MELBOURNE " PEACE" CONFERENCE
STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ON TUESDAY, 27TH OCTOBER. 1959
Mr. Deputy Speaker the function of the Australian security
ihtelligonce organization is perfectly clear. It was established
by the late Mr. Chifley; it has been continued by us.
It operates in a direct sense under the Prime Minister but it is
attached to the Attorney-General's Dupartment for certain admihistrative
purposes. It reports to me on matters about which it
thinks I should be informed. It undoubtedly maintains contact
with the Department of External Affairs. It would be a very remarkable
state of affairs if it did not, since the Department of
Externa Affairs is charged with responsibility for our relations
with other countries and is in charge of a general policy which,
in one of its major aspects, consists of resistance to Communist
aggression. The security intelligence organization is our principal
weapon for gathering knowledge about Communist activity,
and I will continue to encourage it to perform its duty in that
respect in spite of anything that may be said about it.
It is quite true that in one exceptional case, the circumstances
of which were referred to by the Attorney-General ( Sir
Garfield Barwick) this afternoon, and on request, information was
given to one gentleman in Sydney who was a sponsor of this congross.
It is not the function of the security intelligence organization
to go around persuading people. It has no instructions
to do so and, with that one exception on request it has
not done so. But it keeps me informed and, through me, it keeps
the Government informed of what goes on. I am happy to say that
there is very little that goes on in the Communist Party organization
of Australia with which one is not familiar as a result
of the activity, loyalty and zeal of the officers of the security
service. This particular congress that is to be held seems to
have been the occasion for this trouble. In the very few minutes
that I have, let me say one or two things about it. There is
nothing very mysterious about them. They have only to be stated.
They have their effect on the minds of sensible people.
This congress issued a printed pamphlet describing what
it was about and what its functions were. It made no secret,
because on the very first page it said
" The idea for the congress arose from the post-war history
of the struggle for peace.."
That is a phrase that we have heard so frequently from those who
have conducted the cold war. The statement went on
the post-war history for the struggle for peace and in
particular from the Stockholm Conference for Disarmament and
International co-operation last year."
Does anybody, with any wits about him, suppose for one moment or
have any doubt that the Stockholm Conference was a Conmunist
front? The Stockholm Conference, which then began to operate
through the World Peace Council and, as it comes to Australia and
New Zealand, through the Australian Peace Council, enlisting the
aid of those remarkable bodies like the Eureka Youth League and
a half a dozen bodies of that kind, notoriously Communist or
Conmmunist controlled or made up of Coraunist fellow travellers?
There is no mystery about that.
The marvellous thing to me is that anybody should suppose
that the eminently respectable people xihose names have been
put forward as sponsors are actually those who have promoted the
2.
conference. They are not. This conference was promoted as a
result of the Stockholm Conference. It is perfectly clear that
this conference has been made the main 1959 activity of the Communist
Party of Australia. This is their great effort for this
year and if it succeeds in attracting the attention of a sufficient
number of thousands of non-Communists, they will regard
that as rather a propaganda victory.
Those are the simple facts about the matter. These
are the people who have promoted the conference. What they have
done is to go to a number of eminently respectable people and
say: " Would you mind having your name used as a sponsor for this
conference?". And a lot of people, who, like everybody in this
House, desire peace and who would do much to secure it, have
said: " Yos, if this is for peace, you may use my name." But there
is a very great difference between being an invited sponsor and
being an invitor, an orgarizor, a promotor, and I say, with no
hesitation, that the whole of the initial promotion of this conference
goes back to Communist, and Communist-allied organizations.
Indeed, anybody who cared to examine the list of the executive
officers would, without knowing too much, know that the
list embraces a number of well-known and notorious Communists,
Therefori Sir, I want to say this: If it is the desiro
of the Labour Party to promote a peace conference, good. Let it
do so. That is intelligible. If it is the desire of the Churches
to promote a peace conference, they have an enormous constituency
and a powerful spiritual influence on the people of Australia;
let them do so. But itis very odd to me that some of
them should allow themselves to be drawn into the organization of
a congress which they have not promoted at all but with which,
unhappily, they have allowed their names to be associated,
I wonder if honourable members ever cast their eyes on
the " Tribune", the Comnunist official journal? They will find
that that has given a powerful boost to this conference and well
it might because this is the task for this year,
Now I must confess that I was surprised to hear my
friend the honourable member for Melbourne Ports ( Mr. Crean), who
just concluded his speech, and whom nobody would accuse and I
thoroughly agree of being a Communist, and whose intentions on
this matter are of the highest. I am surprised that he should
take some pleasure in the statement that the Labour Party in Victoria
is supporting this congress. At the risk of occupying a
minute longer than I should, I just want to say this: The Labour
Party has spoken about this matter twice. The Australian Labour
Party through its Federal conference and executive in 1951 gave
consideration to the Australian Peace Council, one of the active
promoters of this Conference. What did they say? They said
" Your executive gave consideration to the standing of the
Australian Peace Council in relation to the Australian Labour
Party and determined as follows
That this Federal Executive, being of the opinion that
the Australian Peace Council is a subsidiary organization
of the Communist Party, we therefore declare that it is
not competent for any member of the Australian Labour
Party to be associated therewith."
If that was true in 1951, when did it cease to be true? It certainly
had not ceased to be true in 1955 because once more the
Partycame back to the same problem and this is something which I
will quote and, having quoted it I need say no more. What they
said was this:
" The Executive now declares that it is Communist stra':. gy
to use these functions to represent the West as aggressive
and the exclusive centre of danGer to world peace to conceal
the aggressive actions of Communist regimes in Eastern
Europe and in Asia and to bring about negotiations between
Communist regimes and the ' elst under circumstances when
territorial concessions will be made by the West in return
for concessions which have no substance."
Sir, that is a
ent position.
by quoting it. pretty clear and powerful exposition of the pres-
Therefore, Sir, as I said I can satisfy myself
I agree with it. I stand by it.