COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH .14
BY 19 R
The Rt Hon. HAROLD HOLT, C. H.,
ON
VIETNAM
Ministerial Statement
[ From the ' Parliamentary Debates', 2 November 1967]
Mr HAROLD HOLT ( Higgins-Prime
Minister) [ 8.471-Mr Speaker, the Leader
of the Opposition ( Mr Whitlam) sought
unlimited time in order to present the views
of the Australian Labor Party on the Vietnam
issue. He read nineteen foolscap pages.
He read them beautifully. Occasionally he
indulged in a little preening, like a veteran
Old Vic Shakespearian. But he read it all.
Is there any -man sitting behind him who
knows the leadership that his leader has
given him on the issue of Vietnam, Australia's
participation in Vietnam, the policy
to be adopted with relation to our troops
in Vietnam, or our American alliance? Was
there one word in nearly 50 minutes of
declamation by the honourable gentleman
opposite as to where he stands on these
issues? This is what the country is waiting
to hear. Does the honourable gentleman
support Australia's participation in Vietnam?
That is a simple question. Does he
support it? Does he believe that we should
be in Vietnam? I invite him to say so.
He will not say so. Does he believe that
Australian troops should be in Vietnam?
I invite him to say so. If his Party were
elected to office would it draw back Australian
troops from Vietnam unless the
United States obeyed the requirements of
the Adelaide Conference decisions? He has
not mentioned a word about that tonight.
15464/ 67 Honourable -members could go right
through this speech and not find one line or
one word as to where the Australian Labor
Party stands on these great issues. And
this is the alternative Australian government-
the government which would have
to sit with our allies in discussion and
negotiations on the future of Vietnam. We
have waited ever since the honourable
gentleman was elected to the leadership of
his Party to find out where he stands on
these matters. I have said many hard
things about the predecessor to the honourable
gentleman. But at least he was an
honest-~ minded Leader of the Labor Party.
He told us where he stood and where his
Party stood. The country knew where it
would stand if it elected him to office. I
defy any Australian to say clearly where
Australia would stand on this great issue
if the Leader of the Opposition were
elected to govern this country.
These are vital matters because if honourable
gentlemen opposite were to take office
these would be the hard realities they would
have to face. What would the Labor Party
do about Australian troops in Vietnam?
Would it reinforce them? Would it withdraw
them? Would it demand conditions
of our allies which ' our allies might well
find insupportable? Would it sit in on a
Manila-type summit conference with the
sort of policy that the former Leader of the
Opposition had? The honourable gentleman
has so often chided me, on Vietnam, with
being all the way with L. B. J. Is he all the
way with A. A. C. when it comes to Labor
Party policy on Vietnam? If he is not with
his former leader, where is he? His former
leader believes, as does the honourable
. member for Yarra ( Dr J. F. Cairns), that
the policy of the Labor Party now is where
it was when we stood against that party at
the last general election. Those two members
of the Labor Party do not run away
from these issues, and I give them credit,
as honest-minded men, for standing up for
their convictions. What conviction has the
honourable gentleman put forward tonight,
that in any way can be tested, as to where
a future Labor Government would stand
on these great issues?
These are not just trivial matters of
debate. The Leader of the Opposition has
been very clever in debate. He has dodged
every harsh issue that has been presented
to him just as he did when Prime Minister
Ky came to this country. The honourable
gentleman's Party was opposed to the visit
of Prime Minister Ky. His then Leader
said that he was going to march in demonstrations
against this visit, and he did so.
But where was the present Leader of the
Opposition? He was having a damn good
holiday somewhere, well out of the line of
fire, and no-one knew where he stood. So
he came back as Leader of the Opposition.
He had given the public to understand that
when he came into office as Leader there
would be a dramatic change in the attitude
of . the Labor Party to our position in Vietnam.
He was the moderate man. He did
not go along with his former Leader. But
after the Adelaide Conference where has
he gone? Did not this Conference decideand
I ask for confirmation from the honourable
member for Yarra-that the Labor
Party was where it was at the time of the
last election? Of course it did, and the
honourable member for Yarra said so, as
did the President of the Victorian Branch
of the Labor Party and the former Leader
of the Labor Party. But where does Labor
stand under the present Leader of the
Opposition? I invite honourable members to
follow through the 19 pages of carefully
prepared and studiously avoided references and try to find out where the Labor Party
stands on these great issues. This is not
good enough for the Australian people. We
have never shirked the issue in two World
Wars, in Korea and in Vietnam.
Mr Birrell--What do you mean by
' we'? Mr HAROLD HOLT-When I say ' we',
I mean the Australian people. I have the
honour tonight, as Leader of a Goveinment
elected with the greatest majority in
the history of this country, to speak for
the Australian people. The Leader of the
Opposition tried to confuse the issue for
us by quoting Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime
Minister of Singapore. Has he overlooked
the statements that Lee Kuan Yew has
been making recently about the mincing
machine and about what would happen to
Singapore and other South East Asian
countries if America withdrew from Vietnam?
The Leader of the Opposition made
a cheap sneer at my colleague, the honourable
member for Evans ( Dr Mackay), and
quoted a number of eminent clergymen. I
do not like quoting clergymen on matters
of this sort because I believe that we, as
the elected representatives of the people,
have to take the decisions on these matters.
But when the honourable gentleman purports
to give the view of eminent clergymen,
why does not he quote the view of
Archbishop Loane of Sydney? Why does he
not quote the view expressed publicly and
which appeared in more than one newspaper,
of Cardinal Gilroy on his return to
Australia? Both these gentlemen spoke of
the importance of this resistance to Communism
in South Vietnam. I am not going
to quote them extensively tonight but the
quotations are here if anyone want to
check them.
The Leader of the Opposition took a
long time to read a mass of material. I am
not seeking half the time he took and I do
not want an extension of time. But I can
say a great deal about where the honourable
gentleman stands, or more correctly,
fails to stand. Cofsistent with his normal
processes of deception or at least evasion,
the honourable gentleman tried to convey
the impression to us, not once but repeatedly,
that the Secretary. of Defence in
the United States of : America is somehow
out of sorts with his. colleagues'! in. the. Administration
on the question of bombing.
A great deal can be said for. and against the
bombing. But the view held by the United
States Administration and the view held
by this Government and other allied governments
has been that bombing serves valuable
military purposes; that it helps to raise
the morale of the South Vietnamese who
do not feel themselves abandoned in this
struggle; ' that it ' helps to prevent the flow
of men: ' and " materials to the South; and
that it helps to save allied lives which otherwise
would be endangered if this flow of
materials and men were not impeded in
this way. That does not mean that we are
not'able to look, as the occasion arises, at
some move for a suspension or pause-in
the bombing if it is genuinely felt that this
would serve some purpose in attracting the
North Vietnamese to peace negotiations.
We have never taken a hard and fast line
oh these issues.
The honourable gentleman, from the comfort
of this place, slanders us repeatedly as
men who have no wish for peace. I reject
that and throw it in his teeth. We want
peace as much as anyone in this country.
We want peace for Australia because there
are great things that we can do with our
country, given a situation. of peace. How
can any man knowing the views of other
leaders in South East Asia, and knowing
the view so recently and so movingly put
to us by the leader of a country: that is
currently under invasion and aggression by
the forces of North Vietnam, talk in the
way that the honourable gentleman has
talked to us tonight? If the Australian
people are to look for leadership
and. guidance-from the present
Leader: of the . Opposition. they will
look in vain. He will be the artful
dodger as long as he can go on dodging,
until he has to face up to this issue directly.
We ask him to face up to it. Would he pull
Australian troops out of South Vietnam?
Would he endanger our alliance with the
United States? We argued last November
that Australia was in Vietnam for the same
reasons that it had been in two world wars
and in Korea. We said that we recognised
that we were not merely defending a country
against aggression and defending the way
of life we believe in but also that we were
giving strength to our own alliance with the United States, a country which, above all
others, . can help to keep Australia secure
in our alliance iudder ANZUS. The honourable
gentleman has made -no mention ' of
these matters tonight.. Is he reckless or
regardless of the effect it would have on
our alliance with the United States if we
were to pull our troops out of Vietnam, as
the Adelaide Conference proposed? That
alliance was vital to us before the British
decision to withdraw east of Suez. It is even
more important for us today now that we
know there is a time schedule on the British
presence in this area and certainly as a
land force in the Asian area. These are vital
matters for the people of this country. The
people are not to be fobbed off by a long
speech that covers up with a smoke screen
of words the basic points that are involved
in these proposals that we have to face. I
would like to hear the honourable gentleman
at some time-and he has not yet
done so in his long period of leadershipface
up to these matters.
Mr McNamara, at the conclusion of his
statement before the Preparedness Investigating
Sub-Committee of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, on 25th August 1967,
said: -In conclusion I would like to restate my view
that the present objectives of our bombing in the
north were soundly conceived and are being effectively
pursued. They are consistent with our overall
purposes in Vietnam and with our efforts to
confine the conflict. We are constantly exploring
ways of improving our efforts to insulate South
Vietnam from outside attack and support. Further
refinements in our air campaign may help. I am
convinced, however, that the final decision in this
conflict will not come until we and our allies
prove to North Vietnam she cannot win in the
south. The tragic and long drawn-out character
of that conflict in the south makes very tempting
the prospect of replacing it with some new kind
of air campaign against the north..
He wastalking against those who were then
advocating a very much more intensive
bombing campaign; he was not critical of
the campaign being conducted. He was giving
his explanation as to why he was resisting
more intensive bombing. He continued:
However tempting, such an alternative seems
to me completely illusory. To pursue this objective
would not only be futile but would involve
risks to our personnel and to our nation that I
am unable to recommend.
Later on he continued:
The bombing of North Vietnam has always been
considered a supplement to, and not a substitute
for, an effective counter-insurgency campaign in
South Vietnam. These were our objectives when
our bombing programme was initiated in February
of 1965. They remain our objectives today.
Our bombing campaign has been aimed at
selected targets of military significance, primarily
the routes of infiltration. It has been carefully
tailored to accomplish its basic objectives and
thus to achieve the limited purposes toward which
all our activities in Vietnam are directed.
Having said that, I hope that the House will
not hear this distortion again from the honourable
gentleman who has tried to present
some picture of either disloyalty or disagreement
between the United States Secretary
of Defence, -his President and other senior
members of the Administration. The honourable
gentleman began his speech by
twitting the Government for the fact that
it had not go ne on with the debate on
Tuesday night. He said that a move came
from honourable gentlemen opposite. It is
interesting to recall that the vote was put
and the motion to go on with the discussion
on Vietnam attracted twenty-two votes from
the Opposition and was resisted by fifty-three
votes from this side of the House.
Mr Birrell-How many were absent from
each side?
Mr HAROLD HOLT-A lot were missing
from each side because nobody expected
the* debate to come on at that time. It
resulted from a move made by the honourable
member for Yarra ( Dr J. F. Cairns)-
I stand subject to correction on this-without
consultation with his leader.
Dr J. F. Cairns-I correct the Prime
Minister forthwith.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-Does the honourable
member correct me? Did he approve of
the motion?
Dr J. F. Cairns--Yes.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-Although the
Opposition could only amass twenty-two votes for that particular motion I am glad
to hear there is this identity of view and
purpose between the honourable member
for Yarra and the Leader of the Opposition.
At least they could come together on the
statement that the Leader of the Opposition
has made, because he has carefully avoided
every issue on which there was any possibility
of conflict between any member of his
Party and any other member of his Party.
He has left unresolved for the people of
this nation where the Australian Labor
Party stands on the issue of Vietnam. He
has not told us whether or not Australian
troops should be there. He has not told us
whether or not, if elected to Government,
he would carry out the Adelaide decisions.
On television, on an earlier occasion, I
think he did go so far as to say that this
would be the policy of his Party. Why has
he not reasserted it here in the national
Parliament? He is the one who is always
demanding that the Government come and
debate against him, yet when the Government
debates against him in this Parliament
he will not face the issues that the
public are anxiously expecting to hear
resolved. The plain fact of the matter is that today
the Australian Labor Party stands, despite
the facelift and despite the glamorous new
leadership, where it stood at the last general
election. It still stands for a troops-out policy
in Vietnam. It still stands against our participation
in Vietnam. As long as that is the
policy honestly presented by the Australian
Labor Party then the Australian people will
have no truck with it. It is because the Australian
people will have no truck with it
that the honourable gentleman -spent
minutes tonight setting up a smoke screen
to obscure the fact that he is not prepared
to tell the people of Australia where the
Australian Labour Party stands on this
matter.
BY AUJTHORITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA, A. C. T.