
to the old Commonralth find ourselves historically at any rate in a
very small minority among the newer countries which have secured their
independence and Cormmonw. ealth status since that time. These are days
in which we ask ourselves what does the Comonwealth stand for at
the present timie. Some of the unifying factors seem either to have
disappeared or faded in strength. We can't claic: as we look around
the Commonvwealth today that the thing that is holding us together is
a common devotion to Parliamentary democracy, because in some of the
countries of the Commonwealth we haven't got Parliamentary democracy
and in some where Parliaments function they do not function along
the lines of the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster. They may have
the standing orders and IMr. Speaker and the rest of it, but sometimes
there is only one Party, or at least only one which is allowed to
operate effectively. In other cases the Parliament is non-existent
for some significant periods of time. Agin there is no longer, and
this was established at the time when India decided to ask for
Commonwealth status while seeking to be a Republic, there isn't the
same common allegiance to the Crown which had marked the Coiomonwealth
of earlier years. There are many countries representing many
different circumstances of life, conditions of people, races, creeds
and habits of life, tending to present us as different people among
the quarterthe population of the globe included in our company.
But, having said all that, there are still things we cherish as
part of the Commonwealth relationship and I felt this as I sat with
you today that one of the things which still remains true about the
Corinonwealth and I hope will persist is that there's a rather
different feeling when we sit down together, even as people who have
never met each other before and I have met only a few of you in this
room today, one sits down feeling immediately relaxed and at home
with members of the family, perhaps remote relatives some of those
here, but there is that feeling of warmth and companionship, cooperation
together which still remain essential features of our
Commonwealth relationship. I have been pleased to see how proudly
new Commonwealth members have adopted their relationship. There is
a disposition these days for groupings, either of a regional kind
and perhaps, even less satisfactorily, of a racial kind.
I've been troubled myself by what have been known as the
Afro-Asian ali gnments which have seemed to rest not so much on
policy associations or attitudes, but rather on. attitudes of race
which tend to create differences and antagonisms with other sections
of the community and one of the most commendable features of the
Commonwealth association has been the way a multi-racial community
of Parliaments and countries have been able to come together for a
friendly, frank and quite forthright exchange of vieos and out of
the many Parliamentary conferences of the Commonwealth Parliamentary
organisation, which I personally attended and some of which I presided
over, there came a better knowledge of viewpoints in the Commonwealth
and a warmer feeling towards its people. I used to make it a practice
myself whenever I travelled of visiting a new part of the Commonwealth
and I think now with interest and a good deal of warmth about the
2.
countries which one visited in earlier years and am able to follow
with a sympathetic interest the way they have gone about handling
the difficulties of development which faced niany of them. % 7e are
not these days a strong Conrnonwealth financially or militarily.
There is tremendous potential, of course, an aggregation of peoples
occupying so vast an area of the globe, much of that area relatively
underdeveloped at this time but potential, while comforting, is no
substitute for the actualities of need at a given point of time.
I had a former colleague in the Treasurer's job in Canberra
who, when people used to tell him about the long term benefits w,, hich
would come to him from some particular progrm-me, used to reply by
saying that it's a case of " Live horse until you get grass."
Whilo some of our Cormonwvealth countries, while they have the
potential for development, are going through difficult periods as
hey look for foodstuffs, the opportunities for education, housing,
the medical services and all the other factors which go in a civilihL
community towards raising the standards of the people, wo.
can't expect it to lean indefinitely on the United Kingdom in the
way that perhaps at an earlier point of development of the Connonwealth
was found possible. Quite obviously we can't expect the United
Kingdom to provide the tidlitary strength to keep the Comon, ealth as
a whole secure. We each have to do more for ourselves and, in some
cases, for each other. But given time, association and the cooperation
which is within our grasp, this can be a very much stronger
Cormmonw'ealth, and even in the intervening years it can be a very
influential Corinonwealth because there are many of us , Jho are to be
found in most places where policies are discussed. We have our
influence, some in one group, some in another, some with one country,
soEmle with another, and provided that -ien aintain towards each other a
goodwill, a determination to make a multi-racial association work,
then the Commonwealth can still contribute greatly to the welfare of
mankind. Wie should always hold before us, I believe, the goal that
w must first make this association work if there is to be any hope
of that larger association functioning effectively in the United
Nations. If the Commonwealth can't work, then how can the United
Nations. On the other hand can, by the force of our own example,
by the Comnmonwealth functioning co-operatively and leading to the
Xrengthening of its membership, show to the rest of the world that,
iven goodwill and a spirit of co-operation, this can be accomplished.
! hat is the kind of vision we can cherish together and do individually
what we can to keep the Comnonwealth spirit alive and make it in its
practical application a function for the benefit of our conunity of
nations and through those for the rest of the world.
Now, that's enough from me by -, ay of opening the session, and
if I can deal with specific questions you might like to ask me.
Q. What association would you like Britain to have with your own
country and New Zealand in your part of the world and how strong
should Britain's contribution be?
MR. HOLT: Do you mean do we need any formal association? I don't think
we do need any formal association. Wie know each other well
enough, and we have complete faith and confidence in each
other and all I think we need to do is to resolve among ourselves
what courses should be followed. I, as you know, have urged
strongly that the United Kingdom maintain a presence east of
Suez. I have pointed out that here are to be found more than
half of the population of the world and on population projection
that half will tend to grow rather more rapidly than the other
half, that the potential for change, development and economic
growth is greater there in my judgment than in any other part of
Mr. Holt continued:
the world. To me it seems unthinkable that the United Kingdom
which, over the centuries of history, has had so largo a part
to play in the world and its historical development should not
be associated actively in a number of the projects iwhich will
develop in the area. This does not mean necessarily large
military forces or large expenditure, but I think the people of
this country in these days sometimes tend to underrate their
own influence around the world. The respect that is still held
for British character, skills of government, the British capacity
for organisation and management, and, in areas of the world which
are sorely lacking in these things, guidance and aid from such a
source can be critically valuable at times.
Q. Will the Australian Government set an example in racial
harmony to the rest of the Cormonwealth by abolishing its White
Australia policy?
IMR. HOLT: Well, of course, it hasn't got a vhite Australia Policy so
styled. It has a policy of restricted immigration, as does every
country of Asia in fact some of the countries of Asia are a good
deal more restrictive than is Australia. Ceylon, for example,
would have a restrictive programme, India would, certainly
ialaysia has, and so far as I am aware every country of Asia has
a programne of immigration restriction and that programme is
based on the need to preserve certain national standards, to
protect employment opportunities for its people and to avoid
disharmony developing in the country. For our part we have
maintained a restrictive policy, I hope with humanity and good
sense. It's been liberalised in a number of situations which
seemed to call for that. I remember as a former Minister for
Irmiigration myself having adopted a policy in relation to the
Japanese wives of our servicemen who were then admitted on a
basis of full citizenship . which has nowi become standard policy
in Australia. Any Australian who marries a non-European has
the husband or wife admitted on a basis of full citizenship and
the children of the marriage, of course, are Australian citizens
from the outset. Recently we -uended the previous aidinistrative
arrangements so that those non-Europeans, and there are quite a
body of them in Australia who have come there for the purposes
prescribed under the policy, can apply for naturalisation after
five years of residence with us. It's not generally known that
there are some 13,000 Asian students in Australian schools and
universities at this present time. I am sure those who like
to attribute some racist aspect to our thinking would be rather
surprised to know that the leader of the Sydney Symphony
Orchestra is an American negro, Dean Dixon. You will find in
various ways we have tried to apply the policy in a practical
way, but we would not be serving Asia or the rest of the world
effectively if the country were to be torn by racial division.
It would not be a case of admitting one nationality or another,
there are scores of countries outside Australia in Asia, Africa
and elsewhere, if we were trying to admit a certain number from
each of these countries and at the same time go throuh a
satisfactory process of integration into the community life at
this stage of our national development, I think it would tend
to reduce our effectiveness to help others, to build our
defences and to build our national aid rather than help that.
The best answer for those who have doubts and some scepticism
or criticism in respect of the Australian attitude is to come to
Australia for themselves. They will find great friendliness,
no discrimination, and most of them in my experience have come
to the conclusion that the way things are working out this is
just about the soundest policy Australia can adopt at this point
of its history.
Q. Can you say at what stage are your discussions with the
British Government on a base in Australia, and will it be a
base and how much will it cost?
MR. HOLT: I can't answer those questions specifically at all because
they-have not yet been resolved. I can say that following our
talks with Mr. Denis Healey earlier this year, when he put in
train at the Service level for discussion between representatives
of our two countries a number of proposals in relation to the
three Services. Those talks have gone some considerable
distance. There may be actual estimates of cost, but so far
the talks have been at the Service level. I have known as
Prime Minister that they have been going on, I have known
particular locations which it is thought could be suitable for
such a purpose, but our own view has been, for the reasons I
mentioned a little earlier, the desirability of the Asian
people themselves feeling that Great Britain is making a
contribution by its presence and its assistance to the strengthening
and development of the area, it is preferable to maintain
the establishments wie have. They are good establishments the
Singapore za-val base and the barracks at Terendak and Butterwiorth
in V. aysia. These have been developed at considerable expense.
They are very habitable as I saw for myrself when I visited them
recently, and it seems unnecessary to duplicate them hen the
governments of the countries concerned seem very contented to
have our forces rema~ in on there.
Q. A figure of 30,000,000 has been mentioned.
accurate? Could this be
MR. HOLT: It could only be speculative at this point, but it wiould
obviously be more costly to set up now bases Yihich would be
providing anything like the same scale of accommnodation that we
already have. They w--ere costly enough.
Q. Is there any possibility of growing difficulties with the
British Government? ' Jas it in relation to the question of
Britain's position east of Suez or Vietnama, and, if so, could
you throw any light on your talks with Mr. Wilson on Vietnam?
' MR. HOLT: There are several points when one considers the whole range
of policies as between the t, 7o governments when you will tend to
Set a rather different view from a small population in a large
eveloping country from that of a country with a small size and
large population, very conscious of its proximity to Europe and
the problems of Europe. It's understandable that Great Britain
should tend to concentrate its attention rather more on Europe
and its problems. On the other hand, our gaze tends to wander
more frequently these days around the countries in the general
area in which wie live But if you ask about Vietnam in
particular, Australia formed a very strong view and I ermphasise
this because otherwise there might be a disposition to think
that we are in Vietnam because the Americans happen to be there.
We are in South Vietnam because to us it seeras no less important
than it does to the United States that the %, Sgression there
should be resisted and I believe Australia to be more directly
involved in the dangers of fa1ilure to resist this agression
than would be the United States itself, but if the attitude of
the Peking Government, which has declared that wars of national
liberation oh that was the North Vietnamese Government, but it
flowed from the philosophy of the Peking Government. It was
Peking said that power grows out of the barrel of -a gun, and if
this philosophy that so called wars of national liberation
successfully tried in one country can then be employed in the
Mr. Holt continued:
next were to be successfully adopted, then nobody in South-
East Asia, or for that matter in Asia, could feel secure and I am
sure that our friends in the room today from India are very
conscious of the shock which came from the evidence that China
was disposing its troops in a menacing ay in relation to a
country which had been so friendly to it as India had proved
itself to be. ue are, therefore, strongly in support of the
American intervention. We feel that if aggression can be
halted, that on the pattern of what has happened in South Korea
and Taiwan, Thailand, in Malaysia, where we fought a long
emergency campaign to beat the Communist activities there, that
on these patterns there can be restored to South Vietnam a
situation in which it can go ahead with its own economic and
social progress. I used the word restored advisedly because
from 1954 onwards, after the Geneva accord, South Vietnamn did
make this kind of progress. In was not until 1960, when it
had become apparent to North Vietnam that while there were
slipping back in their production, South Vietnam was moving
steadily ahead that the campaign of aggression against Sbutli
Viet Nam became actively pressed.
Q. Does it appear to you, ad it does to riny here, that the
British Govenment believes that Australia's frontline should
be at Danrwin and not 1,000 miles to the North?
MR. HOLT: I don't know that this represents the viewpoint of the
British Government accurately. The fact that you stage your
forces in a particular area as a base doesn't necessarily mean
that you regard that point as the front line. It would be a
base from which you would operate. I think the British Government
would still regard a point further to the North of Australia
as the more favourable point from which to conduct military
operations. But of course one can't answer a question of that
sort with any authority or precision unless ou know the
situation you are coping with. Is it some trouble that has
arisen in ndonesia? Is it a march down the Malaysian Peninsula
by Communist or other hostile forces? The military action and
stretegy necessary to cope with this will be affected by what it
is you are dealing with.
Q. Do you think Britain should be in the Anzus Pact? Has there
been any move to brinA Britain into ANZUS and, if so, what has
been the reaction fromi both Britain and America?
HOLT: I wouldn't like to cormment on that. We have other arrangements
with the United Kingdo,, but I'm not pressing for anything
to be done in that direction. My own belief is that if
Australia were seriously under threat that regardless of treaty
commitments the people of this country would want to come to our
assistance. After all, nearly half a million Australian
casualties were sustained in two world vwars, fought a long way
from home when this island wis threatened. I have no reason
to believe that British people wouldn't feel that they had not
an obligation but a call on then if we were vitally threatened.
Wo. can all take comfort in the fact that the United States, which
remins the migtiest rilitary power in the history of . mankind,
has stated quite emphatically as recently as the ast few days,
through its spokesman Dean Rusk, that there is no question so
far as America is concerned that if Australia is under attack
they move in to cover that attack.
Q. You said that unless the Comronvrealth can agree then there
is no hope for the United Nations agreeing. Perhaps I read
too much into that, but would you explain please. It seemed
to imply that unless the Commonwealth acts together as one
unit the United Nations can hardly succeed.
MR. HOLT: I think you did read a little more into it, and this might
have been my own fault of inadequate explanation. What I was
saying . as that we do at least have the advantage within the
Comorronealth of warmer co-operative feeling towards one another
and, therefore, to the extent that some multi-racial organisation
can be made to function effectively it ought to be
possible to do this rather more readily inside the Cor-monw ealth
than in a more amorpheous and more diverse, and at times more
po.-erfully hostile, body such as you find in the United
ations. Furtunately ve have nothing in the way of an
ideological conflict within the Cornonwealth of the magnitude
which exists inside the United Nations.
Q. Many people are a little puzzled by that fact that, although
Australia supports the United States policy in Vietnam, ie do
continue to trade in increasing amounts in wheat and -ool with
Red China. Did you find in America sympathy and understanding
for the Australian policy?
MR. HOLT: I didn't feel the disposition to discuss it frankly. I feel,
and I think Harold Wilson would share this view, that these
are means whereby we can hope to build a better relationship
between countries which are other.; ise hostile to each other.
Trade norally connotes a mutuality of benefit, a mutuality
of interest, and if trade can build steadily between two
countries and work to their ramtual advantage they are less
likely to take action hostile to each other. e don't see
inconsistency with this, while at the same time sternly
resisting pplicies of aggression. We are trying to tell the
aggressor that this is not acceptable to us and will be
combatted, but at the saie time we don't want to put that
aggressor, in the circumstances of the modern world anyhow,
out of business, destroy the economy or destroy the lives of
the people. I think that in trade, tourism, even in the
visits of reporters on a more frequent basis, the cultural
and social exchanges which can be an increasing feature of
the life between those behind the curtains and those on this
sido of it, these and other ways have to be tested to see if
we can make some improvement in relations. We can't allow
ourselves to become bogged down indefinitely in rigidities
of hostilities one to the other, and I joined in welcoming
the initiative of the Prime Minister in making another
attempt in Moscow to help to get some progress towards
negotiations for peace. These initiatives may fail, but a
time comes and this in my experience has been a feature
of negotiations with Communists when their determination
or stubborness at some point of time is converted into a
disposition to go on with a negotiation. Therefore we
just keep trying as best w-e can, but in the meantime taking
whatever action seems to be necessary to ensure the
aggression does not succeed.
Q. You were reported in ashington as saying that Australia
was prepared to go all the way with L. B. J. in Vietnam, and
yet I gather you have your " ban the bomb" groups in
ustralia with distinctly anti-American sympathies. Can
you estimate the degree of support in Australia for American
policy in Vietnam and can you visualise at what point you
yourself would wish to draw the line as the British Government
has done in that support?
IMR. HOLT: I don't want to deal with suppositious cases. The support
of the Australian Government for the United States is based on
a mutuality of interest in the policy being pursued. We
consider ourselves even more directly involved than the Unied
States and we are very conscious of the fact that the brunta 0
the effort there is being borne by the United States. V& 6 are
very appreciative of what the South Vietnamese are doing too,
and they paid a heavy price themselves in their determination
to keep their country from this aggression. I find in the
coment I made in relation to the United States an expression
of our own detormination, a recognition that the policy being
followed there is in the Australian national interest. We,
of course, have people in our country who are opposed to the
policy, the official Opposition is opposed to our policy, it
is opposed to national servicemen being used and has said it
will bring them out of action as soon as it can after it takes
office. But my Government is a coalition of two Parties and
two Houses of Parliament. Up to the time I left Australia
I was able to say that I had 100 per cent support from all
Members in both Houses in both Parties on the Government side.
One Government Senator has since notified some reservations
he has about it well in that case I have 100 per cent less
one, or one out of 73, something to that order. On the
public opinion pollig of recent times there has been not only
good support for a policy of participation in Vietnam, but the
polling indications for the Government have been at the highest
level known in our history.
Q. If the present talks between Rhodesia and Great Britain broke
down, would your Government be prepared to support the tightening
of the screw policy, imposition of more sanctions on Rhodesia,
and if those failed would your Government be prepared to support
the use of military force against Rhodesia?
MR. HOLT: I wouldn't speculate publicly on official policy. I'm not
stating new policies here today. I'm merely trying to interpret
policies which are already current. We have a policy current
in respect of Bhodesia and I am not able to add to that at the
present time.
Q. Do you feel any need for a closer relationship between Australia
and New Zealand in view of their geographical proximity and joint
policy agreement?
MR. HOLT: You mean some sort of organic relationship? Having just
said I'm not stating new policy, I had better not violate that
rule and certainly I would not want to indicate a new policy
because frankly we don't have a new policy. I can say the
current relations between the two countries are very good. I had
personal talks with Mr. Holyoake before I left Canberra. He
came over for the S. E. A. T. O. Conference. We've recently
negotiated a Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand, which will
increase the volume of trade between our two countries. We are
together with our forces in South Viet Nam. I say together
advisedly because when I saw the troops up there the New
Zealand battery was actually in physical contact or proximity
to our own Australian forces in military camp there. On most
of the problems of the day, as they affect our part of the world,
we think very much alike. As to what the future holds, there is a
good deal of interesting speculation going on about that.
T think this is happening ncreasingly so in New Zealand because
there is a realisation there, I believe, that the domestic
market cannot become large enough except in relation to
particular items of manufacture to warrant a very extensive
development of manufactures, and that, therefore, the Australian
economy, with its much greater diversification, could integrate
tY
r * 94*~ 99
ii' it) 2( 99 9 999 6 i.
" I.
4' 9 9
I. I 9 9. 9,)
9 9 9 4 49
.9;
5~ 9 A
9 9..
A 9 .9.
9999. 9999' 99 9* 94 ,999
9
.7
9. 9~ 9 9 r.
9 9~ 99 . 99
4 6~ 9 9 9 4..
9 .9
9 9. 9
4,9~ 99 9
9.
9 9 99 9
9 9 9 9 99 9 9
9 99.
' 99 99 .9,949
9 .9
9 CdAI.
4 9 99
9 4 ,~ 1 99
9 4 ci 9
a. 9 9 9.
noon
.7
9 .97
~~ 99 9. 99 * 99
1. j 9
9,9, 4. 9 .9 49 " dv 9 99
' 4-
L. A
.4 94
9( 9 9 .9
LI: N 9
9 9 999 1'
99
.9 *~ 4
99~ 9
.9 .9 9 99
9' 9~ t~ 9 99 9 949 9
9 .4
9 9 9 9 9 9 999 .4
c
8.
Mr. Holt continued:
more closely with that of New Zealand. I don't mean by
integration a mergot of the two countries, but I moan that We
believe in the future we could be deawn even closer in matters
of trade and shall remain closely sympathetic to each other
in matters of international policy.
Q. The British Government, through Mr. Healey, has indicated
that it is imposing some restrictions on arms sales, and
specially in relation to their use in Vietnam. Is this a
matter of any embarrassment to the Australian Government?
MR. HOLT: This is opposition by the British Government to the sale
of arms for Vietnam? It's not a matter which iould be
inclined to be in my mind. I wyould have thought the equipment
already there was both large and adequate, but I'm not in a
position to make a policy statement about that.