PR. 38
Department of External Affairs,
554/ 1/ 1 Canberra, A .0. T.
31 st March, 1 960
HOUSE OF RERESENTATIVES DEBATE ON SOUTH AFRICA
Speech by the Prime Minister and Minister
for External Affairs.
Speaking in the House of Representatives today on the
resolution on South Africa moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Calwell,
the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs, Mr.* Menzies, said:-
The honourable member sentenced himself to half an hour's hard
labour and has now performed the sentence. He began and ended by, I suppose
he would say, twitting me for being so ignorant of the alleged fact that this
matter was before the United Nations a week ago and implied that I am as out
of date as I can be. It is a great pity for the honourable member to become
too eloqu. ent about a matter of that kind unless he gets his facts right. The
fact is that the Security Council sat for the first time to deal with this
matter, or to determine whether it would deal with it, at 5.30 o'clock this
morning, Australian time, and the first business which had to be discussed by
it would be, of course, whether this item should be inscribed and then discussed
in substance. We have, of course, no opportunity to know since 5.30 this
morning, Australian time, what the result has been as to whether it was
inscribed but we do know that that was the first appearance at the United
Nations stage of this matter and so it is a pity that a great deal of this
rhetoric turns out to have been wasted.
As to South Africa's attitude, I would have thought that every
schoolboy knew that South Africa' s attitude is one of complete objection to
this matter being dealt with by United Nations. Somebody says they are
agreeable, but that is a great effort of imagination. The fact is that they
have opposed this matter coming before the United Nations. I have no doubt
they have once more stated the view which their Prime Minister stated only
yesterday in the Parliament at Cape Town, that it is a domestic matter and
that they do not recognise the jurisdiction of the United Nations ick relation
to it. And incidentally, sinrne the honourable gentleman now says that it
is not the shootings so much but the policy of apartheid that we want to deal
with I may tell him that yesterday, in the Parliament at Cape Town, the Prime
Minister stated the position of the Government in relation to jurisdiction,
which is the great question that I was addressing myself to. He stated that
the views of the Government and those views were specifically concurred in by
Sir de Villiers Graaf, the Leader of the Opposition; so there is a bi-partisan
position on this question of jurisdiction in the South African Parliament.
In these circumstances, where you have the party of the present administration
and the party which was the party of Sm-its at one mind in South Africa on this
question of jurisdiction they are by no means of one mind. probably on the
question of internal policy when you find that position, I simply say that
this Parliament as a parliament ant. this Government as a government would be
accepting a grievious responsibility if it sought to invade these policies
of a domestic kind in another country of the British Commonwealth. That after
all, is the essence of what I have said from beginning to end. But, Sir, I
will not take up too muich time on these little imaginary exercises that the
honourable member engaged in. I must want to say this; the motion is much
more violent than the speech. The speech was almost tender at times. The
motion, which has already had great publicity was deliberately designed to
stir up all sorts of feelings of hatred in this community.
-2
The esence of the motion is, of course, its purely political
quality. That is shown by the fact that at no time during the massacres
in Hungary or the widespread killings in Cyprus or the grcat loss of life
occasioned during the Mau Mau attacks in Kenya-whore 13,000 lives were lost
did the Opposition ever submit any resolution or even ask for one. This
time, they think that they see an opportunity of embarrassing the Government
by fanning hatred where there is already too much, and by encouraging
differences in the Commonwealth at a time when mutual urderstandinA was
never more important. That is a broad statement but it is completely
demonstrated by clauses 3, 5 and 6 of the resolution about which I
propose to say something.
Biause 3 says that the opinions expressed by me quite plainly
and temperately I thought in this House will be construed as Australian
condonation of the South African Prime Minister' s statements and attitudes.
That is a most remarkable proposition. Even as a piece of English it has
fantasy in it. I do not kniow what these statements and this attitude are
that have been referred to. I have heard a variety of statements by the
Prime Minister of South Africa. I have heard or read of other things
attributed to him. What these things are that are reforred to in the motion
is not made clear, but o~ ne thing is perfectly clear, and that is that the
South African Prime Minister has done what I venture to say an Australian
Prime Minister would do under similar circumstances. He has promptly ordered
a judicial investigation of those incidents and has appointed two Supreme
Court judges of the highest repute to conduct this investigation.
The Leader of the Opposition says. " We know all that we need to
be told; we know how many people -ocre killed or wounded". But what do
we knov. about the circumstances? Wfhat do we know that enables us, at a
comfortable distance, to sit in judgment on the events in this particular
town on this particular day or night? How can we propose to say, ' We know
everything; we understand the facts porfectly. We sit in judgment. We
condemn!" That is exactly what the judicial investigation will be for.
What I said in this House, was not that the Australian Government
was condoning the events in South Africa. I said the very opposite that
wec were following a policy of non-intervention in what is, though tragic
and terrible, a domestic problem for the Union of South Africa. It is, to me,
a novel and very twisted use of viords to say that non-intervention implies
condonation. The words, of course, are almost exactly opposite in their
significance. ' hen, as a government, we decide not to intervene, that
mea~ ns that we arc not expressing a judgment on domestic policies. Wec may,
as individuals, with tho very limitcd information available to us, think
those policies. disputaole, but as a government, we arc not taking upon
ourselves the grievous responsibility of the sitting in judgment on policies
and on events of which we in Australia, happily, have no experiene, ocing,
as they are, matters of political dispute in South Africa itself.
I now rcfer to the policies or some of their manifestations.
I emphasise that what I tried to indicate on Tuesday and looking at the
Hansard" record I think I did say this was that we are -all entitled to
our own personal feelings which, in the case of most of the people of
j~ ustralia, are feelings of horror and apprehension. But one of the
inhibitions that is laid upon the man who is the head of the Government
of Australia is that his personal feelings are a luxury in wvhich he cannot
publicly indulge when the real problem is what political attitude the
Government should take and express. This is a great responsibility. it
iñ oquircs calm judgment and a sense ef responsibility to the future as well
as to the present. That is why we agree with the statement which wias
made by the Prime Minister of Canada a few days ago in his own Parliament.
He said that the oonclusion of his Government -was that at this time no
beneficial purpose would be served by diplomatic protests nor by even more
extreme measures to intervene. 0 *-13
-3
Turning t3 clause 14 of the motion, I express myself with
restraint when I say that this clause is proof of an absolutely scruffy
political manouvre and, in itself, is a monstrous perversion of the
truth. You havc only to read the clause to sce that that is so. T he
clause states that I drew a parallel between South Africa' s treatment
of the natives in South Africa and Australia' s treatmunt of the indigenous
inhabitants of Australia end its torritorics. Every memiber on this side
of the House knows that that is en utter invention. At no stage did I
say anything of the kind.
I know that there are people some of them in Australia
who constantly foment the idea that this nation has-ill-treated its
abcrigines. I deny this. It is a charge, not only against the Commonwealth
Government, bu.. against the various State Governments. Tho facts
reject it. Nor did I, in my statemont, talk about our treatment of
aborigines in terms of v.. hat goes on in some other countries. What I said
lot me remind everybody of it was that if the domostic jurisdiction
principle is abendcned in the he. at of the moment, so to speak, we may live
to see the dlay when other nations, whether in the United Nations or
otherwise, will icek to discuss our aboriginal policies end claim as a
precedent whatever action occurs in relation to South Africa. That is
what I said. We h~ pe and believe that we will never have incidents of
the kind now under discussion, but all these things are matters of degree;
and a point of principle, once surrendered, is not easily recaptured.
So far' as our territories are concerned we believe, in this
Parliament and I think that most objective onlookers agree that our
policies end administration have been enlightened and progressive. We
have clean hands in respect of our territories. But it is not difficult
to imagine that, with the passage of time, some people who have no interest
in orderly progression towards rising living standards zr. nd sclf-government
will proceed to stir up trouble in those territories, and, having stirred
it up, invite the intervention of other countries, treating the domestic
jurisa3iction principle as having been abandoned.
The clause is, therefore, grossly dishonest in its statement
and deliberately damaging in its implication. I merely add that the
reference to the carriage of passports by indigenous peoples, passports
governing their movements inside their country, shows the length to which
the Opposition will go in order to secure what it believes to be a point.
First, the fact is that in the Soviet Union such passports are required,
but the Opposition in this Parliament has never, to my knowledge, ever
commented upon that or proposed a resolution about it.
Mr. Galvin. Do you approve of it?
Of course I do not approve of it but I do not interfere in
the domestic affairs of the Soviet Union if that is the way in which they
went to run their country, well and good. There are a few people
who ti ink that it is a very good way, but I am not one of them. Not one
word has ever been said by a member of the Opposition protesting against
th; a carriage of domestic passports in the Soviet Union. They cannot
squirm off this hook. And yet they have the strictest rules applying
over a great area of the Soviet Union, and these rules have, if anything,
beep more and mcre intensified during the last four years. It is interesting
to note that the penaltios for infringement of the passport rules in
the 5oviet Union range from six months " corrective" labour to two years
deprivation of freedom.
/ Now I come to clause 5 of the motion. Clause 5 emphasises
that my " gratuitous end maladroit" references to the policies of Australia
i~ n regard to its native peoples may be construod in Asia and Africa in a
qtanncr most damaging to this country. .* 14
-4
Now, Sir, that is just about as unpatriotic and damaging a
clause to put in a motion as I have ever reaa in my life. ' What were
these references by me to thc policies of Australia in regard to its
native peoples? Thc Leader of the Opposition will be hard put to it to
find them in mry answcrs in this House. My references
to our own problem I have already said something about this wore made
in the setting which I have just elaborated. These policies arc, I repeat,
honourable and good, and I have yet to learn that they are the subject
of criticism either in Africa or in Asia. The Opposition here, while
piously expressing its fear that my references to these policies may be
construed in Asia and Africa in a manner most damaging to this country,
is plainly expressing its hopes that they will be. How could they
possibly be construed in any other country in a damaging sense unless
other countries are persuaded by people in this House that they are
damaging? Sir, our policies in relation to native peoples, either
inside Australia or in the territories, are aand let me emphasise
this our business and our responsibility and they have been pursued,
as even the Opposition would scarcely care to deny, in a clea-, r and
honourable fashion. May I, having regard to the eagerness of some
people to become engaged in South African politics, repeat what I have
said about our policies? Our policies are our business and our
responsibility, and we are not transferring them to other people. My
answer, Sir, on Thursday was and I quote it
If wie are tco free in asserting that what happens in South
Africa is a matter of international jurisdiction, we may
well step out of the light into the dark-iess en this matter.
We may well find that, the door having been opened in that way,
somebody will be willing to assert at some time or other, in
some circumstances, that we, in relation either to our own
internal population or to the population of our territories,
are also sub. bect to internationalI condemnation and international
jurisdiction.
This is what the honourable gentleman professes to fear, but his near-deputy
leader, at once interjected, when I hL-d made that remark, and said ' And so
we should Mr. Reynolds. If we do wrong.
0 h! if we do wrong. Mark the words that I used and I think
I was quite audible. I said that somebody might be willing to assert that
we are " 1also subjuct to international condemnation and international
jurisdiction". And inediately I said those words a prominent member of
the Labour Party said " And so we should be". Of all the pieces of
humbug that I have met w... ith in a long experience of politics, this is the
supreme example. One of the most pro) minent members of the Opposition has
said publicly in this House that we ought to be condemned for our administration
cf our policies in regard tz) native pecples, that we ought t,%
be dragged before an international jurisdiction. This very same Opposition
brushes that to one side and says, " How terrible that the Prime Minister
should even hint that there is a subject of this kind and so should
attract the hostile attention of other countries".
Now, Sir, wie come to clause 6 of the motion. Clause 6 is the
one that refers to the United Nations and the forthcoming Common-! ealth Prime
Ministers' Conference. Australia is not a member of the Security Council.
Therefore, the d% 2cision as to whether the South African question should be
there debated and made the subjeot of sor.-e decision or direction, is not
ours. I have stated in public, on behalf of this Government, our view on
that matter; but it is not our decision. The Security Council, as I say,
sat early this morning our time, and is presumably discussing the matter
at this moment. I have also, Sir, stated as dispassionately as possible
the principle to which we have adhered for y--. ars in relation to the internal
affairs of other countries. This is not a matter that has suddenly cropped up.
0
This is a problem which has come up time after time, almost year after
year, and we have consistently taken the view that wie are not going to
intervene in the internal affairs of other countries; and so far aslI
kniow, Sir, our actions on all those occasions have never been seriously
challenged in this Parliament.
I think that I might have been able to regard this policy
of non-interference as the accepted national policy of Australia, for I
had never heard it challenged until the Opposition saw, in these moving,
dreadful, dramatic events in South Africa the opportunity for cashing-in
on a natural emotional reaction in the minds of most of us. But, Sir,
the clause goes on to propose that the events in South Africa not the
policy of apartheid Which the honeurable gentleman has talked about tiis
morning, but the circumstances of these incidents should be taken to
the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Really, can anybody
suppose anything more fantastic? In the first place, the motion indicates
no understanding of what a Commorr~ ealth Prime M1inisters' Conference is and
how it works. Mr. Duthie. N obody else has such an understanding either.
Nm, and you will be deprived of that experience forever. But,
Sir, Connnoncalth Prime Ministers' Conferences do not have matters listed for
discussion. They do not have an agenda. They do not have votes taken.
They do not have majorities. They consist of, say, nine people sitting
trngether, each of them the head of the Government cf his own country,
discussing matters of common interest, informing each other' s minds, learning
from each other's experience, getting to know something more about the problems
of other men. These are not meetings where votes are taken. Indeed, I
should like to~ tell honourable members that even the communique which
emerges at the end of a Commonwealth Primel Ministers' Conference and it
is always a harmless enough document, as you know. cannot contain anything
to the inclusion of which even only one Prim Minister objects.
Now, it is a system that has continued and which I and other
people too, think is one if the most important elements in the present
Commonwealth structure these regular meetings between the heads of
gcvernments of the Commonwealth. Yet, the Lcader of the Opposition, who at
Isayonse time had ambitions to attend a Prime Ministers' conference, seriously
that this matter ought to be listed. The Opposition sa~ s:-" Put it down
on the agenda. Bring along the Prime Minister of South Africa. Let him
be put into the dock and let us all try to cross-examine him". How long
does anybody suppose the Commonwealth would last if that was the way we
went on? How long do they suppose the structure itself would endure if
every time the head of a Commonwealth Go-ornmunt, or a parliament in the
Commonwealth, or somebody in a Commonwalth Government or Parliament,
disagreed with something going on inside another Commonwealth countr and
said " I wiant that listed for the next Prime Ministers' Conference"?
As a matter of fact, I would remind honourable members that
in the past there have been tremendous problems in the Indian sub-continenttremendous
pr-* blems of refugees and vast loss of life after partition
grievous problems. One problem left unsolved, the problem of Kashmir,
a problem w-hich has bedlevilled the relations between India and Pakistan
for years. I proposed at one stage, in London, that wie might have some
talks about it among Prime Ministers, just informally. But it was not
listed. It could not have been listed because at least two or three heads
of governments objected to this matter being made one for formal discussion
by a Prime Ministers' C~ onference. The reason they did so was they they
put on one side whatever might be their ovm views on this particular problem.
They realised that Yihen a meeting of the British Commonwealth Prime Ministers
sets itself up as an adjudicator on disputes inside the Coummonwealth then,
as I say, the end of the whole structure is in sight.
It has been said I clo not know with what authority that
the Prime Minister of South Africa would himself have liked an opportunity
of explaining his policies to his brother-Prime Ministers in suitable
e ./ 6
-6
circumstances. I have heard that said, I cannot vouch for it but
it is primarily a matter for him. Personally I would welcome hearing
something on the matter because I appear to bc in a hopeless minority
as I look at the Opposition on this matter. I confess that I do not
kiowv all about South Africa's domestic policies. I do not know all the
implications of what has been called a-partheid and I would like to be
better informed. Now my time has expired and I shall sum up by saying that
this resolution is crude, it is misleading, it is dangerous. it will, 9
I hope and believe, be utterly rejected in this House and by all thoughtful
people with a sense of responsibility. But if, in all the circumstances
which confront us and in view of the honest indignation and shook in the
minds of our people, some resolution is required so that misleading commennts
may not be made on the outright rejection of the one now before us, I say
" tvery well, let us have a resolution". It wVill need to be of an entirely
different kind. I shall move the following amendment That all the wordls
after " that" be 6mitted arnd the i'ollowing wards inserted:-
" This House profoundly regrets the loss of human lives
occasioned in recent incidents in South Africa, is distressed that such
events should have occurred in a member ccuntry of the Commohwealth of
Nations, expresses its sympathy with those who have suffered, profoundly
hopes that order may be re-established as soon as possible and earnestly
hopes that the adjustment of all disputes and differences will be achieved
by orderly and lawf'ul pr~ cesses for the cormnon * oenefi t of the people of
South Africa",