COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH 23AUG1967
BY
The Rt Hon. HAROLD HOLT, M. P.,
ON
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
[ From the ' Parliamentary Debates', 17 August 1967]
Mr HAROLD HOLT ( Higgins-Prime
Minister) [ 8.20]--This debate was initiated
by the Minister for External Affairs ( Mr
Hasluck) who, I think it will be agreed by
all sections of the House, gave to this
chamber one of the most thoughtful,
informative, articulate and valuable statements
on the foreign affairs of this country
that has ever been presented to the chamber.
It is to me deplorable that it was
followed by such an incredible speech from
the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Whitlam).
I use the term ' incredible' in two senses.
It was incredible in the sense that anybody
who had any knowledge of the facts about
which the Leader of the Opposition spoke
could place no validity on the comments
which he made in relation to those facts.
It was also incredible in the sense that a
man holding himself out to be the leader
of an alternative government should have
such a disregard for the facts and make
such reckless and loose use of them as he
did during the debate. I shall give some
instances of that as I proceed.
The Leader of the Opposition has put to
the House what purports to be the views
of the Australian Labor Party on a variety
of important issues. I say ' purports' because
nobody in this country can be sure of the
views of the Australian Labor Party, taken
as a whole. I shall deal with that, too, in
a little more detail as I go along. He holds
himself and his colleagues out as the source
of an alternative government for this
country. 11671/ 67 There is, of course, a very direct link
between the welfare, security and economicprogress
of a nation and the Government
that leads it. So it becomes an obligation,
of citizenship in a democratic society to
examine closely the policies offered by thosewho
aspire to national leadership. And there
is an obligation on the part of the public
and of the Press of Australia to bring the
same strong searchlight of scrutiny to thepolicies
of the Australian Labor Party
which they direct so penetratingly and persistently
to the policies of the present
Government. I stress that because there has been for
so long a disposition on the part of some'
sections of the Press and some members
of the public to say: ' There is no effective-
Opposition, so we are the Opposition.' If
they are going -to alter that role and look
to honourable members opposite led by thepresent
Leader of the Opposition as an,
alternative government, then they have a
responsibility to probe as closely as they
would the policies of this Government what
is put forward by honourable gentlemen'
opposite. It is not easy to pin down in any precise
form the policies offered by the Australian
Labor Party under its present leadership,
either on foreign affairs or on domestic
affairs. In this respect, the Leader of the'
Opposition has already revealed himself as
something of a political chameleon. At:
times, we find him assuming the guise of
a Christian crusader charging down against
the infidels of the Victorian executive of
the Australian Labor Party. But when he
speaks to an audience consisting predominantly
of Liberal sympathisers, as when
he talked to the Junior Chamber of Commerce
in Victoria the other day, we find
him uttering honeyed words about the
Socialist objective, an objective, incidentally,
to -the implementation of which he has
pledged himself.
Mr Uren-I rise to order. This is a discussion
of a statement delivered by the
Minister for External Affairs. When discussing
a previous statement made by the
Minister for External Affairs I was called
to order by the Chair for not speaking to
the statement. My point now is that on this
occasion the Prime Minister is not speaking
to the statement delivered by the Minister
for External Affairs.
Mr SPEAKER-Order! There is no substance
in the point raised by the honourable
member. Mr HAROLD HOLT-I can understand
the concern of honourable gentlemen opposite
at any analysis which challenges the
credibility of their spokesman. But, Sir,
this is tremendously relevant to the policies
of an alternative government in Australia.
Unless there can be faith -and trust in the
policies of . those who offer themselves as an
alternative government, then the country is
put at peril if those people take over the
Government of the country. I want to question
tonight whether honourable gentleman
opposite have a valid claim to govern this
country. I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition
is committed to the implementation of this
policy. But at times he is to be found tilting,
like Don Quixote against imaginary Liberal
windmills. I can quote instance after
instance of that. Many of them occurred
during the recent Corio campaign. On that
occasion he alleged that I had made some
sort of deal with the former member for
Corio ( Mr Opperman) before the last general
election. That was a completely false
allegation which I shall deal with in more
detail later. He also made the false allegation
that by advocating a continuance of the
bombing of North Vietnam I was seriously embarrassing the American Administration.
Then ' he made the completely false
allegation that I had openly advocated an
extension of the formal hours of working in
Australia. Not only was that allegation
made by the Leader of the Opposition but
it was repeated by the newly elected member
for Corio ( Mr Scholes). Yet he quoted
from a Press release of mine that clearly
indicated ' that I had specifically said in
answer to a question on this matter that I
was not advocating a longer working week
in that sense.
As I have said, these are just imaginary
Liberal windmills that the honourable gentleman
has created for himself. But then, after
emerging from the throes of his Federal
Executive discussions, he publicly expounds,
admittedly not very enthusiastically, policy
decisions that have taken him significant
strides leftwards. He is not so much a man
for all seasons as a man for all policies. The
essence of his approach is: If you want it I
have got it. What the honourable gentleman
will discover as ' he proceeds in this course
of leadership is that what he has said on
earlier occasions will come up to haunt him
in ithe statements which he will be making
thereafter. Some of these allegations I shall document
as I proceed. I apologise in advance
to the House for having to quote so extensively
in what remains for me to say. But
When you have loose and reckless assertions
I believe the most effective answer is a carefully
documented reply on the facts as they
can be presented.
Let me return now to one or two of the
matters to which I have referred. I spoke
of his attack on the Victorian Executive.
This is significant because of the bearing it
has on the foreign policies which were subsequently
produced. Speaking to the Victorian
Labor Party conference on 9th June,
the Leader of ' the Opposition said:
The Victorian Executive included an influential
handful of men who had flouted ALP policy
on unity tickets, organised or led political strikes
in defiance of the ACTU, disregarded and repudiated,
party and ACTU policy on the manning
of ships to Vietnam--
Mr Hayden-I rise to a point of order.
Mr Uren-I rise to a point of order.
Mr SPEAKER-Order!
Mr HAROLD HOLT-Cannot honourable
members opposite take it? We gave
the. Leader of the Opposition unlimited
time. Mr SPEAKER-Order! The House will
come to order. The honourable member
for Oxley has taken a point of order.
Mr Hayden-Mr Speaker, I direct
attention to the inconsistency with which
the rules of the House are being applied.
Mr SPEAKER--Order! The honourable
member will withdraw that remark. He is
reflecting on the Chair.
Mr Uren-I too rise to a point of order.
The matter before the House is the statement
that was made by the Minister for
External Affairs. The Prime Minister is not
discussing that statement.
Mr SPEAKER--Orderl There is no substance
in the point of order. The honourable
member will resume his seat.
Mr Bryant-Mr Speaker, I take a point
of order. At an earlier hour the Leader of
the House moved that standing orders be
suspended so that the Prime Minister could
speak without limitation of time on the
subject before the House. As a matter of
courtesy, no opposition came from this side
of the House.
Mr SPEAKER-Orderl The honourable
member for Wills cannot debate . the matter.
What is the point of order?
Mr Bryant-My point of order is that
the Prime Minister is trespassing upon the
decision of the House.
Mr SPEAKER--Order! The point of
order is without substance.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-This has a wide
bearing on the foreign policy decisions
which emerged from the Labor Party's
Federal Conference in Adelaide. The comments
of the Leader of the Opposition
from which I am quoting go on to show
that these men whom he now condemns
could be in a position to exercise influence
on the policies of the Australian Labor Party
at the forthcoming conference. Let fne proceed
with the quotation:
It is disgraceful that these men should be on the
ALP Executive which can appear to influence
Federal policies and selections.
11671/ 67-2 He is quite right. He continued:
I will exercise my right to repudiate such men
as I believe disloyal to the ALP, disruptive of its
electoral prospects and destructive of all the ALP
stands for.
As I shall show in greater elaboration later
this has considerable relevance to what
emerged in Adelaide. Mr W. Brown, the
State President of the Australian Labor
Party, commenting on the Conference, is
reported as follows:
The Labor Party throughout Australia was moving
further to the Left, the State ALP president
Mr W. Brown, said yesterday.
This had been shown at the party's Federal
Conference in Adelaide two weeks ago.
' The trend at the Federal Conference was Leftwards,'
Mr Brown said.
Mr Brown was speaking on the 3KZ Labor
Hour. He said the conference had ' strengthened' policy
on the Vietnam war.
It attached a meaningful set of objectives to what
basically was and remains a ' troops out' policy,'
he said.
' Possibly we could say now that it is a policy
of " troops out unless".'
Mr Uren-I rise to a point of order,
Mr Speaker. What has the ALP Federal
Conference got to do with the statement
made by the Minister for External Affairs?
Mr SPEAKER-Order! Honourable
members will cease interjecting. The House
will come to order.
Mr Uren-Mr Speaker, I respect the
Chair. I respectfully point out to you that
we are discussing the statement made this
afternoon by the Minister for External
Affairs, not the ALP Federal Conference
and not what Mr Brown or anybody else
has said.
Mr SPEAKER-Order! There is no substance
in the point of order.
Mr Uren-We were discussing the statement
made by the Minister for External
Affairs. Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable
member will resume his seat. There is no
substance in his point of order. It has always
been the practice of the House to acknowledge
that foreign affairs statements have
a broad base. The policies that are now
being referred to are related to the foreign
affairs policies of members of this
Parliament.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-May I point out
to the honourable gentleman, if the fact
has escaped his attention, that the foreign
policy that he will be required to advance
publicly if he is not to forfeit his preselection
at the next election is the foreign policy
that was worked out at the Adelaide Conference
at which those condemned by the
Leader of the Opposition were present and in
which they participated. I do not need to rely
on authorities from this side of the House
as to what occurred and the significance of
the policies declared there. The honourable
member for Yarra ( Dr J. F. Cairns) himself
has been vocal on this. matter, as I
hope I will be able to show shortly.
The former Leader of the Australian
Labor Party, the honorable member for
Melbourne ( Mr Calwell), at least had this
virtue in our eyes: However much we disagreed
with him, we knew where he stood
and what he stood for and we could challenge
fairly and honestly the views that he
put to us. In an article in the Melbourne
' Herald' on 8th August of this year which
he headed ' My stand on Vietnam vindicated',
the former Leader of the Opposition
said: Decisions on Vietnam at the ALP Federal conference
in Adelaide show there has been no
weakening of Labor opposition to the continuation
of the war and Australia's part in it.
I will not read the whole article but it is
available if anybody wishes to read it. He
went on to say:
The conference refused to be stampeded by all
sorts of people-
No doubt, including the present Leader of
the Opposition:
and influences, and the policy in all its essentials
is the same as it was in November last, and as
it will be when the 1969 election is held.
I feel that my stand before the last election
and since has been vindicated.
If I may bring the honourable member
for Yarra in as further support for my comment,
I take the Australian Broadcasting
Commission's news bulletin of Monday, 7th
August, which reported an Hiroshima Day
rally held in Melbourne under the auspices
of the Association for International Coooeration
and Disarmament at the Princess
Theatre. I quote directly from the ABC
news bulletin. It reads: Dr Cairns told the rally that unless the United
States stopped the bombing of North Vietnam
and recognised the National Liberation Front, a
Labor Government would have no alternative to
withdrawing Australian armed forces. Dr Cairns
said the ALP now had a precise policy on Vietnam
which condemned and opposed the war. He said
it did not matter what the ALP leader, Mr
Whitlam, or the Deputy Leader, Mr Barnard, said
on Vietnam. It was the Federal Conference which
had decided the policy.
So, we have Mr Brown saying that they
have been taken to the left and we have Dr
Cairns, the honourable member for Yarra,
saying: ' It does not matter what interpretation
the Leader of the Opposition or the
Deputy Leader of the Opposition puts on it.'
We have the precise policy now which the
former Leader of the Opposition says was
fully in line with the policy he advocated at
the last election and which will be the policy
of the Australian Labor Party at the election
in 1969. I believe that these matters
are relevant.
Mr Uren-Was that a newspaper
clipping? Mr HAROLD HOLT-No.
Mr Uren-The Prime Minister was not
very happy about a newspaper clipping this
morning. Mr HAROLD HOLT-Which one was
that? Mr Uren--During question time I asked
the Prime Minister a question about an
interview with him at London Airport.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-The honourable
member for Yarra will be speaking in this
debate. If the honourable member for Yarra
tells the House that he was misreported by
the Australian Broadcasting Commission-
Mr Whitlam-Which he will do.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-We will be glad
to hear it.
Mr Whitlam-It was not repeated in later
news items.
Mr Wentworth-I do not wonder.
Mr . Whillam--It was not repeated
because . the ABC checked with the honourable
member for Yarra.
Dr J. F. Cairns-Mr Speaker, I claim
that I have been misrepresented.
Mr SPEAKER--Order! The honourable
member will resume his seat.
Mr Bryant-You are spoiling Harold's
speech. Mr HAROLD HOLT-It is not spoiling
it for me. Let me turn now to one or two
other statements made by the Leader of
the Opposition and I do not think an
attempt will be made to interrupt my remarks
now, because these statements to
which I will refer were made in the course
of the honourable gentleman's speech this
afternoon. I quote first from a report which
appeared in the Melbourne ' Sun' at the
time of the Corio by-election. Under the
headline ' PM embarrassed U. S. says
Mr Whitlam' the following statement
appeared: The Prime Minister, Mr Holt, had embarrassed
the U. S. Administration by his recent support for
the bombing of North Vietnam
Mr Whitlam claimed the bombing had to go on
for ' a bit longer' because it had been supported
by Mr Holt and the King of Thailand.
That, surely, is one of the most audacious
and fantastic propositions ever advanced by
a political leader in this country. What the
Leader of the Opposition is saying in effect
is that the President of the United States,
in order to humour me and the King of
Thailand and not embarrass us, would
sacrifice American lives and aircraft. This
is the purport of what he has not only
seriously and solemnly put in the heat of
a by-election but has repeated here in a
considered speech in this House. He
aggravated the offence by saying that I
constituted myself as the spokesman for
Admiral Sharp. It is true that as I passed
through Honolulu I had a very thorough
briefing, as did others in the official party,
with Admiral Sharp and senior colleagues
of the Pacific Command. They were quite
convinced in their minds of the
effectiveness of the bombing. They were
convinced also that any lull in the bombing
merely presented the North Vietnamese
with an opportunity to build up rapidly
supplies which could be used against
American, Vietnamese, Australian and other
allied troops in South Vietnam.
In Fonolulu I saw films taken over one
North V; etnarnese port. In the film taken
on the day becor the lull in the bombing
. there , v. s scarcely a ship to be seen, in
the port but on the day afterwards the port was seen to be crowded with shipping of
one kind or another, rushing in to take
advantage of the lull. Every time there has
been a lull in the bombing that is what
has happened. This fact has been made
public repeatedly but this does not prevent
honourable gentlemen opposite from urging
that the bombing be stopped, notwithstanding
the cost in lives, as well as in terms
of security, to the American, Vietnam-se,
Australian and other allied forces in South
Vietnam. When I spoke in Los Angeles it was not
merely with the knowledge of views or
facts presented to me in Honolulu by
Admiral Sharp and his colleagues. This
Government is in virtually daily contact
with the American Administration. We
know its views intimately, as it knows ours.
I knew with complete confidence that the
views which I expressed in Los Angeles
would certainly not be unpalatable views to
the United States Administration. I do not
have to go into confidential discussions, as
the honourable gentleman sought to do
this afternoon, in order to prove my point.
I make that assertion and I do not purport
to quote anybody in relation to it.
I will summarise the reasons for a continuation
of the bombing, as I stated them
in Los Angeles: It has consistently been the
view of the Australian Government that
North Vietnam must not be permitted to
remain a haven immune from military risk
from , which military aggression against the
south can be mounted with impunity. The
case for controlled bombing is strong and
the bombing has been conducted with great
care and precision. The principal reasons
are that the bombing upsets the flow of
men and materials to the fighting zones; it
damages the transport systems through
which that flow goes forward; it helps to
destroy the enemy's base areas, thereby
weakening his capacity to fight and so
saving the lives of allied fighting men; it
ties up hundreds of thousands of the North
Vietnamese work force in repair and reconstruction;
it demonstrates to the fighting
forces of South Vietnam that America and
her allies are giving them full support;
it demonstrates to the people of South
Vietnam as a-whole that we do not expect
them to suffer and to fight the aggressor
only where he chooses to fight; and it has
the political and psychological effect of
reminding the North Vietnamese that they
cannot hope to win this conflict.
The United States Government has not
accepted arguments in favour of cessation
of the bombing. Indeed, if anything, in
recent times it has increased the tempo and
the scale of bombing. The Australian
Government has not accepted the arguments
against the bombing. I make the
reasons for that abundantly plain here
tonight. The next matter which the Leader of
the Opposition chose to throw at me was
what had developed in respect of the British
position east of Suez and in particular in
the Malaysia-Singapore area. He said that
we should have known for the best part of
the last two years that the United Kingdom
intended to withdraw in the Singapore-
Malaysia area. Do I quote the honourable
gentleman correctly?
Mr Whitlam--Yes.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-The honourable
gentleman says that we should have known.
In other words, as I will demonstrate, he is
saying that I should have placed no reliance
whatever on the firm, publicly stated
assurances of a British Labor Government.
I will quote the assurances-not private
assurances or anything of that sort, but
publicly stated assurances by spokesmen for
the British Government in the relevant
period. I do not do this in any spirit
of recrimination. I have reason to believe
that there has been an appreciation in the
United Kingdom of the temperate way in
which I have addressed myself to this
matter in this country. I say that not illadvisedly.
But when I am taunted by the
Leader of the Opposition that we should
have known what the British were going
to do, I say: ' Here is the record on this
matter. What would he, as head of a Labor
Government in this country, have felt about
assurances given to him by the head of a
Labor Government in the United Kingdom,
and chief spokesman for that Government?'
I cite first the defence review made by
the United Kingdom Minister for Defence,
Mr Healey, in the House of Commons in
February 1966. He said:
It is in the Far East and Southern Asia that the
greatest danger to peace may lie in the next decade
and some of our partners in the Commonwealth
may be directly threatened. We believe it is right
that Britain should maintain a military presence in this area. Its effectiveness will turn largely on the
arrangements we can make with our Commonwealth
partners and other allies in the coming
years. I hasten to add that there has been no factor
of that kind which has led to the ultimate
decision. I have never heard it suggested
by any spokesman for the British Government
that its decision has related to any
failure on the part of ourselves or any of
the other countries in the region. Mr Healey
continued: As soon as conditions permit we shall make
some reductions in the forces which we keep in
the area. We have important military facilities in
Malaysia and Singapore as have our Australian and
New Zealand partners. These we plan to retain
for as long as the Governments of Malaysia and
Singapore agree that we should do so on acceptable
conditions.
Nobody has imposed unacceptable conditions.
The review continued:
Against the day when it may no longer be possible
for us to use these facilities freely, we have
begun to discuss with the Government of Australia
the practical possibilities of our having military
facilities in that country if necessary.
Anyone who was party to the discussions
knows that what the United Kingdom meant
by the expression ' against the day when it
may no longer be possible' was some action
on the part of one or other of the countries
in the area which would make it impracticable
for the United Kingdom to continue to
use the facilities in Malaysia and Singapore.
I pass over the statements made by Mr
Healey in Canberra in that year and turn to
Mr Wilson's speech to the British Parliamentary
Labor Party in London on
June 1966. He said:
Our policy is based on full support for the
United Nations, not just with words but with the
ability to be able to act for and with the United
Nations. What we have to ask is whether it is or should
be the policy of this Party to pull out of all
influence in Asia except the very limited influence
we shall be able to exert in United Nations debates,
telling other people what they ought to do. If this
is the policy the result will be our inability to
intervene whether in a United Nations or Commonwealth
context to stop a small conflagration
becoming a big one.
It will mean this as well, that you will be
leaving Asia to three main powers, China, the
United States and the Soviet Union with a small
peripheral influence exerted by Australia and New
Zealand, but Japan coming up fast on the tails.
It is really said that we have nothing to contribute
except speeches that no-one will listen to.
I believe that Britain through history, through
geography and Commonwealth connections has
a vital contribution to make-I believe a Socialist
Britain has even more.
Perhaps there are some members who would
like to contract out and leave it to the Americans
and Chinese eyeball to eyeball to face this thing
out. The world is too small for that kind of
attitude today. It is the surest prescription for
a nuclear holocaust I could think of.
Do we want to force countries like India to
choose between the power blocs? Or go nuclear
herself? Our presence in Asia gives us a chance
to prevent polarisation. Do we really believe the
only way to world peace is world polarisation?
I believe Britain has a role, and not at prohibitive
cost, in preventing polarisation. We have
a role in influencing America.
My final quotation is from the last statement
made before the announcement of
withdrawal, and that is in the Defence
White Paper of February of this year. Mr
Healey said:
We are continuing to study the scope that exists
for reducing our foreign exchange expenditure
throughout the world always with a proper regard
to the interests of our allies and our ability to
meet our commitments there is much to
learn from the arduous three years' campaign.
against confrontation it was a fine example
of what British forces can do outside Europe to
maintain international stability. Without their contribution
to the Commonwealth effort much of
South East Asia might have collapsed into disorder
perhaps inviting competitive intervention by
other powers with the consequent risk of general
war. But provided that they are needed and
welcome, the continuing presence of British forces
can help to create an environment in which loc! al
governments are able to establish the political and
economic basis for peace and stability. There can
also be no certainty-so long as threats to stability
remain-that those forces will not be required
to give help to friendly Governments, or to play
a part in the United Nations peace-keeping force
as they have done in recent years.
Mr Stokes-When did he say that?
Mr HAROLD HOLT-That was in
February of this year. I have not quoted the
passages as a means of criticising the United
Kingdom Government. I believe that it is a
measure of the difficulties that the United
Kingdom Government has found itself compelled
to face that, despite these assurances
which I believe were given by the men who
uttered them in good faith and with good
intention, it had to depart so radically from
the assurances in the final statement it made.
We continued our discussions with representatives
of the United Kingdom Government
until the time of that announcement.
We have not sought to rake over the embers
of the past. As my colleague pointed out, we are devoting ourselves to the problems
of the future and we hope to have co-operation
with the United Kingdom and other
countries in the area.
Perhaps having made a passing reference
to co-operation with other countries in the
area, it is interesting to note that one passage
in my colleague's speech that attracted
some commendation from the Leader of the
Opposition was the passage in which he
spoke of the development of regional
co-operation for security and other purposes.
But this comes from the man who recently
told the world publicly on television that
Australia is the only respectable ally that the
United States has. That is not a very good
way to encourage regionalism amongst the
free countries with whom Australia is
co-operating in a military, economic and
civil sense. This is the man who demands a
process of regionalism.
There is another statement that I wish to
correct. The honourable member stated
quite directly that this Government was bent
on securing a military victory in Vietnam
regardless of all else and that we had given
no thought. or support to a political settlement.
Since I became Prime Minister I do
not think I have made a statement in which
I spoke about military consequences without
having commented that a military result of
itself will not be sufficient to meet the
situation; there must also be a political
settlement. I have said that with the full
knowledge of the problems we had in
Malaya, as it then was, over many years. I
know that if the military effort of our
opponent is defeated without a political
settlement having been reached, in the kind
of country with which we are dealing
guerilla activity can go on indefinitely. This
happened in Malaya. So we must work for
a political settlement, but we do not include
in that the kind of recognition that the
honourable gentleman and his colleagues
want to give to the Communist instrument
of the Government of North Vietnam. We
will negotiate with the Government of North
Vietnam, but he is demanding that the
Government of South Vietnam and the
Government of the United States recognise
the Communist organ of the Government of
North Vietnam in South Vietnam. This is
one of the points that the North Vietnamese
seek to have fulfilled before they will
negotiate.
Before I left the aspect of the bombing,
I should have said that this Government
has as much access to informatlon as any
other government has, almost without
exception. We have almost as much information
as the United States possesses on
this mattr. Nothing has come to our knowledge
that would warrant us holding the
belief that there would be a reasonable
prospect of negotiation if only the bombing
were to cease. If the North Vietnamese
want a negotiated settlement, there are
many ways for them to make their wishes
known. All possible avenues have been
explored by us. The honourable member for
Brisbane ( Mr Cross) said that there have
been many occasions in recent years when
the United States could have sought a peaceful
settlement. I think he said that some
forty countries in all have sought to achieve
some sort of peaceful negotiation. So the
avenues for negotiation are there f the
North Vietnamese want to follow them. I
know of nothing that has emerged during
the period of the dispute that would suggest
that the North Vietnamese are ready to
negotiate. Now let me come to the present policy
on Vietnam of the Australian Labor Party,
if we can find it. I introduce my remarks
on this point by quoting from the policy
speech made by the honcurable member for
Batman ( Mr Benson) during the course of
the last election campaign. It reveals the
background to developments inside the Australian
Labor Party in its decisions on
foreign policy since then. I quote him as
having said:
The Labor Party's Federal Conference last year
removed the clause from the Party platform which
said Labor would honour all existing treaties. The
Labor Party now did not recognise international
security treaties. This is not the time for Australia
to break her treaty ties but it is the time to
strenthen them and to stand by any nation wishing
to remain free.
I have quoted that passage because I have
in my hand the text of the decisions taken
at the recent conference of the Australian
Labor Party as they were handed out to the
Press. Without going through the full document,
I take the summary that appears at
, page 2 of the roneoed copy. I do not think
anybody opposite will challenge its
accuracy. The report states:
Satisfied that the war in Vietnam does not
Involve any obligations for Australia under
ANZUS, SEATO or the United Nations
charter-I pause there to remind the House that South
Vietnam was one of the protocol S: ates
mentioned in SEATO. I concede that the
legal point could be taken that there was
no obligation, but it was not so remote
from the consideration of the SEATO
powers as this statement would imply.
Secondly. I point out that under ANZUS
we are linked with the United States of
America and with New Zealand. Can it be
seriously argued that the policies that I
shall be outlining here as they appear in
this document have no bearing on the
strength of our alliance with the Americans
under ANZUS? For example, could an
Australian government which withdrew its
troops, having virtually served an ultimatum
on the United States, look with the
same sense of security to ANZUS in the
future as we feel we are able to do today?
Having interpolated to make that comment
I go on to read from the document:
and does not ascist the Vietnamese people to
determine their own affairs-
Apparently they are to be determined for
them by the Government of North Vietnam:
and that no threat to Australian security from
China is involved-
My colleague dealt with that in his own
paper, as I did briefly during question time
today: the ALP seeks primarily to bring the war to a
conclusion. To do so, the ALP on achieving
office will submit to our allies that they should
immediately cease bombing North Vietnam,
recognise the National Liberation Front
as a principal party to negotiations,
transform operations in South Vietnam into
holding operations thereby tr avoid the involvement
of civilians in the war, cease
the use of napalm and other objectionable
materials of war and provide sanctuary
for anyone seeking it.
Should our allies fail to take this action, the Australian
Government would tlen cos: der that. It
had no alternative other than to withdraw our
armed forces.
No wonder the former Leader of the
Opposition said that this was in essence what
he put to the electors on the last occasion,
but here it is put more strongly in the form
of an ultimatum to the United States. Just
as in the North West Cape matter the policy
of the Labor Party was to serve up a set
of conditions which it knew would be
unacceptable to the United States, this is its
policy again. Time will not permit me to
go at any great length into these particular
matters, but let me, without speaking at too
much length on the situation of Vietnam,
remind the House of this.
The fighting primarily involves the Vietnamese,
of course, but this is no civil war.
In 1954 a fourteen-nation conference at
Geneva agreed that newly independent
Vietnam should be separated into two parts
-North Vietnam for followers of Communist
leaders and South Vietnam for those
who wanted another way of life. Since then
the two parts have gone their own ways-
North Vietnam as a typical Communist
dictatorship. The war against South Vietnam
is directed from Hanoi. The National
Liberation Front is a creature of Hanoi.
After partition the Vietnamese were given
an opportunity to move north or south, and
so select the type of government they
wanted. Less than 100,000 went north, to
become subjects of the Hanoi Communist
regime. Ten times as many-almost one
million-fled from the Communist dictatorship
to South Vietnam. Yet we are now
told that this is a nationalist movement, that
all we are doing is interfering with the
normal nationalist processes inside this
particular country.
Those who heard the honourable gentleman
will recall that he made a great deal
of the state of Congressional and Senate
opinion in the United States. Again I can
give some facts which I think will be rather
more persuasive to this House. I suggest
that it would be difficult to obtain more
convincing evidence of Congressional support
for the President's policies than the
votes taken in March this year in both the
Senate and the House of Representatives in
Washington on the supplementary Bill on
the military budget relating to the war in
Vietnam. In the Senate the voting was 77
in favour of the Bill and 3 against. In the
House of Representatives the voting was
385 in favour of the Bill and 11 against.
We are parliamentarians. We know the
significance of voting figures. When I am
told that half the senators and a great proportion
of the Representatives of the United
States are against what the present'administration
is doing, I throw those figures in
the teeth of the honourable gentleman.
Unfortunately, in the United States as in
this country, minorities can be very vocal
and the mass of people can be much less vocal if they are in support of the Government's
policy. Some of those vocal
minorities will form part of what I have
to say now before I conclude.
Yesterday when we were dealing with a
question in relation to the collection of
funds for the Vietcong or the National
Liberation Front I said that there was a
species of psychological warfare being
waged in this country, as indeed it is being
waged in the United States, and that I
thought we should be made much more
publicly aware of this than we are at the
present time. I want to give the House a few
manifestations of this. I start with a reference
to the Association for International
Co-operation and Disarmament. I do not
need to go into detail about this organisation.
Our colleague who was then Attorney-
General, the present Minister for Immigration
( Mr Snedden), mentioned it in this
House on 3rd September 1964. But it is
rather interesting to recall that in March
this year the executive of the New South
Wales Branch of the ALP decided that:
ALP members can no longer associate with the
AICD and directs allA LP members of this organisation
to resign
But the Federal Executive of the ALP,
chaired by Senator Keeffe, who, I understand,
was unanimously re-elected recently
President of the Party, ruled on 30th March
1967 in Canberra that the NSW Branch had
exceeded its authority in proscribing the
AICD. I understand that in July Senator
Keeffe and the honourable member for
Yarra ( Dr J. F. Cairns) spoke at a protest
meeting organised outside the United States
Consulate in Melbourne under the auspices
of this organisation, a meeting which has
been described as an all night vigil. It was
the Victorian arm of the AICD which sponsored
this meeting.
The August mobilisation committee was
set up by the Association's New South
Wales' division to conduct the annual
Hiroshima Day celebrations. The committee
was obviously carefully selected to involve
as many groups as it could in the Vietnam
protest movement. It would appear to me
that as a tactical move Communists were
exclude from the committee but were active
in organisational matters. August mobilisation
includes certain members of the clergy,
academic students, Youth women, professionals
and trade unionists. A new feature
of the demonstration this year was a short
religious service before the march.
There was an overseas speaker at this
demonstration, a Dr Takman. Let us consider
Dr Takman. He is the chief medical
officer of the Child Welfare Board of
Stockholm city. He is a member of the
Swedish Communist Party and is currently
on its central committee. In 1950 he was
refused admittance to the United Kingdom
to attend the Sheffield Peace Congress.
Early this year he visited North Vietnam
to gather medical evidence for use at the
Russell tribunal which, as honourable members
will be aware, sat in Stockholm in
May. He has also attended various other
Communist Party conferences and has participated
in other activities concerned with
Vietnam. Since September 1966 he has
been a Communist Party member of the
Stockholm City Council. These facts are all
ascertainable. I am surprised that honourable
gentlemen opposite have not asked
me why we admitted him to this country.
A business visa was issued to him on 3rd
August. In his application he explained that
the object of his visit was mainly scientific
and that he was engaged in a social
and medical study of Swedish gypsy
minorities for Upsala University. He said
that for this purpose he needed direct information
about aboriginals and other
minorities, particularly in Australia and
Japan. I referred a little earlier to a meeting at
the Princess Theatre in Melbourne which
was addressed by the honourable member
for Yarra. The meeting was held after an
Hiroshima Day march under the auspices
of the same body. A number of organisations
connected with the peace movement
joined in the march and the subsequent
meeting. A television programme showed
the march. I did not see it but I have been
informed-I think reliably-that the representatives
of the Victorian Branch of the
ALP carried a large banner and that several
members of the Monash University Labor
Club carried Vietcong flags. That was one
occasion on which members of the ALP
apparently were not too unhappy to associate
with members of the Monash University
Labor Club.
It may be felt that many people associated
with the bodies to which I have referred are well meaning people. I have
no doubt that many of them are. I am
sure that at least some of them have no
knowledge of the use to which they are
being put by background influences. In
order to give the House an idea of the
nature of the organisation to which I am
referring, I have in my hand a quite scurrilous
sheet issued-it is so endorsed-by
the Queensland Peace Committee for International
Co-operation and Disarmament,
608 Ann Street, Fortitude Valley, Queensland.
It is an attempt to poison the minds
of Australian people in relation to the proposed
visit by American servicemen to this
country under the rest and recreation programme.
As honourable members can see,
it has on its cover a picture of a young
lady partly clad. The text alongside the
picture refers to the worry that Australians
will have about their womenfolk on the
arrival here of United States servicemen.
On the other side of the sheet is what purports
to be a genuine report bur I question
very much its authenticity because it bears
no authentication, no date and no source
reference. It purports to be an account of a
rape committed on a twenty year old Vietnamese
girl by four United States servicemen.
This sheet has been circulated as
poisonous literature by an organisation
which has an aura of respectability and
attracts to it the eminently worthy people
to whom I have referred.
I place in a rather different category the
activity here in Canberra today of the International
Committee of Conscience on Vietnam.
I make no allegation in relation to
the background or the attitude of mind of
the people associated with it. I have no
doubt that they are well meaning people.
I suppose that many members of this Parliament
were given a copy of the little
pamphlet that they were distributing. The
emotional quality of the pamphlet I think
can be illustrated by this quotation from
it: We, who in various ways have assumed the
terrible responsibility of articulating the fuman
conscience, must speak or, literally, we should
expect the very stones to cry out.
I would like to say that there are people
who have a conscience in relation to Vietnam;
who have a conscience in relation to
aggression, terrorism, oppression subversion
and the other crimes that have been com-
mitted in the name of a national liberation
-front. By way of antidote I shall quote, with
the full authority of the writer, a letter I
have received from the Reverend Colin
McLean. Mr James--Why did the Prime Minister
refuse to see the church leaders?
Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable
member for Hunter will cease interjecting.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-I wrote very
politely, I can assure the honourable
gentleman, to the Reverend Alan Walker
who had asked me to receive representatives
of the organisation. I explained the reasons
why I could not do so.
Mr James-Why did you refuse to see
them? Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable
member for Hunter will restrain himself.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-I said in effect
that I had carefully read their pamphlet
and that it was evident to me that a very
different interpretation was placed by the
sponsors of the movement on events in
Vietnam and the courses which should be
followed in relation to them. I said that
while I had studied their views it was quite
impracticable for me, or for that matter,
any senior Minister to see all the people
who had views to express in relation to
Vietnam. However, I paid them the
courtesy of studying what they had to say
and of writing to them.
Mr James-But you refused to see them?
Mr HAROLD HOLT-Did the Leader
of the Opposition see them?
Aft Jamnes--Yes.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-That would not
surprise me. I wish now to quote from a
letter I have received from the Reverend
Colin McLean, who is the minister of the
Hughesdale Congregational Church at Oakleigh
in Victoria. He writes:
I write to disassociate myself from that vocal
group of clergy who are opposed to your Government's
policy in Vietnam.
Lately I received a letter from an ' International
Committee of Conscience on Vietnam', inviting
me to take part in a demonstration outside Parliament
House on Thursday, 17th August. I deplore
this demonstration.
The growing number of rallies and demonstrations
of a semi religious nature, in our country,
which play into the hands of international Communism
is alarming and is not representative of
the majority of Christian people. The letter referred to ' an amazing consensus
among Christian leadership around the world in
opposition to the Vietnam war'. This simply is not
true: many of us realise that if Godiess Comnmunism
is not halted, the ensuing bloodshed and
suffering in the world will be far greater than that
being inflicted by our forces in Vietnam. We too,
want peace, but only peace with honour and
justice, and which guarantees the great freedoms
and Christian heritage we enjoy.
You have our prayers and support.
I have quoted that letter to show that other
views are held around this country than
those to which we have had to listen.
Mr James---Did he sign the letter?
Mr HAROLD HOLT-Yes, and the
honourable member may read it if he wishes
to do so. Not only did he sign it but he
authorised me, when I asked if I might do
so, to give it full publication. The final
reference I make is to the document
' Ramparts', which no doubt has reached
many honourable members. I will not discuss
it in detail because its bona fides have
been attacked, I think convincingly, by
others. Mr James-Is it a Communist paper?
Mr SPEAKER-I warn the honourable
member for Hunter.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-It was released
in thousands during the Corio by-election
campaign by the Liberal Reform Group,
so styled. I mention it, not in association
with any other organisation, but as an
illustration of the processes of psychological
warfare which are designed to confuse and
perplex the people of this country and to
destroy support for the policies of the
democratically elected Government of this
country. Unlike the Labor Opposition, I
am in the happy state of being able to stand
here tonight knowing that there is not one
member of the two Government Parties
which provide a record majority behind
me who does not support the Government
in its policy on Vietnam. I feel it my duty
in those circumstances to bring home to
the Australian people that these processes
which are poisoning the minds of the people
and creating disquiet in their minds are
processes which are designed to weaken
Australian support for policies which the
people at a democratic election have
endorsed in their Government. I believe
that we have heard-the Leader of the
Opposition today give expression to policies
which I suspect are by no means entirely
tasteful to him, but which have merged
from a conference which senior members
of the Party have described either as an
endorsement of what they presented at the
last general election or as a move leftwards
from where they were before. I say that these things, too, can only confuse and perplex
the Australian people, and it is a
responsibility of the Australian community
as a whole to have a clear and plain understanding
of what is put to them by spokesmen
of the Opposition.
BY AUTHORITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMMONWEALTH OOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA, A. C. T.