BDAUL, TTTV IS IQNjINTERVI EW
Statement in the House of Representatives on Thursday,
28th. March, 1963, by -the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister,
Sir Robert Menzies.
I must say that the speech that we have just
listened to represents such a muddled-up indictment that it is
very hard to know what the point of it is. In one breath, the
honourable member for Eiden Monarc ( Mr. Allan Fraser) waving an
arm at the Postmaster-~ General ( Mr. Davidson) said that he
believed that this interview should never have been made.
But the honourable member for E3den Monaro has stated exactly
the same thing. He also believes that it should not have been
made, So his whole argument becomes so self-contradictory that
one wonders why this matter has so suddenly been thrown upon us
for discussion. There was no sign of it at the beginning of the weeknot
a hint not any question at question time from a fighting
Opposition stimulated, as some of them are by corridor
exercises In recent times. Not a hint of i~ j But when they
found that a matter had beon suggested for discussion today
which they would have found highly embarrassing, to wit, the
giving of instructions to members by outside bodies, they at
once said, " We cannot have that. 1. e do not want to have that
debated. That would be very Qwkward, e are going to move a
no confidence motion next week. Wle must not fire off any of our
stuff in advance. We must at all costs avoid discussing the
matter suggested by the honourable member for Barker."
So they trotted out this matter. What is the substance
of it? I will go writh the hoaourable member for Eden Monaro to
the first and most powerful part of his speecha. He said and
I agree that this television interview should never have been
made. This int( erview was made by n body which is, after all, if
0 not the servant of the Britisli Government, tho creature of the
British Government, I do net agree that the man with whom the interview
was made is a poor, broken down old follow. I saw this man
myself, full of self -sat-, sfas3tion and leering at his au& nce.
The interview was made with a man who is at this time wanted for
a capital offence against the Government of France. He is
wanted for treason. He is being pursued, in effect, or is
pursuing himself around the world, He is wanted as the head of
an organization which has already made unsuccessful but violent
attempts to assassinate the President of Fr-ince. This is the
man that we are hearing about.
Of course this interview should never have been
made! It could do nothing else but give this man and his views
publicity. It would serve to give him a certain amount of
prestige as a person worth interviewing and presenting over the
principal television service in the U,.
It is l~ ittle wondcr to me that there wore violent
protests in France, It is little wonder to me that there were
protests in the House of Commons. As an unfriendly act towards
a friendly power, I can scarcely think of anything more stupid
and more offensive. I imagine that we all would agree with
that. Certainly the honourable member for Eden Monaro agrees
with it, but having said all those things that the film should
never have been made by the BBC and so on he went on to say
that it should have been put on by the Australian Broadcasting
Commission in Australia, or at any rate, that a Minister should
aeo/ 2
2
not have dared to prevent it. That, Si'r, is a form of
reasoning which completely escapes me,.
11iei n Australia are not only friendly with France;
we are associated with France in the South-East Asia Treaty.
Through our allies in the old world, we are indirectly
associated with France in NATO. lie are not a member of
NATO, but Great Britain is, and France is in a key position
in the western European structure. Are we supposed to be
quite indifferent to the fact that a body commonly regarded
as the agent or the mouthpiece of the AustraJ, 4an Government
not here; we know better, but commonly so regarded outside
should put on an interview which, by concession, we say should
never have been recorded? Of course, the reason that is put
forward is a very high and mighty one ' W~ ell, this involves
censorship," It is one thing to prevent a programme from
being put on; it is another thing to close up a few newspapers
completely, Honourable members opposite had better
search their own record. How fortunate it is that the
Leader of the Opposition ( Mr. Calwell) is not here today.
When this direction was given to the it was,
I repeat, in my opinion a proper direction on a matter which
concerns the relations of this country with a friendly power.
11r, Allan Fraser In fact, you would do it again?
SIR ROBERT MENZIES: As a matter of fact, if it would be
effective, I would do it again, certainly. I am not making
any apologies. I havo publicly conceded that we then found
ouz~ selves in a position in which the pro~ bition against the
A. B. C. would be rendiered completely futile and discaiiinatory.
Therefore, we withdi-ow it.
Mr. Peters Did not you know that before you issued
it? SIR ROBERT MENZIES: I did not think of it, I suppose. I
do not know. When you find that a position has developed
which is untenable, it is good sonsc to go away from it.
I have no apologies to make for that,. All I want to say
is that Opposition members had better make up their minds
as to whether they agree with their spokesman about the
nature, quality and propriety of this particular interview,
If there were power in cne stroke to prevent the presentation
of a matter offensive to an allied poweor not merely
offensive, but a matter which involved putting forward and
giving publicity to a man wanted for treason then I hope
I would have enough firmness, whenever it cropped up, to
do everything I could to prevent it,,