Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 7 May 1970

Dr MACKAY (Evans) - Mr Speaker,I wish to address my remarks to that section of the Appropriation and Supply Bills which relates particularly to our Departments of External Affairs and Defence. I wish to relate my remarks especially to those events which are taking place in this nation at the present moment of which we are well aware because of the mammoth amount of publicity and the tremendously costly activity which has gone into producing what is to be the effect of the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign in the next few days.

Now, the word 'moratorium' has been used in various and a varied number of ways. I intend to refer first of all to its meaning 'to call a halt to"'. While the Moratorium to be held in the capital cities tomorrow and subsequent days refers to a suggestion that we should call a halt to meeting our obligations to our neighbours and to nations under attack, that we should withdraw our forces from Vietnam and that we should come back to the boundaries of Australia and mind our own business - this is a meaning that is being implied by the exponents of this philosophy - I, too, believe that we need a moratorium in Australia in the sense of calling a halt to something. 1 see taking place around us a disastrous polarisation or an attempt at polarising and dividing and lining up the nation into opposing warring factions. An attempt is being made all the time to line up the Australian people into intransigent camps beyond change or amendment. The very extravagance of the propaganda, or the language and the suggestions that are continually being made is in line with the traditional approach of the Communists to foment every grievance, to sharpen the class struggle, and from our school children to our trade unions and from parliament itself to the people there goes out this propaganda embodying the suggestion of the dividing and sharpening of the differences that will lead to this polarisation that 1 deplore.

The seeds of national strife and sectional strife are beginning to bloom. When these things occur inside a nation, tragedies can emerge. We have seen tragedy inside the United States of America. We can see the preparations being made for this very same kind of emotional explosion, this kind of irresponsible mass action, which can give rise only to tragedy as it is augmented. There is, of course, on the other side of this question the temptation to those of us who are in politics to exploit such a situation. It would be too easy and too dangerous if we were simply to take the view of trying to alienate from ourselves any sense of responsibility or to point the hand at the Opposition and say that 'there lie all those forces which are giving rise to such division'. This is a political temptation and I believe that we must face it honestly.

Let us look at the paradox that is involved in this current situation. The paradox for me is this: I know many members of the Australian Labor Parly and many men particularly in the trade union movement who not only know Communism well but also hate Communism. They have suffered under Communism. They have seen what it has done to them, to their families and to their jobs. They are men whom I like and men whom I trust. But only disaster can follow a programme where men like these are continually and increasingly either being found to be expendable or are forced into positions where they have to go along with the latest Communist offensive.

Unhappily, today, in the Australian Labor Party, there are increasing signs of the fundamental Marx-Leninist objective; the destruction of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Lenin was absolutely explicit on this point. Lenin wrote - and I quote his words exactly - that:

While the workers are building up the instruments of their power in the form of Soviets, it follows that the workers must prepare - ideal 06,cally, politically and technically- for the struggle of the Soviets against parliament, for the dispersal of parliament by the Soviets. But it does nol follow that this dispersal is hindered, or is nol facilitated by the presence of a Soviet opposition within the counter-revolutiona ry parliament.

As one reads the words of Lenin, one looks with some dismay at the bloom of black badges of the Moratorium that have appeared on the lapels of honourable members opposite. ( will discuss (he Moratorium to which they refer in a moment. But let mc make the general point that month after month now we see a drift in our political life in Australia into the polarisation that I deplore so that it is virtually certain that every move that the Government makes at this moment or in the future against the activities of Communists in their designs on Australia or in this direction immediately will be attacked by the Opposition; immediately the word 'Communist' is mooted, abuse follows with laughing, scorn and the suggestion of kicking the can. Is this not what Lenin meant?

Let me continue the quotation:

The experience of many, if not all revolutions shows how very useful during a revolution is the combination of mass action outside the reactionary parliament wilh an opposition sympathetic to (or better still, directly supporting) the revolution inside it.

These are the words of Lenin for his concept of the way in which revolution can be extended. Indeed, Lenin wrote to a young enthusiast from Glasgow who suggested that good revolutionaries should have nothing to do with such reactionary things as parliaments. Lenin wrote to this young man and said.

The writer of the letter is perfectly clear in the point that only workers' Soviets, and not parliament, can be the instrument whereby the aims of the proletariat will be achieved . . . but the writer of the letter does not even ask, it does not occur to him to ask, whether it is possible to bring about the victory of the Soviets over parliament, without getting pro-Soviet politicians into parliament, without disintegrating parliament from within, without working within parliament for the success of the Soviets in their forthcoming task of dispersing parliament.

I believe that this is the incipient tragedy in a situation that sees this far advanced, sharpening of the class struggle and of the suggestion that between the 2 Parties - the alternative Government and the Government - there is this wide gulf of allegiance.

Now, I have called this a tragedy - and it is. But can it be averted? Even if it were to cost us on this side of the Parliament office in government - I speak purely for myself - I believe that it would be worth while to lose office if we could see emerge a strongly anti-Communist Labor Party prepared to have a bi-partisan approach once more on the vital issues which affect Australia's security. Let me repeat that. For me personally, 1 believe that it would be worth while for us even to lose office if in doing so we were sure that there would emerge a strongly anti-Communist Labor Party prepared to have a bi-partisan approach once more on the vital issues that affect Australia's security.

The issues that Vietnam has assumed in this nation, the issue of this Indo-Chinese peninsula, are not the cause but have become the excuse, the emotive source and the pretext for Communist action in Australia. Others are ready to hand if these issues were to pass out of the pages of history - everything from racism to merino rams. But Vietnam today is a global issue. It is being used across the world with tremendous emotion because of the television cameras, the reporters, and the propaganda which is poured out of this unhappy disorder in IndoChina. Even in Scandinavia the riots go on in the universities, on the campuses and in the streets. Why on earth has this occurred in Norway and Sweden if it is not part of a world-wide Communist offensive against the non-Communist world?

Today, across Australia, certain people are at war against our society. Does anyone deny that these people are inside Australia and at war against Australian society? Does anyone deny what the Communists themselves claim? If they are here, what are they doing? Can we put the spotlight on the particular situation or the particular things that the Communists themselves are setting out to do? How do they work?

Well, to me, that too is quite clear. They work for the most part quite openly. In January of 1967, an Australia Day conference was held in Sydney where a blueprint was laid down for the next stage of Communist preparation for this kind of activity that we see in our midst today. High up among the items on this blueprint was the preparation of school children and students - both at high schools and in universities - for the assault of the Communist propaganda. Now, as we come to the day of the Moratorium, we see how far they have progressed in those 2i years. Today there is a well set up organisation within our schools. 'Tabloid Underground', to quote one of the productions, is being disseminated among our children. What kind of literature is going out to our high schools? Let me quote a small extract from a recent issue of 'Tabloid Underground*, referring to the Moratorium. It talks, firstly, about Australia being divided into 2 classes - the boss class and the working class - and says:

Analyse just about any of the big issues - Vietnam, the right to strike, education, law and order - and it boils down to a class question, meaning that is a conflict as to whose interests should come first - the bosses or the working class.

The reason why bosses are in this position is that Australia is virtually a bosses dictatorship-

And so on and so on. It finishes up:

The boss class never have and never will peacefully hand over their wealth to the working class.

So the solution it proposes is:

Bosses have got guns but they haven't got the numbers. We believe that the working people can and one day they will, in alliance with progressive students and other sections of the population, overthrow capitalism, kick out the bosses, seize the wealth that is rightfully theirs and establish Socialism.

That is the kind of propaganda - the kind of bilge - that is being disseminated throughout our schools. It is a direct result of this preparation that was made some 2 years earlier. I could go on and refer to training camps for young guerillas up in the Blue Mountains- - the kind of places where photographs of Lenin, Mao Tse-tung and Ho Chi Minh hold places of honour in the galleries.

But what is the basic strategy? It is one of deliberate and skilful distortion and fraudulent pseudo-authenticity in their literature.

A plethora of books has been printed about the Vietnam campaign. We have found authors of all kinds and description distributing a common line, which goes something like this: First, Vietnam was divided by the Geneva Agreements temporarily pending free elections in 1956. We all agree on that. But then this literature - this is from universities, professors, bishops, parsons, parliamentarians and others - goes on and makes the point that South Vietnam was the first to break these Agreements. It says that South Vietnam broke the Agreements by refusing to hold elections and by introducing foreign troops from the United States of America. The literature goes on to say that the majority of people in Vietnam wanted Communist rule but that the United States espoused nationalistic dictators and imposed another type of regime against the people's will. From that the literature concludes that the Vietcong were those who, in the South, refused to accept this imposed will and are a genuine opposition from within and that therefore the war is really a civil war. The literature claims that the International Control Commission apportioned the greater amount of blame to the South, and that the United States and its allies have been by far the greater transgressors in the use of terror and in attacks on the civilian population.

Honourable members opposite say: 'Hear, hear'. I take it that that is a fair statement of the kind of picture that has been painted for the people of Australia. I believe that it is a fundamentally false picture. It can be proved to be false, not from my opinion, not from American documents or Australian documents, but simply by systematically taking the very authors that these people claim to be accurate and reliable and, by quoting chapter and verse, proving that this kind of thing is fomented nonsense.

If I believe what I have just read out to be true - if I believed the vast majority of those claims to be true - I would join the Moratorium. I not only believe them to be false, however, but I go even further and say that they have been fraudulently made and documented and sold to tens of thousands of Australian people in publications which all too often bear the imprimatur of leading clergymen, parliamentarians, professors, professional men and others who ought to occupy positions of responsibility and trust. Let me illustrate. I have been claiming a lot; so let me give a concrete example. The great majority of these antiGovernment booklets that have appeared on Vietnam use a very telling witness. They accuse the South of obstructing the holding of elections in 1956. They claim that the government of South Vietnam knew that if it dared to hold such elections then the vote for a Communist country under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh would be overwhelming. Their key witness, the man they quote, is General Eisenhower, and they say that his statement was something like this:

I have never met a person knowledgeable on Indo-China who did not agree that had elections been held probably 80% of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh.

That is the quotation made by not one but many of these booklets, indeed the majority of them and all attacking the Government's position. It has been more than enough for thousands of Australians. It has been quoted from Bennelong to Burke, but is it what Ike said?

Listen to the exact truth and see how these academics, clerics and the like have misled the nation. What did Eisenhower say? I shall leave out the exaggerations by people such as Mr Gregory Clark who first wrote for the 'Australian' and then, for the University of New South Wales Study Group, the book 'Vietnam and Australia'. He just added little bits. The reference to 80% voting for the Communists was 'possibly 80%' in the first issue, 'probably 80%' in the next issue and in the last article he wrote it was 'at least 80%'. Leaving that to one side and regarding it as just enthusiasm, let us look at two vital omissions from what Ike actually said. He said: 1 have never met a person knowledgeable on Indo-China who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of fighting-

These last words were omitted by all writers - possibly R0% of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh rather than the Chief of Slate Bao Dai.

Again, the last phrase was omitted by them all. What does this mean? It means first of all that 'as of the time of fighting' referred to the time when Ho Chi Minh was the leader of the national cause of the Vietminh. It was prior to 1954 that Bao Dai, the feudal emperor and puppet of the French, was in control. He was a man very much despised by the entire nationalist cause. It is, of course, true that in those days when the Vietnamese people were united in a nationalist cause 80% of the people would have preferred their leader to the puppet emperor Bao Dai. Rather than vote for Bao Dai, 80% probably would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh, as Eisenhower expressed it.

Surely what has been written is a telling piece of misrepresentation. But the evidence has to be viewed in the way in which this misrepresentation emerged, because it has been taken up by the opponents of the Government's position and it is intended that the reader should imply that the particular quotation referred to the elections to be held in 1956 under the Geneva Accords. The evidence, of course, is quite different, because by this time Ho Chi Minh was nothing like the popular leader that he had been before the fall of Dien Bien Phu. By this time different events had taken place in the North. Firstly, when the country was divided by the Geneva Agreement and the International Control Commission into North and South Vietnam nearly 1 million people chose to leave Ho Chi Minh's sanctuary to go to Saigon rather than live under that regime, compared with fewer than 200,000, most of whom were expatriated to the North because of the terms and conditions of the division. There was a mass exodus away from Ho Chi Minh's paradise. And what a paradise it proved to be on the Communist's own documentation, because this man soon emerged - not as the benign Uncle Ho, the father of the Vietnamese revolution, but as the hard line MaoistMarxist - to impose on the North the kind of conditions that he had seen taking place in the Chinese revolution.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Dr MACKAY - Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was charging that the literature that has poured out in pamphlet and booklet form against our stand in Vietnam contains a large number of deliberate falsifications. I was giving evidence of this and showing the way in which quotations from no less a person than General Eisenhower have been subjected to editing and annotation which has completely changed the meaning of the statement, the time in history to which it referred, and the facts on which it was based. The General was alleged to have staled that the majority of persons in North Vietnam would have chosen to vote for Ho Chi Minh in 1956 had only those elections been held that were foreshadowed by the 1954 Geneva Accords.

However, as I said earlier, the General was referring to a time when the whole nation was fighting against the French and when the puppet Emperor Bao Dai was the unpopular national leader. Ho Chi Minh, in the time that followed between the partition of Vietnam and the proposed time for the elections in 1956 had indeed perpetrated in North Vietnam an excessive zeal as a Maoist Communist that brought the whole party into revolt. Let me quote 1 or 2 witnesses. Bernard Fall, who is eagerly quoted by many who oppose the Government's attitude on Vietnam, wrote in an article 'Problems of Communism' published in July-August 1965 the following passage which appears on page 18:

Exact figures remain unavailable, but the number of peasants killed during the North Vietnamese land reform' drives from 1954 to 1956 is variously estimated at between 50,000 and 100,000.

Hoang Van Chi wrote in his book 'From Colonialism to Communism' the following passage which appears on page 211:

Evidently, both Ho and Mao anticipated a strong public reaction against their land Reform policy and concluded that only a deliberate excess of terror would annihilate that reaction . . . the party recommended an excess of violence . . Only when the campaign was all over did it express regret for its failure to honour this or that promise.

The following passage appears in that same book on page 166:

The total number of victims in this campaign has never been made public, but if we are to believe M. Gerard Tongas, a French professor who remained in Hanoi up to 1959, and who claims to have accurate information, this indescribable butchery resulted in one hundred thousand deaths.

The same authors pointed out that the persons butchered were not by any means real landlords but were even elected as such from members of the Lao-Dong or Communist Peoples Party in that area because it was necessary to go through the motions of the same kind of annihilation of landlords as had been seen in China. Time prevents my going on further to demonstrate the way in which Ho Chi Minh had fallen from grace and how the people were disillusioned about his purposes and so the great numbers fled to the south. There is no further time for an analysis of that hoax on the Australian people, but let me quote 1 further classic case. T refer to the falsified horrific colour photographs of maimed children. In particular I refer to the document 'The Children of Vietnam', a 'Ramparts' special edition, frequently distributed over the signature of clergymen and in which totally dishonest photographs of children who are alleged to bc the victims of American atrocities are reproduced. The Department of External Affairs and others have analysed the evidence and traced the photographs to their origin. Perhaps it would be as well for me to quote the findings of the Department on this issue. One photograph of an alleged victim of US brutality is described in this way:

The background note on the original photograph was 'Two orphan children enjoy a meal of bulgar wheat and rice at the National Orphanage 10 miles south of Saigon. The boy has been at the orphanage but a short time. The Viet Cong had thrown a hand grenade into the bus in which he was riding with his mother and father. Both parents were killed while the boy suffered shrapnel wounds in the head.'

Yet the publication alleged the exact opposite. This falsification of evidence has been perpetrated on the Australian public all too often. So one could go on producing evidence after evidence. But tomorrow there is to be a Moratorium. It is feared that there will be violence. Why should there be violence, I am asked, when people such as the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) say: 'Please do not let us have violence. Let us just create all the conditions of violence, all the emotional stirring up, and all the means whereby there will be a reaction by the people against the usurpation of their rights, and if there is any violence blame the police and call them Fascist pigs.'

I remember seeing on television the Reverend Ted Noffs of the Wayside Chapel speaking to university students in Sydney before they went on their most violent crusade of last year. He spoke to them in these terms: 'I appeal to you young people - and my appeal may sound strange in the light of what you are planning to do this afternoon - but I appeal to you to go out and be more radical in your behaviour than you have ever been in your lives before. Only thus will we draw attention to this iniquitous war and this iniquitous legislation.' This is the kind of stirring up that is going on. Our young people are being prodded into situations where their emotions will be aroused, where violence must ensue, and where there is inevitably a clash with law and order or with ordinary decent citizens who do not want to see their rights usurped.

An advertisement appeared in the national Press today. It stated over a list of signatories: 'The time for talking is past'. Mark the words: 'We must do more than merely voice our dissent. Join in action to end the war'. What does this mean? Does it mean the same thing as those writers who told the children in the State secondary school: The bosses have guns. They are the ones who are in control, and they will not give away their control peacefully. Let us get stuck into it and see that the ordinary people take control.' What does it mean if it does not mean violent revolution?

Who is organising this Moratorium? The speakers put down for the Yarra Bank in Melbourne tomorrow include Lawrie

Carmichael. I do not have to state that man's position in the national executive of the Communist Party. Also to speak is Michael Hyde from the Monash Labor Club. 1 wish I had time to quote from that club's effusions in print and to demonstrate how it has called on people for violence, and achieved it. At the present moment persons who are on the executive of the Moratorium Committee are in gaol because of violence stimulated by articles published in the Monash Labor Club's journal. The honourable member for Lalor also stands amongst the people who will speak. I ask: ls it not true that a member of the secretariat of this Vietnam Moratorium Campaign is currently awaiting trial on criminal charges for damaging windows in public and company offices in Melbourne? His name is Edward James Blume-Poulton. He and others carried out orders that were given to what is called the 'Australian Liberation Army'. These are frightening terms. We have heard them before. Who and what is it liberating in Australia? A clear call has been made to ordinary persons to regard themselves as the oppressed, to sharpen the class struggle, to ferment other grievances, thus leading people into a violent revolution.

I could go on. but I must close by stating that I believe the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign is an imported tactic designed to violate the processes of Parliamentary democracy by the use of sectional pressures of disruption and threats of force. It pays no regard to the interests of Australia's security or the freedom of small' countries under bitter attack in Indo-China. It is clearly intended to reinforce the world wide Communist offensive against the West. We on this side of the House have no territorial claims in Indo-China. We seek no bases. We seek only the freedom of these people so that they can stand free and determine their own future. It is the expressed intention of Australia's enemies to bring about increasing national crises so that the Government, the law and the police will be brought under attack and conditions of anarchy will prevail1. We urge all true Australians to do all in their power to ensure that the Moratorium does not succeed, that the areas of its activities are not attended, and that we give as little comfort and aid to our enemies as possible.

Suggest corrections