EMBARGO" NOT FOR RELEAS3E BY ANY MEDIA
E. 30 PM, WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER BEFORE 1970
SENATE CAMPAIGN
FIFTEEN MINUTE OPENING TALK ON TELEVISION
BY THE PRIME MINISTER
MR. JOHN GORTON
National Netwcrk and Commercial Channels 8. 30 pm
Wednesday 4 November 1970
( NOT1P:
The Prime Minister will officially open the Camrpaign with
a public meeting in the Malvern Town Hall, Melbourne at
8 pm Wednesday 4 November 1970. This Opening Taltk on
television touches on specific issues and is not a complete
summary of the Prime Minister's Opening Speech.)
E M B A R G 0 NOT-FOR RELEASE BY ANY MEDIA BEFORE
8. 30 PM, WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER 1970.
Tonight I want to talk to you briefly about the coming Senate Campaign.
I shall report to you on our achievem -: nts in the last year. I shall
touch briefly on the further objectives we have i. mind and I shall poi -t out the
great differences between Labor and ourselves 11 defence, foreign policy, and
responsible non-inflationary internal Governme. t.
The result of a Senate Election does not usually affect Australia's
future. But it is possible that this election could result in Labor's gairing a
blocking half in the Senate that is 30 Scnators.
If that happened Labor wcu'. d not have power to do anything positive.
But it would have the power to obstruct, frustrate, and delay all the processes of
government. It could refuse supply, or defeat a budget. And I believe it would
use that power, as it would use any power it could gain, to damage Australia's
security, to destroy Australia's alliances, to disrupt Australia's economy and
to affect Australia's future very greatly.
Nevertheless the election is not an occasion for us to advar. ce new
policies, or make new specific promises. The occasien for that was oi-le year ago,
at the General Election, when we put before you a programme, policies, and
promises for a three year period. And you elected us.
I can report to you that in the one year since then we have carried cut
most of the promises we said we gould carry out over three years. I shall not
weary you with a detailed list in this short address. But we have brought in a
vastly improved health scheme. We have reduced the burden of direct taxation in
one year by the amount we promised to do in three years. We have continued to
protect and advance greater Australian ownership of our developing resources.
Vie have greatly increased spending on education and on new initiatives i
social services. And we have given the States a new financial deal by greatly
increasing the funds they require for their own responsibilities.
These are only a few ct the year's achievements. The complete list is
much longer. I think that I can justly claim " that which we promise, we perform".
" While they talk, we act."
We have additional objectives. We shall attain these as we feel it
financially responsible to do so. We wish to continue the improvement of social
welfare services generally; and I remind you that in tlr: ee years of
Government the variety of social services, and the buying power of pens. ons
generally, have been increased irpre than they have ever been increase-in a
copnparable period of time. ' 2
2-
We wish to reduce the burden of long-continued illness
on those in nursing homes as -we-have already done for those in
hospitals. We wish to initiate throughout Australia, in conjunction
with the States and voluntiry bodies, a network of kindergarten-cumchild-
minding centres. We wish to undertake a programme in rural
areas designed to help farmers obtain long-term credit and to enable
rural reconstruction to take place where it is necessary. And we have
taken a firm decision to establish an Office of the Environment and seek
to join with the States in the formation of a National Council t o co-) rdinate
the fight against the growing problem of pollution of all kinds.
This, in brief, is the story tif what we have done, and what
we hope to do. And these things are important.
But even more impor-ant is the harm which Labor would do
to our security. Let me first discuss with you the question of Vietnam.
Why I think it was right, and in our interests to go there to help. Why
I think it is right and in our interests to remain there until the
Vietnamese are organised enough, and strong erough, to defend themselves.
May I remind you how this War began.
For a number of years after the Geneva Accords of 1954
the people of North Vietnam lived under their communist government
and the people of South Vietnam lived under their non-communist
government. The people in both sections lived in relative peace. That
peace could have continued.
But the Government of North Vietnam was prepared to wage
war rather than let the people of the South retain the right to choose
their own Government and way of life. And the people of the South were
prepared to accept war rather than have their right of self-determination
taken from them rather than have an alien government imposed on
them by force. And so the war came.
It came at first through an uprising armed and directed by
the North and then through an invasion of the South by the North Vietnamese
Regular Army. I do not ask you to accept this on my statement alone,
f or the Piresent Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Lance Barnard,
has endorsed what I say. In May 1967 after a visit to Vietnam he
reported publicly that there was a large-scale invasion of South Vietnam
by North Vietnamese troops. " 1 am satisfied", he said, " that this is
more than just a guerilla war and I suppose it can be compmai with the
earlier conflict in Korea".
So there was invasion. And the object of that invasion was
to destroy self-determination in South Vietnam; to take away the people's
right to choose how and under what government they would live. 3
Again, I do not ask you to accept this on my statement alone. For
in his Evatt Memorial Lecture of 1966 the present Leader of the Opposition,
Mr. Whitlam, wrote:
" It is, however, quite clear that victory by the Vietcong
and Hanoi would destroy any hope of self determination in
the South as it has destroyed it in the North".
And this invasion was accompanied, as Mr. Whitlam has admitted, by ' Vietcong
brutalities and cruelties in Vietnam".
Don't you think it was right to help fight that aggression? Were we
immoral to do so as we are now told or were the invaders immoral' Should we
follow the dictates of Mr. Whitlam's present comsciezceandceasetor csit invasion,
the imposition of communist dictatorship, and the brutalities perpetrated, or
should we continue to resist and finish that which we began.
Well, the invasion was resisted with the help of the Americans and
of , urselves and other countries. It has been resisted for six years. And
in that time the strength and purpose of South Vietnam has so grown that it is
now able to take over more of its own defence; it has so grown that the
Americans and ourselves have been able to reduce our troop numbers without
endangering the objectives we sought.
It is possible for us to make this reduction because we stayed and
fought when Labor was clamouring for us to withdraw. And because we stayed
and fought it is now possible for President Nixon to offer a cease fire, an end
to the killing, and negotiations designed to allow the South Vietnamese to elect
their own government from the candidates cf any political party including the
communist party. Who then is immoral? We, who offer an end to killing or they who
insist on continuing the killing to achieve military conquest and who refuse a
cease fire?
What does that present conscience, of which Mr. Whitlam speaks so much,
suggest we should do7 To continue to resist brutal and unprovoked invasion
To help a small nation retain the right to govern itself' Or to withdraw all
our troops now as Mr. Whitlam presently demands.
If we did that we would betray the people of South Vietnam. We
would negate . he heavy sacrifices already made. We would be recreant to
the hopes for future universal peace because future peace can only endure if
small nations are not threatened with invasion and conquest. 4
We would destroy the confidence of the other small countries in Asia,
and by doing that, we would increase the possibility of future da: ger to
Australia itself. We look forward to the day when, with South Vietnam able to guard
its own independence without help, we can withdraw all our troops, That day is
coming nearer as the military war is being won. But until it does arrive I
suggest that morality, conscience, and self interest all require that we should
finish the task we began.
But Labor under Mr. Whitlam would renege in Vietnam.
Having done this and thereby increased the danger to other Asian
countries including Malaysia they would ther withdraw from the Five ? ower
Arrangements designed to help Malaysia and Singapore and at the same time they
would drastically cut the strength of our own army by abolishing National Service.
We would be alone, with our alliances shattered, regarded an
accepting no responsibility to help maintain peace in our regio: n. And with
our own army halved.
That is what I meant by saying Labor would damage Australia's
security and destroy Australia's alliances.
And that is one reason I ask you not to give them the chance to do
this damage. Just as I ask you not to give Mr. Whitlam the chance to wreck
our internal economy. Both he and Mr. Hawke are pledged to attain a 35 hour
week. The only difference between them is that Mr. Hawke is pledged to do
this all the time, and Mr. Whitlam is pledged to do it all the time, except at
election time.
If he achieves that aim our rural industries will suffer a loss of at least 9%-cf
their income and many farmers now-in great difficulty will be utterly destroyed.
Those living on superannuation will be hard hit, the value of all pensions will
be drastically reduced, prices to the housewife will soar, Eidae-~ a.
our country will be destroyed, and our development will wither away.
There are many other issues to be debated in this Campaign. There
is our intention. to introduce laws which will not interfere with the right of the
minority to dissent, but will protect the civil rights of the majority of citizens.
Labor appears to oppose this. There is the question cf whether the growing
industrial unrest, hitting workers harder than anyone ALetan be-avoid rd e, Cnd-t
means by which it can be avoided.
There is the question of whether the way ahead for Australia is
best assured by a continuance of private enterprise and competition or through
the direction of business by socialist dictation to which Mr. Whitlam is
pledged.
There is the need to consider the divisions within
the Labor Party you have heard these words " divided" and " divisive".
There is need to consider the divisions in the Labor Party, particularly
in Victoria where the saga of the struggle for control of the Executive
is rapidly assuming the character of a serial like Blue Hills.
Will Gough ' eat jim? Will the TUDC still control the Party? What
of Hawke lurking in the wings? Will the meeting called bogus last
week be bogus or beneficial this week? Listen for our next
thrilling episode' It would be funny if it were not clear that what
Mr Whitlam has called a monolithic junta-ridden group is still
so significant in Victorian Labor affairs and therefore in Australian
Labor affairs. But these issues we must deal with later in the
campaign. All I ask now is that you weigh these matters very
seriously. I ask you to remember that Whitlam has talked
while we have acted, and I ask you to give us the chance to continue
to act, free from obstruction in the Senate.