WEST : WGUINFA
SPEECH BY ThE PRIME MlSlfR, HE R5. ' ON. h,. Kl. T'S
IN -TH O b Z Nj-' DIT ' S
29TH MHaCH. 196
Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to begin by
congratulating my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition
( Mr. Calwell) on his speech. After all, he has had great
difficulties on this matter and we have witnessed them from afar
how was he going to reconcile the very war-like utterances, so
dramatically described in the " Sydney Morning Herald" with the
well-kno nm views of some of those who sit, metaphorically,
behind him? And so we have been vaiting anxiously to see the
grand reconciliation. I do want to congratulate him on the way
in which he has escaped from his known difficulties, by diving
into a nimbus of words, because that is what he has done tonight.
But in my limited time I cannot deal with all the
points I would like to deal with. I hope I will be excused by
the House for a little recollection of my earlier, and what some
of you may think my more respectable, days at the Bar. We had a
broad rule, as cross-examinors, that if you could bowl a witness
out in a really good cold-blooded lie you ought not to worry
about him much longer thereafter. Bearing that little principle
in mind I just take one statement among the many made by the
honourable gentleman in the course of his speech. " Have we ever
insisted on the principle of self-determination" he said. " eo"~
( the Government) " Oh, no,"' bo says " the Prime Ministor has'
himself ami. tted that the Government has not", and he then
proceeds to quote from a speech of mine made in this House on
27th April, 1961, after the visit of General Nasution, and he
quotes two passages, torn out of their context; one of them
referring to sovereignty and the other of them referring to
domestic jurisdiction. And with a triumph of eloquence, or what
passes for eloquence, he says " Here you are. This is an admissim
by the Prime Minister that the principle of self-determination,
to which the Labour Party is now so devoted, has been abandoned
by him and is not worth a mention".
I sent out for my statement of 27th April. I invite all
members to read it, if they want to judge the truthfulness of the
Leader of the Opposition. Read it it is in " Hansard" at page
1247 and the following pages because in the course of this
statement I think it might be desirable to remind honourable
members of it; I will not quote .1l the passages, because there
were many passages on this matter I went on to explain this
is to General Nasution what we w. ere doing in our section of New
Guinea in pursuit of our long-held goal of improvement of living
standards, education and health to a point where the population
would freely determine its own future. Then later on I referred
to the fact that the Government of Australia, under my own
Prime Ministership, and the government of the Netherlands had
made an agreement in which they jointly declared that they are
therefore pursuing and will continue to pursue policies directed
towards the political, economic, social and educational
advancement of thopooples in their territories in a manner which
recognizes their affinity, I said further
" In so doing the two Governments are dutermined to prorote
an uninterrupted development of this process until such
timo as the inhabitants of the territories conc. rned will
be in a position to determine their own future".
Then again I will not read it all because I have not time; I
think I have only twenty minutes I wont on to add
" In our own New Guinea Territories our policy is, by steady
dogroos and up to the limits of our financial and
Ldministrative capacity, to proote the advancement of the
people so that ultirctely they 1i; ill choose for thomselves
their own constitution and their future relationship with
us. ' Je will respect their choice whatover it may be.
This, for us, is not a new policy. 0e have pursued it for
years. It arises from our sense of responsibility, a
responsibility which ca-nnot be suddenly or prematurely
abandoned if our trusteeship is to be honourably performod'.'
Sir, those are three out of half a dozen references, in
my statement of that date, to this problem in this House. And yet
the bodovilled Leader of the Opposition, bomused by brawls in his
own party, has the nerve to stand up here and say that this
principle is something for which wo do not speak, something for
which we do not stand, and which apparently I am supposed to have
abandoned specifically in the throe statements from 7which I have
read excerpts to the Houseo. Sir, I recall the old principle of
cross-examination to which I referred and if he were the witness
I would say, " I leave it there",
Now, Sir, lot me go on a little. I will not leave it
there, for this purpose: The honourablo gentleman, so pressed by
his own domestic party anxioties, has thought fit as usual, to
deliver a torrent of personal abuse at me. I want to make it
clear that he almost invariably apologiss in private. But he
has done it. I made an awful fool of rysolf at Suez. Really, it
is about time that people understood that it is not an insult to
a Prine Minister of Australia for him to be invited by eighteen
nations in the world to present their views to the President of
Egypt. It is not an insult to the Prinm. Minister of Australia,
It is not a job that anybody would covet. If anything would make
one sick, it is this crawling, -pologotic attitude that you should
never take on any responsibility in the world, oven on behalf of
your most powerful friends, unless you have it underwritten for
success in adv. nco. I amn happy to say that I am not made that
way and neither are my colleagues.
This is the irony of it all: The honorable gentleman
loves to quote what somebody said about my appearance at the
United Nations in November, 1960. I want to tell lonourable
menbors that at that appearance I r. ade a speech which was as
strong as a speech could be about the principle of solfdeotermrination
and about what we wero doing in Papua . nd New
Guinea. In that speech I made an attack. on the villainous new
colonialism of the Soviet Union. The Leader of the Opposition
does not worry about that speech. It w:-s not in his official
newspapor; it was suppressed. But that was the speech I mado.
Yet he comas back to it and says, " The Prime Minister was never
fit to be Minister for itrnal Affairs. Instead of cultivating
the friendship of great countries likoe the United States of
Amrica and the United. Kingdor ho _ ught to be cultivating the
friendship of the governnonts and Peoples of Asia". That was the
theory that was put into his mouth at that tine. I do not want
to repeat what I said on an earlior occasion, but I remind
honourable mealbers that only a ooorn thtw o ago the honourable
gentleman, goadd on by his fri-nds in Sydney, mado a dramatic
statoeent the only signiicanco of which was to say that, instead
of cultivating the friendship of the Asian people all of whom
support the Indonosian clair, I sDhould have been prepared to
declare war on tho, not over the Australian torzitory of Papua
and lw Guinea, for which 11 of us will fight, but over West New
Guinea. What a it is to h: ve cl1. l this vulgar abuse about
the Prime Minister, a-c the tinome being also Minister for External
Affairs, not oakfirnige nds with Asi.. I vonture to say that no
nn has done more to embitter our relationship with the Asian
countris in the last six m: nths than the over-oxcited Loa.. of
the Opposition.
There is really not i. luch occasion to alaboorate this
matter. But so I may .:. cko it quite clear that the second ooint
which I have been inaking is firmly based, I ronind honourable
mInrnibers once more that I and later my collen: ue, the Minister for
Zxternal Affairs ( Sir Garfield Biarwick), i: made statenoints in which
we indicated, not for the first time, our views on this matter.
. o stat d where we stood on such mattors as peace being the groat
principle adopted by the United Nations, no threats, no xacd
force, ond the assurances that had been given to us. We stated,
secondly, our belief that this matter jught to be discussed
peacefully and negotiated betwoen the Netherlands and Indonesia.
If the Oppsition disapprovos of that, it is new to no. I can
remomber the tiCe when Mr. Chifley, forimer Prime Minister whose
name honourable nonbors ' opposit invoke, and cnother frimor leader
in the porson of Dr. Evatt boastod clearly, and I thought proper: ly,
that this was a matter betwoon the Notherlands and Indonesia.
Apparently all that is gone. Those gentlemen must have turned out
to be wrong. We on this side of the House have stated our views. We
ha.' e stated that we desire a peaceful settlement, that we are not
a party principal and that we will respect an agreement made
freely and not under threat of war. But above all things, we
stand for the principle of self-determination of the future of the
Papuan people whether they are in -West New Guinea or East New
Guinea. These views have been stated by us here, in the Press
and in the United Nations. They have been debated all around the
world. Our vieis are quite well knoim. Does the Loader of the
Opposition quarrel with them?
Mr. Leslie I do not know.
Mr. Menzies Thank you. I do not know clearly. If he does not
quarrel with them, what is he quarrelling about? If these views
constitute the policy of the Labour Party, what is the uproar
about? If they are not part of the policy of the Labour Party,
let honourable members opposite rise and plainly and
unambiguously say so. Let them snap out of this compromising coma
into which they have Iallon, rise one by one even my friend the
Leader of the Opposition and say whro they stand on this
matter and what they would do that we have not done,
The only answer that comes up as repetitively as the
beat of a metronome in the spoech of the Leader of the Opposition
is " The United Nations, the United Nations, the United Nations".
Does he know that this matter has been before the United Nations?
Does not he know that if this matter were taken to the Security
Council a dozen times the Soviet jnlon would veto whatevor view
was taken. Does not he know that this matter has boon the subject
of resolution after resolution in the General Assembly? This idea
of transferring your burden to the United Nations is no policy at
all. It becomes worse than no policy at all if, as the honourable
gentioman did, one sets about joering at what he calls the oower
blocs and log-rolling campaigns by interested parties. Of course
honourable members will understand that that is a referonco to
our old-fashioned belief that when it comes to peace or war in
this part of tohe world Great BErhietraei n and the United Statcs
stand is of vital moment to this country. According to honourae
members opposite this is old-fashioned stuff. In theioir view we
should not be interested in Twhat a describes as power--blocs.
Thank God we have a powo:. bloc in the .! orld. It will be a poor
day for Australia if, in the name of somo thooroticel idea, about
the United N-_ tions, we abandon our lines of communication with,
to repeat my own phr:: s, our reat and powerful friends. No
country in the world more than ours : x-ds great and powerful
friends. I am all for them, I biave that the people of
Australia are for them, and I believe that any policy pursued by
us which would put at risk our friendship with those friends
would be rejocted by evry scnsible person in tho cuntry.