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
Friday, 25 September 1970

Mr DALY (Grayndler) - In my long experience in this Parliament the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) is the only speaker I have seen display nervousness before I started my speech.I may tell a few jokes today and he will be the butt of them. I do hope he enjoys them. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) certainly has a weird collection of supporters. Let us look at the honourable member for La Trobe. He criticised statements made in regard to the army service of a man convicted of murder following national service. The man who made those statements was a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Does the honourable member say the judge should be hauled before a royal commission simply because he differs with a fanatic like the honourable member for La Trobe? Of course he should not.

Let us look at it another way. When I look at the honourable member for La Trobe I would be inclined to take a bit of notice of him but for the fact that I read about him in the newspapers now and again. Let me read the following article in the 'Australian' of 22nd April 1970:

The Liberal Party was not inspiring young people in Australia, Mr R. Winnel, a 22-year-old party branch president, said yesterday.

People like Jess (Mr J. D. Jess, the Victorian MHR) can rave on about the red bogey, but young people will not swallow it,' said Mr Winnel.

And neither will the older people. Let us hear what the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) thinks of the honourable member for La Trobe. He is quoted as saying this in the 'Australian' on 6th January 1970:

Mr Jesssees himself as a knight in shining armour doing his bit, but not being able to substantiate any allegations.

When you look at it that is a wise statement from that intelligent Minister for the Navy. After all, who are we to take notice of the men who know him or those of us who put up with his ravings here? The men who know him understand him. Let us hear him on all those protesters and all these things. In the 'Herald' on 20th June 1968 the following article appears:

Protesters 'not wanted in the Army.'

A man should not have been forced into the Army when he had no intention of obeying orders, Mr Jess, MHR, said today.

Let us put it in round figures. The honourable member spent too much trouble looking at the lovely redhead out the front the other day to pay due attention to a debate of this nature.

Let us look at the other weird supporter of the Government on this motion. Shortly before the election of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to that office the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) said:

Not even in the lowly position of. Deputy Whip will I serve under this Prime Minister. I have no confidence in bim.

Today who is supporting the Prime Minister? It is the greatest fanatic in the nation - the person who would not serve under him in the office of Deputy Whip.

The Leader of the Opposition should treat the motion with the contempt it deserves. What has he done? He has given advice to people who are now being conscripted under this Government for a war in which this nation should never have been engaged. He has given a lead to young men who are expected to die in the paddy fields of Vietnam in a war that this Government put on for dollars instead of for the salvation of Australia. The real reason why we are in Vietnam is that we are all the way with LBJ. The Government wanted trade and commerce and all these things, and men are dying there for them. Boys are being conscripted at a time when the Government knows our security is not in danger and when Americans walk past them in thousands on their way home leaving Australians to die and fight their battle. Good luck to the Leader of the Opposition for giving advice on this question. As honourable members opposite know, it is sound advice. They know also that the CMF offers no solution to the problem of service in Vietnam. Men who go into it are liable for service there. There is no law to say they will not. So that type of argument cannot be put up.

Anyone would think that members ot the Labor Party were the only ones who had anything to say about law and order and obeying the law of the country. I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McCwen) is in the chamber because he was here during the time of the great white father. Sir Robert Menzies - the founder of the Liberal Party;the man who brought most of the honourable member's opposite into this Parliament. But now he has gone and they will very shortly follow him. This is what the Leader of the Opposition, as Sir Robert Menzies then was, had to say when speaking on the Banking Bill on 23rd October 1947:

It. therefore, becomes the duly of His Majesty's Opposition, and every member of it, not merely to oppose this measure in Parliament with all the force of the arguments at their command, but also to exhaust every effort to rouse the people outside the Parliament to a tremendous defence of their own liberties and rights. If this means, as of course it does mean, a division of the people at a time like this, and in the circumstances which will give rise to bitterness and weaken the national effort, the sin will rest grievously upon the heads of Ministers and nobody else.

Those words outline this Government's responsibility today in regard to Vietnam. The Government has divided the nation. Sir Robert Menzies in 1947 stimulated the whole country, as we all know, on the banking Bills. He was joined by members of the Country Party. On every corner, on every doorstep, people were rising against certain legislation, irrespective of the law or the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives. Let us now examine the views of the Country Party. The late Sir Earle Page, founder of the Country Party, when speaking on the Banking Bill, was reported in the 'Daily Telegraph' on 30th October 1947 as saying:

The Bank Bill was the most immoral product . . . We shall fight this Communistic ramp against individual freedom by every means in our power - political, legal, constitutional and physical.

These were the words of the then Leader of the Country Party. He was endeavouring to rouse the people outside the Parliament. In days gone by they took it a step further; they formed their own army in the New Guard. If the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) was not a member of it, at least he was sympathetic with it. So it can be seen that this is the back- groundtothethinkingofthesepeople.

Let us have a look at the Government that says it will maintain law and order and which criticises the Leader of the Opposition for this judgment. The other day the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) asked a question in this Parliament. He wanted to know what members of the Ministry had complied with the law by stating the amount they had spent in their election campaigns, as is required by the provisions of the Electoral Act. Failure to comply with the law is subject to penalty. We find that 9 members of the Ministry have not complied with that provision of the Act. Included amongst those 9 is the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes), the man who is now putting men into gaol at this stage. Even he has not complied with the law. We find also that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden), who rounds people up like cattle to put them into gaol, has not complied with the law. Other members of the Ministry who have not fulfilled this requirement are the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme), the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen), the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) and the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) - a collection of law breakers impressing law and order on the community. Did honourable members ever hear anything worse? Now, because the Government is in disarray, it is hammering at the Opposition on this issue.

Let us look at this old story of the Liberal Party in relation to flags. It is guilt by association. Honourable members will remember that a few years ago if a soldier marched on Anzac Day with a Communist alongside him the Liberals would designate him a Communist. I attended the Moratorium demonstration in front of this House the other day. I was interested to see how many members of the Liberal Party, their staffs and supporters turned up. Amongst other things, I was interested also in the success of the Moratorium. I have here a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Whitlam, apparently speaking to one of my colleagues. I. also see a rather good picture of myself standing on the other side of the road, but I was a long way from where Mr Whitlam was standing. This is the photograph that the honourable member for La Trobe produced. As I stood there someone passed carrying a flag, which I was told was the Vietcong flag. I decided to follow to see who was carrying the Vietcong flag. I was surprised to see that he was an intelligent, well dressed, nice, smart type of chap. So I said to someone standing near me: 'Who would that be?' He said: 'He is a well known member of the Liberal Party. He is so excited and enthusiastic about it that he got carried away. But we hope he will not do himself any harm although it might help to damage the Party.' These are the people who tell us that everybody associated with it today is affiliated with the Labor Party or something else.

Do honourable members opposite mean to say that if that flag had been raised in Civic Centre the Leader of the Opposition should have gone somewhere else? Of course, he should not. I have another picture here with all kinds of people in h. Here is one of the Leader of the Opposition speaking outside Parliament House - these are the pictures that the Government says it will use - and right in the front row is a gentleman wearing a clerical collar. Do they suggest that he is a Communist, an undercover person or anything of that nature? Does the honourable member for La Trobe think so?

Mr Cohen - Who was he?

Mr DALY - I do not know who he is, but he looks like one of my faith and he looks a very intelligent type. If we pick out some other pictures taken at the front of Parliament House what do we see? The absurdity of the Government's allegation is shown by the fact that in these pictures which were taken - quite wrongly by the News and Information Bureau for political purposes - we find the personal assistant to the Prime Minister, Mr W. Arthur, shown with demonstrators carrying placards saying: 'Abolish conscription'; 'Withdraw all troops now'; 'Withdraw support for the Saigon regime'. In another picture the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) is shown with Mr Arthur in the same group of demonstrators. If the Vietcong flag had been carried past them at a given lime, under the Government's regulations they ought to be doing time because they are Vietcong spies or something to that effect. This is the old story of guilt by association again. I have here a picture of the Leader of the Opposition with the secretary to one of the most prominent Government members. I know that the Vietcong flag passed by him as he stood there. Is the Minister going to sack him? If Labor men are guilty because a flag happens to be in the same city as they are, why should the Liberal Party escape its responsibilities in this matter?

I say to the honourable member for La Trobe that this kind of proof is stupidity of the highest calibre. If men are to be condemned for this type of thing, the sooner we get rid of security police and the Government that tolerates this conduct at demonstrations, the better it will be for democracy in this country. The Liberals have a lot to say about Labor Party associations and they produce photographs. Let me produce one or two others for their benefit. I saw the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on television the other night. I have here a copy of the Canberra Times' of 8th November 1967 which shows a picture of the Soviet Ambassador to Australia, Mr N. Tarakamov, and the charming Minister for Defence with their glasses tilted, full of vodka or rich red wine, toasting the 50th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. The article says:

Mr Fraserwas among guests who attended a lunchtime reception at the Russian Embassy yesterday.

There they were, toasting the revolution: Good luck to the future. Away with the slaves to the salt mines of Siberia.' Over a vodka or a rich red wine all differences between Liberalism and Communism were buried. If the people who were 100 or 200 yards from the Leader of the Opposition contaminated him with the Vietcong flag, it is time for the internment camp for the Minister for Defence. So let us have no more of this rot about guilt by association.

Let us go into a few other things. We do not hear any more about the occasion when a Soviet diplomat addressed the Woden Valley Branch of the Liberal Party. What did that make members of that branch? What would have happened if he had gone to a Labor Branch? Would we not have seen the successor to W. C. Wentworth - in repose here at the present time - in uproar? Of course we would. These are the things they do. Let us have a look at the Country Party. I wonder whether, when the honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) signed the wheat agreement in Peking, the hammer and sickle was hauled down. Or did he sit under it and enjoy what was going to come to the Country Party? When the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) sat in the Kremlin in Moscow recently and talked glibly about the future of trade with that country, did he sit under the red flag or did it become respectable? Surely he would not sit under a red flag. I know he was looking for Communist gold but at the same time is it not disreputable to have a read flag flying over his head - a hammer and sickle? When the Government's representatives sit in Peking now to negotiate agreements are they contaminated when the red flag goes up? Of course they are not, because the Country Party does not care what it does as long as it trades. Principles go overboard as long as these things can happen to their Party and to those around them. So let us have no more of this humbug of guilt by association. We cannot help who walks around with any kind of flag. To say that some people are allied with a particular philosophy because they are seen at a demonstration at which some type of flag is being carried is probably just as silly as saying that the red flag should be pulled down in the Kremlin and other places. These things do not happen.

The argument that has been brought forward by honourable members opposite will not hold water. This debate has been forced on the Government by some fanatics who realise that there is no substance in the charges that have been made. 1 ask honourable members opposite who are constantly accusing the Labor Party of being allied with Communism and the Vietcong why it is that this Government trades with all these people. If the Vietcong flag is such a shameful thing - and honourable members opposite think it is - why does the Government sell wheat to China which in many cases, as honourable members opposite know, is going to the Vietcong? Why does the member for Rhodesia tolerate it? Why do we not hear the honourable member for La Trobe in a violent, fanatical outburst condemning these things if they are se wrOn:? It is because he knows that a lot of the wheat that Australia sells to China is going to feed the Vietcong and others.

But principles do not matter when Government supporters are attacking the Labor Parry and its Leader. The present Leader of the Opposition is no different from those who have gone before him. Until the day he died Mr Chifley was called a Communist in this Parliament by some members opposite. The only time anything good is said about a Labor Party Leader is when he is dead. That is when the Press tells the nation what a wonderful leader it has lost. It is no different today. We on this side of the House know that this motion has been brought up in order that honourable members opposite may attempt to destroy a person whom they know will be the next Prime Minister of this country. It is the fact that this is imminent that is making them so desperate today. They realise at long last, even on issues like this, that if members of the Government do not hang together they will hang separately. That is beyond doubt and that is the reason this is happening today.

I would like the Minister for Trade to tell us whether he thinks he should continue to go to Russia and other Communist countries when his Party reacts so violently to those people in the community who support a cause with which he does not agree politically? Does he think he should continue to sign trade agreements with the Soviet bloc when his Party holds this point of view? We on this side think we should trade with everybody, but on the other side of the Parliament members condemn the people with whom they trade and condemn us on this side by implying that we are allied with those people. At the same time they seek to get all the monetary rewards they possibly can. I mention these matters in order that the honourable member for La Trobe may learn well that greater men than he in this Parliament have made accusations about the affiliations of other honourable members and later have had to apologise. He goes very close to that from time to time. lt has been said that the Leader of the Opposition is inciting mutiny. Of course be is not. Anyhow, if he were, what would this Government do about it? Men at Garden Island and members of the Royal Australian Air Force mutinied recently, but nobody has been hanged from the yardarm. There is no substance in the charge made by honourable members opposite, and they know it. I do not wish to say more on this issue at this stage. I believe the Government stands condemned for its guilt by association conduct and for its taking of photographs which have been brought into this Parliament by fanatics in order to bolster up a dying administration. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition and other members on this side of the Parliament will speak again against the most infamous war of our time, that is, the war in Vietnam. If the Leader of the Opposition saves only 1 life by his actions, he will have made a magnificent contribution to the welfare of this country. We on this side of the Parliament stand firmly behind him in his campaign to end conscription and to make sure that boys will not be dragged from their homes to fight for a cause which has no connection with this country. I hope that when honourable members opposite are again taking photographs they will be certain to photograph also some of the boys who are coming back from the Vietnam war and will remember those who do not come back. The Government is responsible for the disunity that exists in the community because of the Vietnam war, from which our troops should be withdrawn immediately. 1 commend the Leader of the Opposition on the attitude he has taken. I hope we will have no more motions of this kind. They are of no credit to the Government.

Suggest corrections