COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
SPEECH BY
Rt. Hon. SIR ROBERT MENZIES,
M. P.,
ON
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION AND
DISARIMAMENT,
[ From the " Parliamentary Debates," 22nd October 1964.]
Sir ROBERT MENZIFS ( Kooyong-
Prime Minister) [ 8.311.-Mr. Speaker, we
have just heard a pathetic speech.
Opposition Members.-Oh.
'-' Sfr ROBERT MENZIES.-Yes. I repeat
_ C at it was a pathetic speech. The question
before the Chair, though we may not realise
it from what was said, concerns a papera
ministerial statement in relation to this
o-called peace Congress. I would have
jpected that the spokesman for the Opposition,
first, would have explained to us why
be believed in the Congress and, secondly,
would have told us that he would attend it,
and why. But, instead of that, we have heard
a speech that was a rambling affair. I recall
an old judge once telling an advocate in my
presence that he had circumnavigated the
entire globe of irrelevancy. If ever anybody
did that, the honorable member for
Werriwa ( Mr. Whitlam), speaking as Deputy
Leader of the Opposition, did it this evening.
He circumnavigated the entire globe of
irrelevancy. Here, we are dealing with -a
conference and a very serious problem concerning
the question of whether this is a
Comramunist front-which it is, beyond
question. But did the honorable member
address himself * to that matter? No. He
13895/ 64. went on a little voyage of discovery. He
talked about the Voyager disaster. He
talked about Ansett. He talked about homes.
He talked about overseas investment. He
even brought into the discussion Sir Walter
Murdoch, a most distinguished scholar who
has been honoured by Her Majesty, not for
* his political views, but for his great distinr_-
tion in the world of literature. Really, the
Deputy Leader of the Opposition is pretty
hard put to it, is he not, when be has to
come to this? He even told us who somebody's
uncle was. I have had a few uncles
myself whom I have liked. But there may
be nephews of mine who would not want
me dragged up on the occasion of some
debate in the future. The honorable gentleman
is hard put to it in this debate.
Oddly enough, in the midst of all this, he
has been devoting his attention to the somewhat
anaemnic labour of reading the
" Anglican which, may I tell you, is not
the official organ of the Church of England.
I happen to know that because, after it had
published a few foul and defamatory remarks
about me, I wrote to the then Synod
of the Church and asked: " Is this your
official organ? I was hastily assured that
it was not. The last time I heard of the
publisher of the. Anglican he-was in a
little trouble over an obscene publication,
as honorable members will recall. The
Deputy Leader of the Opposition, being
frightfully anxious to avoid coming to the
point, has been reading the " Anglican
If he can find a Presbyterian who is a little
pink, he quotes him. That is easy enough.
I know quite a few of them myself. If he
can find a Methodist, he quotes him. He
ran over the landscape' and picked up a
bishop or two, but never, ' from first to last,
did he face up to the problem that once
exercised his Party-the problem of whether
this Congress is a Communist front. In spite
of the most engaging invitations by some
of my friends on this side of the House,
he failed to say whether he would attend
the Congress. I am prepared to lay a slight
shade of odds within the limits of my
purse-Mr. Hayden.-Oh.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Within the
limits of the honorable" iimeber's purse, if
he likes. Let me put it that way. That puts
it a little higher. I am prepared to lay a
slight shade of odds that the Deputy Leader
of the Opposition will not be at the Congress,
because he will realise that selfpreservation''
is the fist laii" of life. That
is how the matter stands, Sir. He tried to
make something out of the Pairiarch of
Moscow. But he made such an awful blue
there. He put questions in the House asking
whethe"' the' Ptriarch" of Moscow-the
guest of the Archbishop of Canterburyhad
been refused a visa, or something of
the sort. It turned out that he vas not
speaking of the ' right fellow. But" that is
nothing to the honorable gentfeman. The
facts come easily and depart easily on his
tongue. He took up about 30 minutes of
the time of the House without thinking fit
to come to the point of'this matter. I
want to come to the point of'it, Sir.
The Attorney-General ( Mr. Snedden)
made a statement on this subject, and it is
on the motion that that ' stateient be noted
that this debate occurs, though nobody
would have imagined it after listening to
the speech just made by th~ Deputy Leader
of the Opposition. After the Attorney-
General had made his statement in this
House, the organisers of; this beautifully
polite, kindly iitentioned non-Communist
Congress weie so shaken by ' whai" he ' had said that they advertised denying that the
Congress was a continuation of a similar
congress held in Melbourne in 1959. I do
not remember most honorable members
opposite, or even the honorable member for
Werriwa, being at the conference of 1959.
Although that conference had been practically
conceded to be a Communist front,
it was essential for the organisers of the
present Congress to get away from that
sort of thing. So they advertised, in a certain
newspaper which I shall not advertise, denying
that the Congress was a continuationof
a similar congress held in Melbourne in
1959. But, at the very moment when the
Attorney-General was making his statement
in this chamber, a brochure was in circula-t
tion on behalf of the Congress. It stated-
In 1959, there was held in Melbourne thr-'\
Australian and New Zealand Congress for Inter
national Co-operation and Disarmament. Following
this Congress, State continuing committees
were formed to carry on its work. In February
1964, representatives of these committees decdded
to'convene a panel of citizens to form a provisional
sponsoring committee to begin preliminary
planning for a national congress in October 1964.
That Congress begins in a few days.
Can anybody seriously believe that it is
not the legitimate child of the
1959 conference? Yet the organisers
of the present Congress advertised
that it " was not connected with the
World Peace Council or any other organis*'
tion either inside or outside Australia'
They expressly denied that the Congress
was a continuation of a similar Congress
held in Melbourne in 1959. Yet I have just
quoted the words of their committee, which
demonstrate that that was simply a fat 1I
On 18th August, before the statement
was made, Congress News Bulletin No. 3
was published. It contained a series of
items which should be discussed at the
Congress. After the statement by the
Attorney-General, two of the items were
omitted. They were the North West base
and an independent foreign policy for
Australia. This latter item was designed
to get Australia, in the interests of peace,
to abandon all its alliances with the United
States, Great Britain and other countries.
Sir, I can only assume that these items
were so clearly related to Communist policy
and unrelated to peace, as we understand
peace, that the organisers felt that to have
them discussed would rather reveal the
true' nature of the Congress. I do ' not need
to labour this matter. Nobody with his
ordinary wits fails to understand that this
is a Communist-front organisation. Indeed,
the honorable gentleman does not deny it.
He merely quotes a number of people as
giving respectability to a Communist-front
organisation, forgetting that the whole purpose
of Communist-front organisations is
to get eminent and respectable people to
lend an air of respectability to a conference
that otherwise would be exposed as a
Communist activity.
SWhy do these Communist-front organisa-
Jtions exist? The first reason that I can
think of is that these people want to make
Communists and Communism respectable.
SNothing makes a person so respectable as
to be seen in company with a bishop. That
\ is a very interesting feature of life. There-
_ fore, they get a bishop if they can. Nothing
makes a person much more respectable
than to be in the company of a Presbyterian
clergyman. This appeals to me
very much. I know two or three of thenm.
I do not wonder that they are in this business.
The first purpose of these organisations
-is to make Communists and Communism
respectable. The second purpose is
to weaken the will of free people to resist.
This is tremendously important. Why do
they have a conference in Australia instead
-af in Moscow?
Mr. Pollard.-You are not crediting the
people with' inuch common sense.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-If you do
not mind, Reggie old boy; you are like me,
" decent Presbyterian in your spare time.
3 behave yourself.
The second purpose of these organisations
is to weaken the will of free people to resist.
Why must these conferences be held in Australia?
This is a vital question. If these
people want to pass resolutions and explain
to others the vital importance of peace, the
abandonment of threats and the abandonment
of aggression, why do they not operate
in one of the Communist countries? Instead
of doing so, they come here and bring some
of their respectable sponsors here. Why do
they do this? To tell the Australian Parliament
not to be aggressive? To tell the Australian
Parliament or Government not to
lay covetous eyes on other' people's possessions,
other people's lafds or other people's
freedoms? ' Cani' nybody with a grain of common sense suppose that any government,
any party or any parliament ini Australia
needs to be persuaded that we want
peace and we are against aggression? We do
not need to be told about peace by these
people. Some others in the world do, but
these people never tell them.
One of the objects of these conferences
is to divide the free world. I have not the.
time to do it, but if honorable members
will look at some of the items that are to
be discussed and have been discussed in the
past at these conferences they will find that
more is said in the resolutions and the
debates against America than against the
Soviet Union or Communist China. There
is more cackle about American imperialism
than there is about the sinister imperialism
of the Communist world. But of course these
people like to talk about American imperialism.
They would have us believe-we
have heard evidence of this in the last few
days-that a great contribution to peace in
the world would be made if the United
States of America were to abandon South
Vietnam, the South East Asia Treaty
Organisation, its bases in the Pacific and,
iricidentally, Australia. I will defy anybody
to find a single word spoken by any of these
people -that support A. N. Z. U. S.
or the great liberal, free activities of the
United States on behalf of free people all
round the world. Not a word is spoken by
them against the Soviet Union or Communist
China. Mr. Stokes.-The North West Oape was
on the agenda.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Yes, but they
have left that out for reasons that my
honorable friend perceives in a flash. One
of the purposes of these oonferences is to.
promote nuclear disarmament. Nobody can
deny that; it is all perfectly clear. It is on
the record. We are all in favour of disarmament,
but we are not such fools as toabandon
the freedom of the free world by
saying: " Abolish nuclear armaments but
leave all conventional armaments untouched
To do so, of course, would be to
put the world in the hands of the Communist
powers.
Another purpose of these conferences is
to discourage military alliance against Communist
aggression. " Military alliance" is a
rude expression. Really, are we to accept
this? I knew that I am discussing something
that the honorable member for Werriwa
did not care to discuss. I happen to be discussing
the motion before the Chair. I want
to make it quite clear on behalf of my
Government that we are not in favour of
persuading or driving the United States out
of Vietnam and the western Pacific. But the
active sponsors, the real organisers, the Communist
promoters of this Congress are. We
are not in favour of destroying Malaysia and
removing the British bases from Malaya and
Singapore. Where do the members of this Congress
stand? Heaven knows, they have had three,
four or five of these Congresses. The previous
one was held in 1960 in Yokohama. I
regret to observe that my friend, the honorable
member for Reid ( Mr. Uren), was
amongst the delegates present on that
occasion. I hope he has been misrepresented,
but according to the report a unanimous
resolution was carried attacking S. E. A. T. O.,
attacking Cento, which concerns us very
much in. the Middle East, and attacking
other military alliances organised by
imperialist powers". I ask the honorable
members to note the last words. Imperialist
powers? I suppose that is a fine phrase to
describe a very great power like the United
States, a great power like the United Kingdom
or a small power like Australia! We
are all members of these treaty organizations.
In Japan in 1960, since when, of
course, they have suffered a sea change
into something rich and strange, they were
attacking all these things.
May I just say, because time is not unlimited-
I am grateful to the House for having
given me as much as it has given methat
in March 1951, which after all was
after this Government came into office, the
Federal Executive of the Australian Labour
Psrty made a pronouncement. I shall quote
its precise words. The Labour Party was a
little more given to precision in those days
than it is now. The Federal Executive said-
We further denounce so-called peace councils
as instruments of Soviet imperialism, and we
warn members of the Australian Labour movement
against being involved with appeals of
organisations which exploit the dsire for peace
in the interests of Russian plans.
Those words, my honorable friend would
agree, are fighting words. There is nothing
ambiguous about them. They say, in effect: " Don't you be misled; don't do anything
about this." Indeed, the Federal Executive
went on to underline that expression in
1951 by stating that it further declared-
That this Federal Executive, being of the opinion
that the Australian Peace Council is a subsidiary
organisation to the Communist Party, we therefore
declare that it is not competent for any member
of the A. L. P. to be associated therewith and
remain a member of the
Those were the good old days of 1951 when
the executive said: " Don't you go; if you
go, you are out of the party." Does anybody
-1 look at honorable members oppositeseriously
want to tell me that these congresses
have changed, that the congress of
1964 is utterly unlike the one of 1959 or
is utterly unlike the one that was considered
and adjudged in 1951? Nobody believes that.
If honorable members look at the names,
and in particular the ecclesiastical names, of
some of the people connected with the congress
then and connected with this one
now, they will find exactly the same set-up.
I sympathise with a member of the
Labour Party in this Parliament who is just
as good a non-Communist as I am but who
finds himself put in this ambiguous position.
It is an ambiguous position. His own party
has said: Have nothing to do with it or
you are out of the party"; but now, i
1964, it says through the present leader,
that the A. L. P. in New South Wales-there
seems to be a rather limited exemption given
on this occasion-the A. L. P. in New South
Wales--whioh, I -believe, was regarded, or.
professed itself to be, as right wing un
it endorsed Mr. Leslie Haylen as a candidate
in the Senate election, when it abandoned
its pretence-has decided that it will not be
officially represented. but that individuals
are permitted to participate. If there was
anything funny about this it would be the
funniest statement in the world-to say tothe
in the greatest State in Australia:
" You are not to be officially represented.
Whatever you do is to be unofficial. If any
of your boys go, they must go unofficially.
They must even conceal the fact"-no
doubt-" that they are members of the
party What is this humbug?
What is the position of a party which
says, in the largest State in Australia:
" Now look, we cannot officially be connected
with this thing, but unofficially we-
don't mind if you nip in the side door"
It is almost incredible.
Mr. Clyde Cameron.-It sounds like
Bolte to me.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-I know that
the honorable member has succeeded for
a long time in being both official and unofficial
at the same time, being a rebel and
being one of the Establishment at the
same time. I envy him this. This argues his
great talent. But it does not detract from
the point that I am making, looking at my
friend, the honorable member for Banks
( Mr. Costa) and the rest of you. How can
' you be officially out and unofficially in?
That is the position -that the Labour Party
has got itself into.
I conclude by saying that all of us in
this Parliament-I say this with no reservations
whatever-all of us want peace.
None of us believes in an aggressive policy.
We are, indeed, foundation members of the
nuclear test ban treaty. Nothing could suit
a developing country like Australia more
than total disarmament, honestly
effectuated. Does any honorable member
ppposite seriously suggest that there ought
, to be unilateral disarmament in this world?
Of course not. Therefore, what we are
after-all of us-is ultimate disarmament,
honestly effectuated, so -that nobody is left
with the power to crush another. But, those
' ieing our objectives, I come back to where
Afound myself a little while ago. Why
have this conference? To persuade us of
things of which we are among the world's
greatest advocates? To persuade us? Of
course not. These conferences do not direct
themselves to the Communist powers; they
direct themselves to us. Therefore, it is
proper to say to them and to their unofficial
friends and sponsors: What changes of
policy do you seek in Australia? I do not want to have a lot of fustian
here about wanting to get rid of the present
Government, because honorable members
have had that feeling-very properly, -if I
may say so-for the last 15 years. I do
not want a fustian of that kind. What
changes of national policy do you want,
you unofficial supporters of this congress,
without seeking such changes, apparently,
in either the Soviet Union or in China.
You do not want a reduced defence vote.
The speeches I have -heard recently indicate
the contrary. Do you want a withdrawal
from the South East Asian Treaty
Organisation? Of course you do not. You
would not dare to say you did. Do you
want the abandonment of South Vietnam?
If you do, which would make each of you
more than an unofficial member of the
Congress, pray get up and say so. Do you
want the abandonment of Malaysia? Do
you want a withdrawal from A. N. Z. U. S.?
Sir, I could go on over the whole line
of what I have believed to be indisputable
national policies in Australia, and I doubt
whether I could get more than one, two or
three people on the other side of the
House who would say about abandoning
them: Yes, this is what we want to do
Yet, these being -the objectives of this conference,
we have reached a stage at which
the Australian Labour Party, divided but
still powerful, says to its members: Now,
you cannot officially attend, but if you care
to. go along and lend the benefit of your
presence to this conference that will be all
right with us Sir, it would be a tragedy
if well-intentioned people-many people on
the list of sponsors are well-intentionedwere
beguiled into believing that those
who are, as we in this place are, the practical
friends of peace are in reality its
enemies. The choice remains as it has stood
for years: We can have either the peace of
defended freedom or the peace of
submission.
BY AUTHORITY: A. J7. AJITHUR, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA.
1 3895/ 64-2