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
Tuesday, 19 September 1972
Page: 951


Senator CARRICK - During the total 54 years of the existence of the nation of Yugoslavia, the land of the southern Slavs, that country has had an unfortunate, bitter, tragic and violent history. By the very nature of its creation and the sustaining of its integral parts, so that tragedy and that violence have been perpetuated. Ft was born in 1918-19 out of the bitterness and defeat of war in the very cockpit of the Balkans where the war had started and where the war had festered. It was then a nation carved up out of a series of nations. It was hacked out of part of AustriaHungary as part of the price of defeat. It was bound together with Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia, and it brought together groups which had been subjected to the old Ottoman Empire.

It was from the very first utterly heterogeneous and never likely to succeed because there were together in it at least 6 main divisions of people and groups of people who were not only different in race and in ethnic characteristics but also different in language, religion, history and, in terms of the provinces, in geography. They were different even in styles of writing, so that communication in itself was very difficult. It brought together, of course, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina. Serbia and Macedonia. It brought together in that group Croatia which had had a long history of 1,200 years of seeking independence. It had a tremendous spirit of independence. Today Yugoslavia has a population of less than 19 million. Not only is it heterogeneous and predisposed to the violence of struggle but also it is surrounded by 7 other nations with all sorts of osmotic pressures upon it. Therefore, we must understand it. We must understand that it is also one of the most impoverished countries of Europe, one of the low-living-standard countries in which there are extremes in terms of geography, climate and rural ability. It was created as a monarchy and the monarch, King Alexander, quickly moved into a situation of absolute monarchy.

Right from the beginning Croatia felt aggrieved, not only because it had lost its independence but also because it believed that, from its own capital of Zagreb, it was being robbed of its financial resources and its treasure and that the money and treasure were being brought to Belgrade, the centre which was regarded as the Serbian centre. Over the 54 years there has always been this tremendous conflict between the 2 capitals - Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, and Belgrade, which is regarded by the Croats as being the Serbian centre and which was regarded as robbing them of their treasure and bringing about a situation of inequality. This could be regarded as an almost federalstate relationship, if it were not so tragic. In addition to this, in 1928, as was described today, there was the tragic murder inside the Parliament in Belgrade of Stjepan Radic who was the leader of the Croatian rural peasant party. He was murdered by a Serbian deputy. This triggered off bitterness and hatreds which gave rise to the development of the Ustasha and to the development of a number of groups of Croatian freedom fighters. Then, of course, in 1934 King Alexander was assassinated in Marseilles. It was alleged that a Croat was the assassin, although that was never proved. There developed under Colonel Pavelic the Ustasha. I think that the word has been described as meaning rise up, uprising, get going, get up - signifying, really a call to the freedom of Croatia. That call to freedom was complicated and perverted by the fact that in 1941 Italy and Germany overran this tragic country again and then carved it up again into a group of countries, handing them out to the people around - giving a part to Bulgaria and so on, and giving to Croatia a form of independence during those World War IT years. In that period developed a series of pressures the results of which still go on. Of course, there was the Ustasha-


Senator O'Byrne - Mihailovic and Pavelic were old fascists.


Senator CARRICK - I shall come to this because this is the key. There is no doubt in the wide world that Pavelic was a fascist leader, a neo-nazi if you like. He was an extreme rightist and a collaborator with the nazis. That is beyond any doubt in the world.


Senator O'Byrne - Those in Australia should be sent back home.


Senator CARRICK - I do not seek to justify him: I seek to explain. At the same time there were 2 other groups of independence fighters. One was led by a Serb, Mihailovic, who led the Chetniks. Mihailovic was anti-communist and, I think, antifascist. In fact I think that he was both of those things. He fought the insurgents. At the same time Tito, who had been a prisoner of war of the Russians and who married a Russian - and who was a Croat - came into the hills and led the Tito partisans. There were 2 main groups of people fighting for freedom. In the end, when the axis powers had been defeated, Tito and his forces turned on the Chetniks and on Mihailovic. I believe that history will regret the decision of the allies to turn their backs on Mihailovic. I think that history will regret the decision of the allies to turn their back on the non-communists and in fact virtually by that handed over Mihailovic and also the Croat independent army to Tito, and of course, to the bloody murders about which Senator Hannan has talked.


Senator O'Byrne - You are whistling against the wind.


Senator CARRICK - If people who are standing for their principles and fighting against collectivists are handed over to bloody murder, if the tide of the Labor Party is in favour of the mass execution of hundreds of thousands of people whose only crime is that they believed in the independenceof their country, I will go on whistling against the wind. I will want no part of the socialist hurricane which the Labor Party seeks to describe. Let us have no doubt about that at all because it is interesting that the same phenomenon occurs. When I mention communists that, by silence, is applauded. When I mention a non-communist, Mihailovic, he is to be denigrated. Let us make this quite clear: We stand for the right of people to fight for freedom. Incidentally, in the same speech as I have quoted, Dr Cairns said that everybody was entitled to fight for the right of independence, but not the Croatians because if they succeeded in gaining their independence they would set up a fascist state. Apparently it is perfectly all right to have a communist state but not a fascist state. Here indeed is the dilemma of the Labor Party.


Senator Gietzelt - We will send you to Ulster.


Senator CARRICK - Just in case honourable senators opposite are tender on this matter, it is worth bearing in mind what Dr Cairns said in his interview on the programme 'AM' on 11th September last. It is very relevant to this debate. He was asked about the aims of some extremists and whether they were legitimate. He said:

I did say that: I think that the aims of some extremists are quite legitimate aims--

It is worth finding out what he means by some extremists' - that there is something legitimate about wanting to set up an independent government, self determination for a people, there's something legitimate about saying that the Palestinian Arabs have got to get a fair go and can't be left in poverty the way they are - neglected by everybody. There's something legitimate about that, but there's nothing legitimate about terrorism--

And I agree with that -

Identified to those aims;

Then he said: there's nothing legitimate about the Croatians who want independence, in fact identifying themselves with a fascist government - to put into that space where independence would come would be no justification for a fascist government in Croatia.

If we are going to say: 'You can only be independent if your goal is the same as mine', that is not independence, that is dragooning by the left, and that is what we are entirely opposed to. That is double standards, and it is the thing that I have been opposed to.


Senator Georges - Are you accepting the fascist right to exist?


Senator CARRICK - I accept the right of people to self determination. I accept the right of socialists and the right of communists to self determination if people within a country, by their vote, want those people to survive. If people want a fascist-type government and can prove it by the ballot box, then that is their right, I have sketched to the Senate the tragic history up to 1948 when Tito moved his country a little away from the total Iron Curtain to become a communist country which is more a satellite, more independent.

I now must move to the situation that I think Senator Hannan described. The present age of Tito, the likelihood that he will not go on in his government for long and the fact that there is in Yugoslavia today a number of people seeking to succeed him are all things which have triggered off a series of drives throughout the world from various directions to achieve a different kind of government in Yugoslavia. The primary drive is the drive by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, through its agents and through its influence, to achieve as the next leader of Yugoslavia a leader who will make Yugoslavia a total captive of Russia - a captive of the Iron Curtain. That is going on at the moment with all sorts of pressures. Apparently to the Australian Labor Party there is nothing wrong with that because it is being done by the Soviet Union. As I say, this drive to achieve change is going on.

Outside the area generally, from Albania are coming other communist-type pressures - the Peking type communist pressure. From outside are coming people who followed Mihailovic in the past and who want to see a non-communist government in Yugoslavia. They are entitled to their views, but they are not entitled to use violence in our country. Outside are other Croats who want to see Croatian independence. This is happening just as there are struggles in the Middle East, Greece and Ireland. All these people are seeking their forms of self-government. It is against that background of a struggle for the future of Yugoslavia that there are groups of people, not only in Australia but throughout the world today, rising and seeking to go to Yugoslavia to express their views in order to achieve a particular goal. Rightly or wrongly, many Yugoslavs living in Australia today believe that the Yugoslav Embassy and the Yugoslav ConsulatesGeneral are not only diplomatic organisations but also agents for their country in a way that goes beyond the diplomatic role. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that the consulates and the embassies act in a form of surveillance of the non-communists and that there is presure and duress from the Yugoslav embassies and consulates. That is part of the reason, rightly or wrongly, why reactions occur in this regard.

I make it quite clear that I reject the idea that anybody has the right to commit violence against embassies or consulates, or against anybody. I deplore the planting of the bombs.


Senator Georges - They can stand with placards and make other forms of protest though.


Senator CARRICK - They have the full right of lawful protest in this country. They have the full right in Double Bay to protest lawfully against the Yugoslav consulate and to express their views in this way. They have no right at all to physical violence, wounding or murder. That is absolutely clear.


Senator Georges - Does the honourable senator mean that they still have the right to protest if they stand in the middle of the road and impede traffic.


Senator CARRICK - Really, I will not, however unwillingly, justify Senator Georges in his habit of preferring a supine position, whether in Brisbane or in the Senate. Nor do 1 justify Dr Cairns. No, the rule of law, which is a tender thing when discussed in relation to Canberra ordinances - the devil can cite scripture for his purpose - is no principle at all when it suits the Labor Party.


Senator Georges - You are too rigid.


Senator CARRICK - A law is flexible for the Labor Party when that law bends to suit its purpose. Let us make it quite clear: The rule of law in the kind of democracy that we follow is one that, being made in this Parliament, is a charge upon every member of this Parliament to obey. The right of every member of this Parliament is to try from the benches here, or from the Yarra bank in Melbourne or from the Domain in Sydney, if honourable senators like, to persuade sufficient people to his or her view. If they fail to do that, they should observe the rule of law or get out of Parliament. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot bring the techniques of anarchy and revolution inside the Parliament.

We are dealing with the vital principle for which this Senate exists. This Senate exists to uphold 2 things. They are the rule of law as laid down by the Parliament and the rule of law as upheld by an independent judiciary.


Senator Georges - And also to pass a just law.


Senator CARRICK - The test of a just law is that it has been passed by the Parliament and upheld by the judiciary. Honourable senators opposite who are trying to interject cannot have it both ways. Let us make it quite clear: The concept of anarchy which is inherent in everything that the Labor Party does is this: I will break a law if it does not suit me. But if people did their own thing and broke the laws that did not suit them, there would be no law at all. The real test of the lawlessness of the Labor Party is that it is born of its frustration that it has been struggling for years to persuade people to its point of view and has failed. The Labor Party has failed because the majority at the ballot box and the majority in this Parliament make the law. If there is any message out of the bombings and the violence, I make this plea to both sides of the Senate--


Senator O'Byrne - It is about time you got back to the bombing last Saturday where people were injured.


Senator Greenwood - That is not relevant.


Senator O'Byrne - It has been a lot of hogwash so far.


Senator CARRICK - Who would know more about hogwash than the honourable senator who interjects, and who would have a closer personal relationship with it. I personally inspected the bombing on Saturday and I have first hand knowledge about that bombing. If the Labor Party which is seeking this reference is sincere, inherent in this motion is that the Labor Party is calling upon people in Australia, including Croats, Serbs, Macedonians and other Australians and members of the Labor Party, to obey the rule of law. That is inherent in this motion. The reason why the Labor Party has put this motion before the Senate is, it says, to find out whether people are disobeying the rule of law and, if they are, to punish them. If we apply the Labor Party's test and suppose that these miscreants do not agree with the law and are doing their things, are they right according to that test? Should they be let off?


Senator Georges - No! You are missing the whole point.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Order!


Senator Georges - How can he pervert it? How can he twist it and turn it?


Senator CARRICK - I am delighted that Senator Georges should have risen from his position in the streets of Brisbane and said this. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. The rule of law is there. If Opposition members are sincere in this matter, they will go from here tonight and set an example to the people of Australia by saying that, whatever the law is for the time being, they will obey it. If they break a law and if they do not call on others to obey the law, they are setting the same example of lawlessness which, by their silence for 20 years, they have set inside the trade unions. If we are to have true leadership against violence in this country, I challenge the Labor Party to give leadership in nonviolence in the trade unions, in the streets and in this Parliament. There is only one way in which the Opposition will do that. That is to accept the principle that if a law is validly made and is upheld by the courts as validly made, it must be the leader in setting the example of following that law. If not, a motion of this kind coming before the Parliament is arrant humbug.







Suggest corrections