EMBARGO : NOT FOR RELEASE BEFC) RE 9.130 PM ( EST) Cut,
SENATE ELECTION 1967 1 7NOV 1967
448RAR$?
NATIONAL TELECAST BY THE PRIME MINISTER,
MR HAROLD HOLT
Thursday, 16 November, 1967
( Following is the text of a televised election talk by the Prime Minister,
Mr Harold Holt. The five-minute programme will be seen In all States
this evening. The ABC will telecast the talk at the following times
New South Walesi Victoria and Tasmania 9. 30 pm; Queensland and TIestern
Australia 9.20 pm,, South Australia 1C pm',
I remind you again that the purpose of this S3enate election
is not to choose an Australian Government. You did that in 1966 for what
would normally be a three-year term. You are now to elect thirty, out of the
full total of sixty, Senators, and those elected will take their places in July
of next year. As you know, the Government you elected last November with
a large majority in the House of Pepresentatives, is actually in a minority
in the Senate. What I now say to you is that the Government you have already
chosen should be given an effective majority in both the House of Representatives
and the Senate. Wj~ ithout this there can only be uncertainty, confusion,
frustration and delays in the work of the national Parliament.
The twelve months since the general ections have not altered
either the basic questions you voted on or your assessment of them. You
said decisively then that the A merican alliance was vital to our security,
that our Viet Nam commitment shared with our A merican and other
allies was based on a correct understanding of the communist threat to
South-East Asia. You said that our economic prosperity and nobody denies
that under my Government we do have a. remarkable economic prosperity
could not be separated from our international security.
We were then and we remain in direct conflict with the Labor
Party on these matters. You completely rejected then, as you must again,
a Labor policy which would undermine our alliances and endanger our
national interests. You will remember that Mr Calwell did not mince his words
at the time. He wanted a retreat to Australian shores. He did not want
any part of Viet Nam. He did not care If we walked out on our allies. But
Mr Calwell's successor is as vague and evasive on this issue as his former
leader was clear and forthright. This deliberate vagueness should deceive
nobody who has read the latest policy decisions of the ALP on Viet Nam.
The makers tf Labor policy, the delegates to the Adelaide
Conference, decided In effect that a Labor Government would demand a
virtual abandonment by America of Its objectives in Viet Nam as the price
of Australan military support. Mr Galwell said of the Adelaide decisions:
" here has been no weakening of Labor opposition to the continuation of the
war and to Australia's part in It. Other prominent Labor men have confirmed
this. / 2
-2
Fortunately for Australia, the Labor Party is not in a position
to deliver an ultimatum to our American allies. It is not in government.
But you cannot afford, in the course of this Senate election
campaign, to be distracted from the realities of politics and the realities
of our position on these matters, by attempts to turn your minds to other
things. The Labor Party will trade punches on a variety of other issues.
It is surely most revealing that it avoids fight on the basic questions of the
security and prosperity of this country. This kind of shadow sparring may
serve as entertainment intended as a diversion from more critical matters,
but it is no substitute for national leadership in difficult times.
On the matters which profoundly affect the future of our country,
the Labor Party is consistent only in its refusal to come to grips with the
reality of our situation in the Pacific. Labor's isolationism was once
merely a socialistic attitude, a theatrical posture. Nowit is a policy full
of danger for Australia, formulated and promoted by the many left-wing
elements of the ALP who dominate its foreign pclicy decisions. You will
find these attitudes strongly advanced by Labor's left-wing leaders in the
Senate. It would be hazardous folly to give them the numbers in that Chamber
to defeat the Government on matters crucial to the security of this country.
CANBERRA, 16 November, 1967.