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, 14 September 1971
Page: 1258

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett (MARANOA, QUEENSLAND) - Order: There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr JARMAN - 1 am well aware that certain members of the Opposition interrupt a speech when they realise they are not getting very good publicity from it I have no doubt. No doubt the honourable member who raised the point of order will try this again to cut down my time. The Australian electors can draw their own conclusions from these tactics. As I said, 1 know they try to dissociate themselves from violent action by the demonstrators but 1 say to honourable members opposite: 'Once you align yourselves with these people it is difficult to wash your hands of the consequences. If you play with dirt some of it is sure to come away on your hands and it is only natural that the Australian electorate will consider you culpable'. The electors will use the only means available to them and they will vote against the Opposition at the next election.

Since Mr Hawke was elected President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions with the support of the extreme left wing we have seen a complete reversal of the policy of his predecessor, Albert Monk, who steadfastly held that there should be no involvement by trade unions in purely political strikes. There are inherent dangers when one country endeavours to dictate to another country how it should run its internal affairs. Yet Mr Hawke seems to believe that he can sit in his office in the Tades Hall in Melbourne and not only dictate to Australians whether or not they should see a particular sporting event but also to dictate to other countries how they should run their affairs.

Before the rugby tour he threatened international airlines with the loss of their franchise in Australia. He threatened a ban on the internal airlines if they dared fly the Springboks. He threatened a ban on services and refreshments to hotels and motels in which the Springboks stayed. What son of a democracy does he think this country is? He took this action in defiance of the wish of 85 per cent of the Australian people that the rugby tour should go on and in defiance of the decision of the duly elected Government that the tour should go on.

Is it any wonder that the Australian people fear the power that this man has taken unto himself? If we claim the right to dictate how the South Africans should handle their internal problems, cannot other countries by the same premise place boycotts and sanctions on Australia because they might claim that they do not like the way we treat our Aboriginals or that they do not like our immigration policy? Australians would be the first to object to such a situation and one cannot blame the South Africans for reacting in a similar way.

The friendship of South Africa is important to Australia. With England going into the European Common Market it is not only important that we sell wheat to Communist China, about which the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has such an obsession, but it is also important that we find new trade outlets elsewhere, including South Africa. The actions of Mr Hawke and his unions and the actions of the demonstrators are hardly likely to win us friends in that country. But there are other reasons why Australia needs a friendly non-Communist government in South Africa.

The Cape route is our main trade lifeline with Europe. Establishment of Soviet naval bases on a Communist African shore or a government in South Africa sympathetic to the cause of Communist powers would enable our economic jugular vein to be cut if the Communist powers decided to step up the Cold War, and we must have short memories indeed if we forget the Russian blockade of Berlin. Communist China has troops and engineers in Tanzania ostensibly to build a railway line, and Chinese Commuist subversion, terror, investment and influence in Zambia, Uganda, the Congo and Guinea are a continuing threat to any hopes of African democracy. It is not surprising that Russia and China would like to have a black dominated government in South Africa over which they could exercise the same strong influence as they do in other black African countries. So white antiCommunist South Africa must be got rid of, and it is aimed to do this in 2 ways. First, South Africa must be discredited in the eyes of the world, and the Communists are using South Africa's policy of apartheid to achieve this. Their second tactic is to employ terrorist activities similar to the ones which they themselves have found so successful in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Whilst in Rhodesia I held in my hands a Chinese mortar and other weapons captured from the terrorists, which were exactly the same as those I had seen and held in my hands in Vietnam which had been captured from the North Vietnamese. In South Africa I saw photographs of Mao Tse-tung, the little Red Book and various travel documents which proved that terrorists had been taken from Africa to China, Russia and Communist East Europe for training in terrorist activities. I have photographs here which clearly prove this, and I can show them to any honourable member if he wishes to see them later. We as Australians will ignore these things at our peril. It is true that South Africa does not have democracy in the form in which we practise it in Australia, but then neither do Russia and China and half the other countries of the world. There is no doubt that the result of the introduction of one man one vote in South Africa would result in immediate black rule for that country and many fear that this would be followed by inter-racial slaughter and inter-tribal slaughter, such as has happened in the Congo, Biafra and other African countries.

In any event, there undoubtedly would be in South Africa a government over which the Communist powers could exercise greater control than at present, and I submit that this would not be in Australia's interest. That the new regime would be a dictatorship seems likely as none of the African states, once given democracy, have retained it for long; most are now dictatorships.

South Africa has decided on a policy of separate development as an answer to its problems. It would not be my answer, and it is the exact opposite to the policy we are implementing in New Guinea. But New Guinea is not our country. We can walk out and leave the people of New Guinea to work out their own solutions to their problems. But to the white people of South Africa the Republic is their country; the ancestors of some have lived there approximately for 400 years. They cannot leave without migrating to a foreign land. They think that they have found a solution to their problem, and it is their problem. If they are wrong they will suffer, not us. After spending 3 weeks in that country I would not presume to tell the people how they should solve the problem. How much less competent to do so are Mr Hawke and other left wing demonstrators who have never bothered to make the effort to go to South Africa to see for themselves.

Sitting suspended from 5.54 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed.)

Suggest corrections