SEATO " Appropriate action" in Laos
hr. Macmillan' s v.--eirs on 8th Africa
6outh ufrica.
Sir Roy Jeiensky J.. hite A'ustralia
Comonjealtia of Ni tions
South A frica and Comomnwalth
Australia's role in Neuj Guinea
Australia's position with Asia
Apartheid
Governor-General
Laos -32ATO agreement
-Jest New Guinea
SEATO Meeting in Bangkok
Icternal portfo-lio
Credit squeeze
PRESS CONFERENCE GIVEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER,
THE RT. HON. R. G. MENZIES AT MASCOT ON THE
MARCH. 6
PRIME MINISTER: Anything I say that isn't right must be regarded as
talking in my-sleep of which I have had very little.
Shoot me!~ ( Laughter) I'd pay a handsome reward to a man
who would shout me and finish it.
dIell what do you want to know about?
QUESTION: First of all, Sir, could you tell us what SEATO
means by " appropriate action" if the fighting in-Laos
doesn't stop, as reported in this morning's papers?
PRIME MINISTER: You mean you want me to speculate about what may
happen in Laos and what might be done if so-and-so happens,
or something else happens. Oh, no! Not for meJ Not for
me., The whole point about the SEATO Conference was that
it reaffirmed the determination to take whatever-action
might be needed under SEATO. There had been a few
doubts, I think, in some minds as to whether it meant
business. I think this Conference resolved those doubts.
But as to what might need to be done under any given
circumstances, whether military or para-military, or
economic or whatever it may be, these are matters that
will be d. etermined from time to time by the Governments
concerned on advice from the Council representatives who
sit constantly in Bangkok. It is not just theoretical,
it's right.
QUESTION: 11ould you care to commaent, Mr. Menzies, on the
difference in view between yourself and Mr. Macmillan?
PRIME MINISTER: What are they? Do tell me; do help me by telling
rae. All I have had is ochoes of leading articles in
Australia. And as I was unaware of these differences I
would be delighted if you would tell me what they are.
Because Mr. Macrmillan and I, who are groat frien4s and
who have seen a lot of each other over these natters,
still don't know what they are. Could you tell me?
Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. Macrmillan's staterient about South Africa differs
from your statemient which we have received in Australia.
PRIME MINISTER: Does it? In what way?
QUESTION: Your attack on the exclusion of South Africa was
quite fiery at the Australia Club.
PRIME MINISTER: And you thought his was less fiery did you? Well
this is a very odd kind of difference of opinion. He
sounded less fiery than I did. iVell if that is lhe only
difference between us you can put it down to my
passionate Celtic teriperament.
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTEI
QUESTION: Yesterday, Sir, Lord Casey, before he loft here
said that he considered that it was a good thing that
South Africa had left the Corrionwealth of Nations. Do
you think it is a good thing
I didn't hear what he said. I doubt rhether he said
Would you care to comment on South Africa's
withdrawal
PRIME MINISTER: I think it is a great misfortune, a great
misfortune. I have said that repeatedly. I hope it has
reached hero. I think it is a groat pity that one of the
foundation members of the Cour. onwealth should be out.
And I think it is an even greater pity that a
foundation member of the Commonwealth whose citizens
have fought alongside our citizens in two wars should be
out on an issue which is primarily, whatever else you
nay say about it a matter of internal policy. Quite
frankly I don't like this idea that we are to question
each other's internal policies and on the strength of
our views about the internal policies of another
country, either nudge each other out or beckon bach
other in. This is not ny idea of the Comnonwoalth.
Q UESTION: Do you think it is a dangerous principle?
PRIME MINISTER: I do, I do. Undoubtedly.
QUESTION: Do you have any foolings, Sir, about Sir Roy
Welnsky's statement regarding Australia's white
Australia Policy?
PRIME MINISTER: I didn't hear him make a statement on Australia's
white-Australia policy. Sorry.
QUESTION: It was suggested that the white-Australia policy
of Australia and the apartheid policy were one and the
sane thing.
PRIME MINISTER:
PRESSMAN: PRIME MINISTER: s
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTER:
QUESTION: Who suggested this?
Welensky and also some commentators
Welensky? Did he really? Well I didn't hear him
ay it. But what do you think about
But I didn't hear Sir Roy Welensky say it.
Some of the papers have said it
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, of course! The papers have said sonething!
Oh, dear now, cone comel What haven't they said?
Really, you nustnt take advantage of me in this way. I
an an innocent fellow.
QUESTION: Do you think things will be easier now in the
British Commonwealth of Nations now that South Africa
has left?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't, no.
QUESTION: You don't think there will be less embarrassment
now?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't. Indeed it is very interesting. There
will be some people who will now, as they havo indicated,
attack South Africa in the United Nations. A few people
have offered to move to expel South Africa from the
United Nations because of South Africa's racial policy.
But, oddly enough, the very sane people want to import
into the United Nations Cormunist China, which apparently
doesn't deny human rights. All this is too much for me.
I don't understand it.
QUESTION: But Mr. Menzies was South Africa edged out of the
Commonwealth?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't think that Dr. Verwoerd had the slightest
option on the final day. I will be making a full
statement about this in Parliament when Parliament
resumes. I will be delighted to. Aind people, so far as
I an concerned, will be completely at liberty, in
Parliament as well as out, to agree or disagree. But
I shall make the whole of my own views quite plain. But
if there is one thing that is quite certain and after
all I was there and no newspaper reporter was it is
that Dr. Verwoerd had no option but to withdraw his
application.
QUESTION: Can you explain why?
PRIME MINISTER: Of course I can explain why. Suppose you, having
agreed to a form of corunique which stated the criticisms
quite fairly and the answor quite concisely, suppose you
had agreed to that, and then you were told by Prime
Minister after Prime Minister that he would never let up
until he had got rid of you, would you remain? Of
course not! I must say that I thought the gentleman was
very patient I would have left about two rounds earlier.
Of course he had no option but to go. And if what is
said leaves you with no option but to withdraw your
application, well you can use whatever headlines you like
about that, but we all know what it means.
There was a fantastic story circulating in a
section of the aiglish Sunday press to the effect that
after everybody else had agreed to the communique Dr.
Verwoerd attacked the other members. That is completely
untrue. Dr. Verwoerd had agreed to the corvmunique. I
thought the whole problem was over. So did Mr.
Macmillan, with whom I am supposed to have great disagreement.
I remember after that adjournment he said to
me, " It is all right; Verwoord has agreed to the
cor. miunique." " Well' I said, " this is splendid.. Then our
problem is over." And when Verwoerd had indicated that
he agreed, and Mr. Macmillan had confirried that and
announced it, then it was and then only that certain
other Prime Ministers indicated that this was no good and
it was then, for the first time, that Dr. Verwoord said,
" Well I must consider ry position," withdrew for a little
while, considered his position, came back and said I
thought most courteously, because he is a man of outstanding
courtesy and dignity, whatever you think about
his policies he is that kind of man he cane back and
said, " Well, all things considered I must withdraw my
application." Now that was the fact of it. This story I wish
people did not publish stories that can only be got from
lying sources. Because this happened to be a , rivate
meeting, therefore no story could be got with honour from
anybody. But that story ras completely untrueø
QUESTION: If this principle is carried to its logical
conclusion, could it wreck the conference if members were
asked to sit in jud;_ ment on one another?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think I have made this clear. I think it
would be a terrible thing wcre meetings of Prime
Ministers to become courts either of morals or of
justice or of whatever it may be, sitting in judgment on
each other. We have lived for many years by not sitting I
in judgoent on oach other. Nobody supposes that I am
responsible for the political policies of Ghana or the
racial policies of some other country in the Comnonwealth.
Of course not until this time. I think it is
a great pity. I think it alters the character of the
Couionwealth. Perhaps I an out of date. Perpahs this
is a bettor kind of Connonwoalth. Well that is a matter
of opinion, but it is not my idea.
QUESTION: Do you think this could lead to Prine Ministers'
censure at future meetings about our role in Now Guinea?
PRIME MINISTER: Why not? Once the door is opened, how do you close
it? And if the door remains open, then are we to
understand that our policies, enlightened as they no
doubt are in Papua and New Guinea, won't be exposed to
examination in a Cornonwealth mneting. Our innigration
policy a policy desined to save Australia from the
Smuth African problen, don't forget, and therefore a
great policy for Australia is this to be brought up?
I don't know. All I : now is that if these natters if
this becomes the practice, then the Connonwealthwill
convert itself into a debating society, into a rather
strange forun of judg-ent and decision and, under those
circumstances well, you nay tell ne that it will
endure but it won't be the Cor. onwealth that I have ever
thought about, or known.
QUESTION: Do you think that by S. outh Africa going from the
Connonwealth this will put us into a nore difficult
position with Asia than if they stayed in?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, that is all a matter of opinion. Look you say
" a difficulty with Asia". There is a great disposition
to assume that all Asian countries think the sane. They
don't, any nore than all European couhtries think the
same. Don't fall into that error. I would not
undertake to say that there was an Asian opinion on the
matter of our innigration policy. Tungku Abdul Rahran
has repeatedly said, publicly, that he thinks it is all
right; it is our business, we have the right to do it.
Others nay have another view. Not one of t'en has ever
criticised the policy to ne. The criticism of our
innigration policy is chiefly confined to a few
itinerant Australians and a few gontlemen in Australia,
including one or two on the press.
QUESTION: If that be so, Sir, why was it necessary to raise
the possibility that it nay be criticised in the future?
PRIME MINISTER: But isn't it obvious? Isn't it obvious? If you
can criticise the racial policy of one country the
internal racial policy and put such pressure on that
country that it leaves, why cantt you criticise the
racial policy of another country? I mean these are very
fine distinctions. Nobody raised that natter, but I did
myself. I did nyself. I said: " Where does this process
end?" because I feel very strongly about this business of
butting in on the donestic policy of another country.
And I would like you all to renmeber this. Apartheid,
separate development there is the choice, you develop
the races separately or you develop then by a process of
integration. Integration is a pretty new doctrine, don't
forget, pretty new this is post-colonial integration.
But that is a choice of statesranship and this has been
the policy. 1 don't agree with the policy. Now that it
is all out, I've said so. I didn't nake public comnents
before. I don't agree because I think that the nore it
QUESTION: succeeds in raising the level of the Bantu the more
disastrously will it fail in the long run because he
won't be treated as a second-rate citizen, he won't be
pushed off the footpath and I think that the end of this
policy is disaster. But that is a problem of judjient.
All I know is that I have attended as many Prime
Ministers' Conferences as anybody else in history and
until last year I had never heard it mentioned, although
the policy bejan with Jan Smuts.
Surely, Sir, it isn't so much apartheid being
directly criticised as the administration, things like
Sharpeville
PRIME MINISTER: ' Things like Sharpeville.'' Is that the only incident
that you know of in which people have been k1illed?
Of course it was a shiocking incident. Of course Langa
was a shocking incident. But the people in London who
stood around talking about Sharpeville and Langa, I
didn't hear a word out of them about the massacres that
occurred in the Congo. Not a word.' Let us be fair on
this matter. Don't let us be too political. If we are
going to be humane, let us be humane all round.
QUESTION: But shouldn't we expect a better standard of
conduct from a foundatin member of the Commonwealth?
PRIME MINISTER: Of course, of course.' But was the Government of
South Africa responsible for the shooting at Sharpeville?
Did the Government order the shooting? Do we know that
yet? No. Well, I think we should wait until we know.
QUESTION: Mr. Menzies is there any possibility of you saying
anything about a new Governor-General?
PRIME MINISTER: No, none.
QUESTION: There is a rumour in Canberra
PRIME MINISTE: I'm sure there is.( Laughter)
QUESTION: There is a rumour at the moment that Lord
Carrington could be the man?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, you disappoint me. I thought the rumour would
have been that I was going to be. Oh, what a pity. That
is a blow to my ambitions. There is no appointment yet.
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTE
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTE
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTE
QUESTION: re It was reported, Sir, that you made
commendations to the Queen? certain
iR: I'm sure it was. I have read reports of every
conceivable kind.
Is it true?
My conversations with the Queen, my dear fellow,
are private until they produce a result.
When will we know?
Ti: I don't know. As soon as possible.
Mr. Menzies did Australia make any offer to send
forces to Laos if they were needed in the agreement
under SEATO?
PRIM4E MINISTER: No occasion arose for people to make offers. The
SEiTO organisation is set up under a treaty. The
obligations are set out in the treaty. ' Je affirr: med on
this occasion our obligations under the treaty.. And I
imagine that the resolution has now been published,
has it? Well that contains with precision, the results
arrived at by all of us after a day and a half of
constant discussion. I won't add to it because if I
added to it I night subtract from it.
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTEI
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTEI
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTEl
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTEI
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTEI'
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTER
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTEF
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTER
QUESTION: Did France raise any objection to the resolution..?
Oh, now look, you don't think I an that kind of
fellow do you? You want to get the lowdown, do you, on
the discussions in SEATO. You won't ; et them from me.
Sir do we support the Boun Oum regime or do we go
along with the British in hoping for the return of the
Souvanna Phouma regime?
1: There is nothing to be added to what I haye said
about this statenent on Laos. There it is. It speaks
for itself. Did you havc any discussions on West New Guinea
when you were in London?
Oh, yes, in an occasional way, yes.
Then you don't think it is an important vital
issue at the moment?
R: Does that follow? I think it is a tremendously
important issue, but I did not go around London t4 king
about it all the time. I had talks in the relevant
places. Did you meet Dr. Luns?
Oh, yes.
Did the question of West New Guinea crop up then?
Oh, yes. You nay be perfectly certain that whenever
Dr. Luns and I meet that question crops up.' I mean
that is a reasonable proposition.
But you have no statement to make on the matter?
No. Except that the policy that we have
repeatedly stated about West New Guinea stands
unaltered. Did you get the impression, Sir, at Bangkok, that
the member nations of SEATO were as strong as ever
against the Comm] unist menace?
Stronger, stronger. I am perfectly certain that
we cane out of this conference with the mnone:' nations
stronger on that matter if they needed to o
stronger than before. SEATO is more powerful and
well-knit and significant today than it ever was before.
I ari sure of that.
Sir, do you still intend continue as Minister
for Ecternal Affairs in view of the increasing world
problems and the strain it riust impose on your time?
i
0 7.
PRIME MINISTER: 4ell, I don't know, I don't know. There seems to
be a somewhat strange idea that the Prime Minister is
not worried about external affairs, but a Minister for
External Affairs is. I assure you that that is not
right. I am not aware that I do any considerable ariount
more now that I am Minister for Ecternal Affairs than I
did as Prime Minister. Prime Ministers read the cables,
you know, every day. They always discuss the high-level
policies that emerge. I an not anxious to duplicate my
work, but I will change this position as I see an
opportunity and when it proves convenient. But I think
it is easy to exaggerate the idea I notice it is
exaggerated in certain quarters that I am trying to do
two men's work all of a sudden. I don't mind that, but
after all, Senator Gorton does an awful lot of the work
in External Affairs. It is rather offensive to him to
say that his work is negligible. He does a very great
deal of work, so I an not doing two men's work. I am
doing the work of a man and a third. Well, perhaps that
is a mistake. I don't know. I will get around to it.
QUESTION, What about our internal problems, Sir, regarding
the present credit squeeze?
PRIME MINISTER: Well since I left the plane, I have had no
opportunity of looking into that matter.
QUESTION: But you must be kept acquainted with what is going
on here in Australia during your trips away?
PRIME MINISTER: Well I have had one or two cables, yes. But you
are going to ask me now to make a cormient on what has
been happening in Australia while I have been away. No,
I won't take on thro3e men's work. Two men's work is
enough.
With the complinents of
R. C. Maley,
Press Secretary to the Prime Minister.