0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page i
Bookhouse
Speaking for Australia
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page ii
Bookhouse
For our families— Daniele, Nathalie and Alexander Kemp and Craig, Ben, Kate and Alice Collins
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page iii
Bookhouse
Speaking for
Australia PARLIAMENTARY
SPEECHES THAT SHAPED OUR NATION
Edited by Rod Kemp and Marion Stanton
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page iv
Bookhouse
All author royalties from this book have been donated to the Federal Parliamentary Library
First published in 2004 Copyright © Rod Kemp and Marion Stanton 2004 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10 per cent of this book, whichever is the greater, to be photocopied by any educational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educational institution (or body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act. Allen & Unwin 83 Alexander Street Crows Nest NSW 2065 Australia Phone: (61 2) 8425 0100 Fax: (61 2) 9906 2218 Email:
[email protected] Web: www.allenandunwin.com National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Speaking for Australia : parliamentary speeches that shaped our nation. Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 1 74114 430 2. 1. Australia - Parliament. 2. Speeches, addresses, etc., Australian. 3. Australia - Politics and government. I. Kemp, Rod (Charles Roderick), 1944– . II. Stanton, Marion. 320.994 Set in 9/9.75 pt New Baskerville by Bookhouse, Sydney Printed by Ligare, Sydney 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page v
Bookhouse
Foreword
T
his is the first book to bring together many of the significant speeches made in the Commonwealth parliament during the last 100 and more years. So many of the decisions that changed this nation were first announced and debated in parliament, and so many of Australia’s triumphs and disasters were celebrated or mourned there. This selection of speeches will give stimulus and pleasure—and pain too—to historians, politicians, journalists, and above all to the inquisitive general reader. Through this book we are present as crises unfold. Here are speech-makers grappling with the world Depression of the early 1930s, when one in three Australian workers had no job; and here are warnings made when the nation was in danger of being invaded during World War II. Here are leaders facing questions that aroused high emotions: should young Australian men be conscripted to fight against the Germans in 1917, should the Australian private banks be nationalised in the late 1940s, and should you ‘maintain your rage’ in the consitutional crisis of 1975? The urgency in the voice of many of the speakers, and the intensity of those who listened, can still be felt. The early speeches were made in the grand but borrowed parliament house in Spring Street, Melbourne, but most were made in the old and new houses of parliament in Canberra. Until 1946, when parliament was regularly broadcast across the nation, the live audience for most speeches consisted of a handful of reporters, maybe several public servants and a few spectators leaning forward. But the real audience was the nation. From the beginning the daily press, taking an intense interest in parliament, reported many of the early speeches almost word for word, along with the interjections. Surprisingly, it was usually easier then than now for a public-spirited citizen to glean the main reasons for a vital change of national policy. About half of these speeches were delivered by men who were, or would become, prime ministers. Some were made by members who, because of their mind or manner or voice or vocabulary, had no national reputation as orators but were able v
0885-main.qx5
vi
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page vi
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
to present a powerful message when aroused. Here, Senator Dorothy Tangney, the first female senator, proclaiming that ‘it is not as a woman that I have been elected to this chamber’. Here too is a plea from the first Aboriginal member, Senator Neville Bonner; here is the case against the first member to be expelled; and here is a Labor man expressing his sorrow when three non-Labor ministers were killed in the sensational plane crash at Canberra in 1940. Occasionally, it is the literary allusions as well as the supporting arguments that arouse curiosity. The English writers de Quincey and Swinburne are called as witnesses; Latin is quoted in a Liberal speech on the death of a Chinese leader; and a folksy song is recited by Joe Lyons when in 1931 he makes his brave decision to cross the floor of the house. ‘I cheered, God forgive me, I cheered with the rest.’ Today, there is a tendency in some circles to dismiss politicians as a species and parliament as an institution. While such attitudes are understandable, they are indirectly an assault on the principle of democracy. There can be no democracy without politicians as decision-makers, mediators and debaters. My own feeling is that most readers of this book will, all in all, increase their respect—not diminish it—for a long line of politicians who stood up and were heard. Geoffrey Blainey
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page vii
Bookhouse
Contents
Foreword by Geoffrey Blainey Acknowledgements Introduction
v xi xiii
The Early Years William Groom Edmund Barton Alfred Deakin Norman Ewing Richard O’Connor George Reid Littleton Groom Billy Hughes George Reid
Opening speech in the Federal Parliament (1901) White Australia Policy (1901) Establishing the High Court (1902) Voting rights for women (1902) Voting rights for Aborigines (1902) The fight for free trade (1902) Introduction of invalid and old-age pensions (1908) An attack on Alfred Deakin (1909) Private enterprise versus state control (1909)
3 7 11 16 19 23 28 32 36
War and Depression Frank Anstey Andrew Fisher Joseph Cook Frank Brennan Billy Hughes Billy Hughes Stanley Bruce Ted Theodore
Opposing war aid for Belgium (1914) First year of the Great War (1915) In support of conscription (1916) The case against conscription (1916) The Treaty of Versailles (1919) Expulsion of Hugh Mahon (1920) Returning arbitration to the states (1929) Resignation from Scullin ministry (1930)
43 47 50 54 58 64 70 75 vii
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
SPEAKING
viii Joe Lyons Earle Page Jack Beasley John Curtin John Curtin Eddie Ward Dorothy Tangney Dame Enid Lyons Frank Forde Arthur Calwell Adair Blain
Page viii
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Leaving the Labor Party (1931) Attack on Robert Menzies (1939) Canberra air disaster (1940) MacArthur: Supreme Commander (1942) Battle of the Coral Sea (1942) The Brisbane Line (1943) Maiden speech (1943) Maiden speech (1943) Death of John Curtin (1945) Populate or perish (1945) Return from Changi (1945)
80 86 91 94 99 101 106 111 116 120 126
Cold War and Culture Change Jack Lang Ben Chifley Robert Menzies Robert Menzies Ben Chifley Queen Elizabeth II Frank Browne Dr H.V. Evatt Bert Kelly Arthur Calwell Robert Menzies Hubert Opperman Harold Holt Edward St John Malcolm Fraser
Battle within Labor ranks (1946) Nationalising the banks (1947) Opposing bank nationalisation (1947) Outlawing the Communist Party (1950) Communist Party Dissolution Bill (1950) Opening of Parliament (1954) In defence of democracy (1955) Petrov Royal Commission (1955) Attacking protection (1962) Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War (1965) Rejection of economic planning (1965) Dismantling the White Australia Policy (1966) Aborigines: removing discrimination (1967) The Voyager disaster (1967) Resignation from Gorton ministry (1971)
131 135 140 145 151 156 160 164 169 173 178 183 187 191 196
Turmoil and Reform John Gorton Neville Bonner Rex Connor Malcolm Fraser Gough Whitlam Gough Whitlam Billy Wentworth Don Chipp
Rights for homosexuals (1973) Aboriginal rights (1974) The loans affair (1975) Constitutional crisis (1975) Constitutional crisis (1975) After the Dismissal (1975) Death of Mao (1976) Resignation from the Liberal Party (1977)
203 208 213 217 222 227 230 233
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page ix
Bookhouse
CONTENTS
Bob Hawke George Georges Michael Macklin
ix
National Economic Summit (1983) Australia Card (1986) War crimes horror (1988)
238 242 247
The first Gulf War (1990) Legislating the Mabo decision (1993) An Australian republic by 2001 (1995) Maiden speech (1996) Response to Pauline Hanson (1996) Death of a daughter (1997) Australian troops in East Timor (1999) A new tax system (1999) Bali terrorist attack (2002) Human stem cell research (2002) The second Gulf War (2003) Welcome to US President Bush (2003)
253 258 263 268 273 277 280 285 290 295 299 304
Centenary Years Bob Hawke Paul Keating Paul Keating Pauline Hanson Bill O’Chee John Herron Alexander Downer Peter Costello John Howard Amanda Vanstone John Howard Simon Crean Notes Glossary Select Bibliography Index
307 323 327 329
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page x
Bookhouse
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page xi
Bookhouse
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
This collection of speeches has been completed with considerable assistance from a number of individuals and institutions. We are grateful to the Department of Parliamentary Services for giving us permission to use Hansard so extensively. We would like particularly to acknowledge the expert advice, insights and time given by a number of friends, historians, biographers and parliamentarians, including Geoffrey Blainey, Ron Brunton, John Carroll, Stella Clarke, Craig Collins, Greg Craven, David Day, Ian Hancock, John Herron, John Hirst, Barry Jones, Paul Kelly, David Kemp, Stephen Loosley, Michael Macklin, John Roskam, Colin Rubenstein, Philip Ruddock and Daryl Williams. The knowledge and good counsel of the Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, and the Director of Hansard, Trevor Fowler, have been invaluable. While many of the staff of the Parliamentary Library have been wonderfully helpful, we particularly acknowledge the assistance and advice provided by Scott Bennett, Rob Lundie, Bernice Donnellan, Diane Hawke, Judy Hutchinson and Deidre McKeown. The expertise of staff at the National Library of Australia is gratefully acknowledged and, in particular, that provided by Paul Hetherington, Kathryn Favelle and Graeme Powell. Kate Cowie and Michael Richards at Old Parliament House also provided most useful advice. Professor Richard Stanton’s advice, and extensive assistance with indexing and proofreading, was invaluable. Nathan Barker’s research assistance in the early days of the book’s development was most helpful. We cannot imagine that this collection would have been finished without the assiduous research undertaken by Vanessa Jones and the extensive and thorough technical assistance provided by Melissa Houghton. Their endless patience and attention to detail were greatly appreciated.
xi
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page xii
Bookhouse
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page xiii
Bookhouse
Introduction
The Parliament is the only place in the world where Australian interests as a whole are discussed . . . and the history of the country is largely embedded in the Hansard volumes . . . Australia is a great country, destined to become still greater, and, from a national point of view, its national history can only be discovered here . . .
These words were spoken by Australian Prime Minister, Andrew Fisher, at the end of 1914—a dramatic time in Australia’s history as the fledgling federation was being tested on the battlefields of World War I. They capture two of the reasons why we believe this collection of Australian parliamentary speeches is important. First, the Federal Parliament is central to Australian life. As Dame Enid Lyons said when taking her place as the first woman in the House of Representatives, ‘everything that takes place in this chamber goes out somewhere to strike a human heart, to influence the life of some fellow being’. The Parliament is the forum in which unfettered discussion of Australian interests and ideas takes place and in which representatives, democratically elected from every corner of the country, take up the cudgels on behalf of their constituents. Second, the remarkable institution of Hansard—the written reports of parliamentary debates—means the great river of words that flows from the Parliament is captured for posterity to create a unique representation of every year of the country’s history from Federation onwards. Even our small selection of speeches highlights the truth of Fisher’s assertion that ‘the history of the country is . . . embedded in the Hansard volumes’. Fisher’s words can be found in Hansard volume 76 (part 1) and were made at a time when the ‘history of our country’—of the new federation—was just thirteen years long. Almost 700 Hansard volumes, containing many thousands of speeches, have accumulated since then. Together, they record the events, the politics, the laws, the people and the spirit of Australia. xiii
0885-main.qx5
xiv
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page xiv
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
While the Hansard is theoretically available to all, through Australia’s libraries, very few have the time or inclination to find it or read it. This collection aims to make many of the truly significant, as well as some of the very personal, speeches more easily accessible. The Australian Parliament was housed in the Victorian Parliament House in Melbourne from 1901 to 1927. It then moved to Canberra’s ‘Old Parliament House’ which, since 1988, has sat within the shadows of the ‘New’ Parliament House rising above Canberra’s Capital Hill. With one exception, the speeches contained in this volume were all delivered within the parliamentary chambers. The exception is Gough Whitlam’s ‘Maintain your rage’ speech made on the steps of Canberra’s Old Parliament House in 1975. We have endeavoured, within the limitations of the space available to us, to include a variety of different speeches—speeches that significantly influenced thinking; speeches that had a marked impact at the time they were delivered or subsequently; speeches that defined events; speeches of dissent and speeches that highlighted personal passions. Some speeches were made at significant moments in Australia’s history. These include the creation of federal institutions and policies, the waging of battles, the visit of a great war time leader, the first-time visit of a monarch to our shores, and several notable economic and constitutional crises. There are speeches that reflect changing attitudes—to immigration, to indigenous rights, to the role of women and to Australia’s place in the world. Others follow the threads of some of the great battles of ideas in Australian history—protection versus free trade, conscription versus voluntary war service, socialism versus free enterprise and individual rights versus state control. Some speeches illustrate the changing political landscape and major incidents in Australia’s parliamentary history: colourful resignation speeches, the jailing of journalists, the expulsion of a member of parliament and moments of vitriol and spite. There are also speeches that deal with moments of national grief. These include the death of Prime Minister John Curtin, the air crash that killed three Cabinet Ministers in 1940 and, more recently, the terrorist bombings in Bali where eightyeight Australians were killed and many more injured. As well there is a speech that represents national joy—made at the end of World War II by the Member for the Northern Territory, Adair MacAlister Blain, when he resumed his seat in Parliament after a terrible period interned as a prisoner of war in Changi and other camps. And finally there are speeches that reflect deeply held moral and personal beliefs and feelings. There is Edward St John’s speech on the Voyager disaster, Michael Macklin’s speech about bringing war criminals to justice, Bill O’Chee’s speech condemning racism and John Herron’s speech on the death of his daughter.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page xv
Bookhouse
INTRODUCTION
xv
We have sought to ensure that the major political parties are represented in this collection and that some less well-known voices are heard among those of Australia’s leaders. In making our selection, we have reviewed published histories of Australia, read political biographies and spoken with many current and former parliamentarians, historians and journalists. We have also examined newspapers of the time to gauge the immediate impact and context of the selected speeches. We have drawn upon all this material in preparing the commentary for the speeches that follow. As we read the speeches of the early parliamentarians—such as Edmund Barton’s speech on the White Australia Policy, Alfred Deakin’s speech on the establishment of the High Court and Billy Hughes’ speech seeking the parliament’s endorsement of the Treaty of Versailles—we were struck by their length and structure. In those early days of the Parliament, there were no radio or television broadcasts and the public galleries were the only place to witness debates. Speakers could go on for two or three hours or more and would need to hold the attention of the audience for all that time. But then, as now, parliamentarians were often speaking to an empty chamber. As the decades have passed, different pressures have come to bear on parliamentarians and different emphases have emerged in speech-making. Changes to Standing Orders have certainly made speeches shorter in the modern era than in the earlier days of Federal Parliament. Modern speeches are generally shorter and more formal, with many written by public servants or by speechwriters, rather than delivered ‘off the cuff’. Of course, changes in editing practices by Hansard staff have also made a difference to the speeches as we read them today. Some readers might perceive a decline in the level of precision and clarity demonstrated by parliamentarians, but that is not necessarily the case. The way Hansard edits the contributions of senators and members has changed significantly over the years. As one member of the current Hansard team puts it, ‘there is now general acceptance that Hansard is a record of the spoken word and not a formal document with the vernacular and the colour missing and all the grammar fixed up. Once, the editors required the skill to change—now, they require the skill to not change.’ Necessarily, given that some speeches stretched for over three hours when delivered, we have edited most of the contributions. We have made clear where material has been omitted by the use of ellipses. The full text of all speeches can be read on the website which supports this volume at www.speakingforaustralia.com.au. We have largely retained Hansard’s original spelling and conventions, which changed over time. The most significant change we have made is in relation to the spelling of ‘Labor’ when referring to the Australian Labor Party. In 1908, the name Australian Labour Party was adopted, but in 1912 the spelling ‘Labor’ took effect due to the influence of the American labor movement. Hansard, however, continued
0885-main.qx5
xvi
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page xvi
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
to use ‘Labour’ well into the 1950s. We have used the spelling ‘Labor’ consistently throughout. Many debates were read and speeches considered for inclusion in this collection. We are conscious that a different selection of speeches could have been made using the same criteria as ours and are confident that future fossickers will find further rich pickings among the vast array of speeches in Hansard. We hope that this selection will allow, in a cynical age, a glimpse of the richness of thought that runs through Australia’s history and society, and the intelligence and vitality of parliamentary debate through the years. We hope, too, that through this selection readers will enjoy some of the great moments of our national story and hear directly the words of those from among us who speak for us—collectively, those charged with ‘speaking for Australia’. Rod Kemp and Marion Stanton 2004
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 1
Bookhouse
THE EARLY YEARS
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 2
Bookhouse
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 3
Bookhouse
‘we have been creating history’
Opening speech in the Federal Parliament W ILLIAM G ROOM , Member for Darling Downs, 21 May 1901 As one of the oldest members of the new parliament, William Groom (Protectionist Party) was chosen to make the first speech of substance by a member in the new Commonwealth Parliament. The speech covered a number of the continuing themes in Australian history, including protectionism, White Australia and old-age pensions. It was a remarkable feat for Groom to be honoured in this way, as he had been found guilty of stealing and transported to Australia as a 13-year-old. Given the attitudes of the time it was not surprising that he did not mention his convict past in his maiden speech. . . . Sir, during the last few weeks—I may say since the 1st January—we have been creating history. I was present in Sydney on the occasion when His Excellency the Governor-General was sworn in. I witnessed then a great pageant, worthy of Sydney itself, and worthy of the Commonwealth. During the past fortnight we have been creating further history. It was a happy inspiration on the part of our late great and good Queen to suggest the sending of her distinguished grandson to open the new Commonwealth Parliament; and I think, Sir, that the whole Commonwealth may well congratulate itself upon the splendid reception which was accorded to their Royal Highnesses by the public of the city of Melbourne, and upon the admirable addresses which his Royal Highness delivered on that occasion. I am sure that those addresses will be treasured in many a home, and will be of value especially to the boys attending the public schools of Victoria. Now, sir, we are commencing yet another page of our history. I feel the responsibility of this occasion, because we are now supposed to be rising above the provincialism of State Government . . . So far as a “white Australia” is concerned I yield to no member of the House in the desire that this idea should be carried out as speedily as possible, consistently 3
0885-main.qx5
4
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 4
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
with the recognition of all interests. At the same time, I cannot shut my eyes or ears to the admirable address delivered by Mr Chamberlain at the conference in London, when a Bill which had been passed through the New South Wales Parliament was submitted to him for consideration. We are not to forget that the great empire of India is part of the British dominions, and that His Majesty the King is now going to set an example tending to the consolidation of the Empire by having a body guard of 200 Indian troops in the city of London itself. These are incidents which we are bound to consider in considering a question of this kind, and I feel sure that when we do approach the question, we shall approach it in such a manner as will do honour to ourselves and honour to the Commonwealth, and that there will be no necessity for His Excellency the Governor-General to reserve the Bill for the Royal assent. With regard to old-age pensions, I am one of those who think the subject is now quite within the scope of practical politics. New Zealand has adopted a measure of the kind with very great success. A similar law is now in operation in Victoria, though I regret to say that no less than 16,000 persons in the colony have already applied for pensions. New South Wales has also adopted the measure; but Queensland has stood out, and I do not think I should be doing the latter State an injustice by saying I do not think there is an immediate prospect of an Act of the kind being passed there, although I am quite prepared to support such a measure, because it is of as great importance to the aged poor of that State as to the aged poor in the sister States of the south . . . In my early days I was as strong a free-trader as the right honourable and learned gentleman, the leader of the Opposition. In my early days I even went to the length of delivering lectures at Mechanics’ Institutes and Schools of Art on the life and works of Richard Cobden. But my views and my opinions have been mellowed by time and experience . . . I was struck by a remark made by Richard Cobden, in one of his speeches, to the effect that after the repeal of the corn laws by Sir Robert Peel the whole of Europe would become free-trade in less than ten years. Has it become free-trade? Let history speak for itself. Further, he stated, when addressing the masses of his fellow countrymen, that if they consented to the repeal of the corn laws, so that England could send her iron and steel to the United States, they would receive in return millions of bushels of wheat to make bread to supply the starving portion of their own population. Forty years have elapsed since those words were uttered, and what is the condition of affairs to-day? Did it occur to Cobden when he uttered those words what would occur in the development of the United States during that 40 years? A clear-brained, hard-headed Scotchman in that country only recently sold his steel and iron works to a syndicate for £40,000,000 sterling. At the commencement of the twentieth century we also find a steel and iron works ring formed in the United States with a capital of £200,000,000. Was such a thing ever contemplated even by
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 5
Bookhouse
OPENING
SPEECH IN THE
F E D E R A L PA R L I A M E N T
5
the most sagacious statesmen 40 years ago in England? When I look round and see what Belgium and Germany have done since those memorable words of Cobden were spoken, and when I remember what has been accomplished in the United States under her policy, I unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that a national protective policy is the right policy for the Australian Commonwealth to adopt . . . My contention is, having been converted from free-trade to protectionist principles, that in this early initiation of our history we should start a broad national policy which will give employment to our own population, which will make those who are endeavouring to secure advantages from Australia, without contributing anything towards its prosperity, contribute something through the medium of the Customs House. I feel sure, from honest conviction, and after having given the matter careful consideration, that the truest policy we can adopt is that of protection. Therefore, I hail with the greatest satisfaction this particular paragraph in the speech delivered to us at the opening of Parliament . . . With regard to the Public Service Bill, I know I am treading on dangerous ground in referring to it . . . I do not think that on the initiation of the Commonwealth we should make appointments on what I call provincial grounds. I sympathize a great deal with the remarks which were made on the election of Speaker by the honorable and learned member for Parkes. I do not think appointments under the Commonwealth should be made on the American principle of “spoils to the conquerors.” I rather think the men selected to be Under-Secretaries of the great departments of State should be men of the highest ability and proved experience in the States. I do not care what State they come from, as long as by their experience in the past and their industry they have shown their adaptability for the public service . . . As I have already said, I feel a deep sense of responsibility on this occasion, because I know that the eyes of all Australia, and probably of every portion of the British Empire, are fixed upon this Parliament and its legislation. I hope that we shall rise to the occasion, and prove ourselves worthy of the Royal visit which has just been paid to us to celebrate the introduction of our work, and that we shall satisfy our countrymen in Great Britain that we are worthily following in their footsteps. I feel assured, however, from what I know of my fellow members, that every matter coming before us will receive the gravest consideration and the most matured deliberation, and I fervently hope that upon all occasions our deliberations and discussions will be of such a character that people may point to us with pride, and say that we are worthy of the great charter which Great Britain has conferred upon us.1
k William Groom (1833–1901), Protectionist Party, Member for Darling Downs March–August 1901.
k
0885-main.qx5
6
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 6
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Having delivered the first substantial speech in the new parliament, William Groom became the first federal parliamentarian to die in office. His death on 8 August 1901, less than three months after making this speech, led to the first federal by-election. This was won by his son, Littleton, who went on to hold ministerial posts in the Deakin, Cook, Hughes and Bruce/Page governments as well as being made Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1925. As Attorney-General in the Deakin Government, Littleton Groom introduced the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Bill (see pages 28–31), a measure to which his father had alluded in this first speech. Littleton Groom lost his seat after refusing to use his casting vote to save the Bruce/Page Government in 1929. He won back the ‘family’ seat of Darling Downs when he stood as an Independent in 1931 and, like his father, died in office in 1936.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 7
Bookhouse
‘We know that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by side . . .’
White Australia Policy
E DMUND B ARTON , Prime Minister, 7 August 1901 British colonies had been warned by the Colonial Office not to exclude migrants based on race. Joseph Chamberlain, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, told the colonies to, ‘bear in mind the traditions of the Empire, which makes no distinction in favour of, or against race or colour . . .’ 1 However, there was strong popular sentiment in favour of racial homogeneity in Australia and most of the Australian colonies had tried to restrict nonEuropean immigration since the mid-nineteenth century. The Colony of Natal in South Africa had demonstrated a way around Chamberlain’s request by subjecting immigrants to a dictation test, rather than a racial one. This was the model adopted by the Barton Government for the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, which established the White Australia Policy that lasted for almost seventy years. Paul Kelly, in his book 100 Years argued that, Barton knew that unless the Australian Parliament rejected a direct racial ban there would be a crisis with Britain . . . But some Australians were ready to defy Britain. Labor’s Billy Hughes declared, ‘We want a White Australia—and are we to be denied it because we shall offend the Japanese or embarrass His Majesty’s ministers?’ 2
. . . Honorable members are familiar with the questions and discussions which have alternately assisted and obstructed the passage of measures of this kind, and they know, of course, as well as I do, the action which conferences have taken on this subject up to the present time. There have been intercolonial conferences of Premiers, and these matters have been also considered in conferences in the mother country, at which the States have been represented . . . 7
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 8
SPEAKING
8
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
At the present moment I am going to confine myself to the main features of the Bill which are contained in clause 4 which, in reference to prohibited immigrants really concentrates the main purposes of the Bill in the first sub-clause. The first part of the clause provides: The immigration into the Commonwealth of the persons described in any of the following paragraphs of this section (hereinafter called “prohibited immigrants”) is prohibited, namely: (a) Any person who when asked to do so by an officer fails to write out and sign in the presence of the officer, a passage of 50 words in length in the English language dictated by the officer . . . SIR WILLIAM MCMILLAN : MR BRUCE SMITH :
Is it necessary for the immigrant to spell properly?
It is a pack of fiction from beginning to end.
AN HONORABLE MEMBER :
It is hypocrisy.
MR BARTON :
I do not know whether it is necessary for him to spell properly. I can quite understand the mental attitude of certain honorable members towards a great question of this kind, when one of them interjects that it is a pack of hypocrisy and of fiction. MR BRUCE SMITH : MR BARTON :
I said “fiction”.
It may be a pack of fiction in the honorable and learned member’s estimation, but, as this is justifiable legislation in the eyes of the Government and of the bulk of honorable members of the House, we propose to proceed with it . . . The administration in this respect of the Bill will be within the discretion of the Minister. He will have it within his discretion to change the passage to be submitted in such a way as to prevent the possibility of any collusion or of any attempt to learn off a passage when the applicant knows no more of English than is contained in that passage. The chief difference between this Bill and the provisions of the Acts to which I have referred is that the English language is indispensable . . . It is because the Bills have been based on the educational test that objections have been avoided. The moment we begin to define—the moment we begin to say that every one of a certain nationality or colour shall be restricted, while other persons are not, then as between civilized powers, amongst whom must now be counted Japan, we are liable to trouble and objection, which go to postpone the making of our laws and which lead to difficulty in the application of them. These things should therefore be avoided. I am fain to confess that I see no other way except to give a large discretionary power to the authorities in charge of the administration of such a measure. If we once begin to particularize we have to meet the objections already urged, some of which no doubt have been considered effectual. It places a Bill, produced under such circumstances, necessarily between two fires. It is between the fire of those who wish to make its provisions more drastic
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 9
Bookhouse
WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY
9
and more specific, and the fire of those who consider the provisions a piece of organised hypocrisy, and altogether too severe for a civilized power to adopt. I quite admit that we are placed between these two fires; but we can rely on the common sense of the House to find a way through these fires, so as to produce a measure that will be internationally effective and practical amongst ourselves . . . Professor Pearson, who was one of the most intellectual statesman who ever lived in this country, says in his National Life and Character, page 36— The fear of Chinese immigration which the Australian democracy cherishes, and which Englishmen at home find it hard to understand—
Naturally, because they have never had the troubles we have had— . . . We know that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by side; we are well aware that China can swamp us with a single year’s surplus of population; and we know that if national existence is sacrificed to the working of a few mines and sugar plantations, it is not the Englishman in Australia alone, but the whole civilized world that will be the losers. Transform the northern half of our continent into a Natal, with thirteen out of fourteen belonging to an inferior race, and the southern half will speedily approximate to the condition of the Cape Colony, where the whites are indeed a masterful minority, but still only as one in four. We are guarding the last part of the world in which the higher races can live and increase freely for the higher civilization.
. . . It is not a desirable thing in our legislation to make discriminations which will complicate the foreign relations of the Empire. It would be of untold evil and harm to us—and likely to lead to troubles even rivalling those which the future may bring forth to us from these causes—if we were to take such action as would not practically make our legislation much more effective, and yet at the same time would diminish the ease with which the Empire could assist us in these matters, and be with us in others . . . MR THOMSON : Does the right honorable gentleman mean to exclude Scandinavians,
Germans, and French? MR BARTON : I quite saw the purpose of my honorable friend, when he put his first question. I quite saw what was passing in the honorable member’s mind, and what he wanted information upon . . . The English language is our language, and the man who wants us to impose a test of any other language should show some reason for his preference. Ours is the right language to use. I know that there may be difficulties, and that there have been difficulties in the past, when people who have been asked to write down sentences in some language or other have shown that they can easily surmount that obstacle, with all the quick-wittedness of some of the Eastern races. I believe that this provision with respect to the English language will help to overcome that difficulty, and that is another reason for the clause in its present form. I do not propose—
0885-main.qx5
10
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 10
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
and no doubt the honorable member had this in recollection when putting his question—that the test should be subject to proclamation from time to time by the Governor-General in Council, because I do not propose to give any opportunity for anybody to find out the words which are to be used, by having them notified by proclamation. I think it is far more effective and useful that the proper officer, to prevent any collusion or trickery, may be able to change from day to day and from time to time the passage in English so long as it is a fair passage in that language— MR BRUCE SMITH : Has the honorable and learned gentleman considered what the
effect would be likely to be if the European nations were to reciprocate with legislation of the same kind? Not one Australian in a thousand could visit Europe. MR BARTON : Yes, I have considered that, and the difference is one which I am sure my honorable and learned friend perfectly well understands. It is not for us to say that we do not aim this Bill in every direction. On the face of it, as my honorable and learned friend knows, the Bill is not aimed at any specified nations. He also knows that Governments must be credited with common sense, or it is no use committing to them the administration of such measures at all. This amount of common sense and discretion must be credited to the present Government and its successors: that they will discriminate between those cases in which desirable civilized immigrants are seeking admission, and cases in which those seek admission whose presence is baneful to us in the present, and may be much more so in the future . . .3
k Edmund Barton (1849–1920), Protectionist Party, Member for Hunter 1901–03. Positions held: Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs 1901–03.
k Alfred Deakin, the Attorney-General, said, ‘We here find ourselves touching the profoundest instinct of individual or nation—the instinct of self-preservation—for it is nothing less than the national manhood, the national character, and the national future that are at stake.’ 4 George Reid, the Leader of the Opposition, was highly critical that the government had succumbed to pressure from the ‘Imperial Government’ and imposed a dictation test rather than a direct ban on Asian immigration.5 Andrew Fisher on behalf of the Labor Party also supported a direct ban. A number of parliamentarians expressed their opposition to the legislation that formalised White Australia. The proposal for a direct racial ban was defeated 36 votes to 31. The dictation test was introduced. Only 52 people passed the dictation test up to 1909 and no-one passed it thereafter. The Act remained in force until 1958, when the dictation test was abolished and a system of entry permits was introduced.6 In 1966, Liberal Immigration Minister, Hubert Opperman, delivered a speech that effectively ended the White Australia Policy (see pages 183–86) and enabled a signficant increase in the number of non-European immigrants to Australia.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 11
Bookhouse
‘. . . keystone of the federal arch.’
Establishing the High Court
A LFRED D EAKIN , Attorney-General, 18 March 1902 Alfred Deakin’s speech on the Judiciary Bill 1902, which established the High Court, lasted over three hours.1 Senator Richard O’Connor, one of the High Court’s first justices, wrote to Deakin saying, ‘Magnificent. The finest speech I have ever heard’.2 The speech was ‘long remembered by his contemporaries’ as a ‘celebrated example of the best parliamentary speaking of his generation’.3 . . . the Bill is of the utmost importance. It will complete so radical a reform of the legal relations of the people of these States to each other that it might fairly be termed a revolution. At the same time it is a revolution accomplished not by destruction, but by construction, not by the taking away to any considerable extent of powers that exist, but by their being focussed in a new centre from which they may be radiated to the greater advantage of the whole of this community. It will define and determine the powers of the Commonwealth itself, the powers of the States, which subsist within it, and the validity of the legislation flowing from them. All these have to be defined by this new court. Its first and highest functions as an Australian court—not its first in point of time, but its first in point of importance—will be exercised in unfolding the Constitution itself. That Constitution was drawn, and inevitably so, on large and simple lines, and its provisions were embodied in general language, because it was felt to be an instrument not to be lightly altered, and indeed incapable of being readily altered; and, at the same time, was designed to remain in force for more years than any of us can foretell, and to apply under circumstances probably differing most widely from the expectations now cherished by any of us. 11
0885-main.qx5
12
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 12
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Consequently, drawn as it of necessity was on simple and large lines, it opens an immense field for exact definition and interpretation. Our Constitution must depend largely for the exact form and shape which it will hereafter take upon the interpretations accorded to its various provisions. This court is created to undertake that interpretation. In addition, the Constitution involves a series of compacts— compacts between the different States, studious of the interests of their own people, compacts which affect the present and future privileges of the people, compacts which affect the Treasuries of the States, and compacts which relate to the kinds of legislation to be undertaken by the Commonwealth. These compacts between State and State, and between the Commonwealth and its people as a whole, dealing with all classes and interests, are to be interpreted and safeguarded by this court . . . The federation is constituted by distribution of powers, and it is this court which decides the orbit and boundary of every power. Consequently, when we say that there are three fundamental conditions involved in federation, we really mean that there is one which is more essential than the others—the competent tribunal which is able to protect the Constitution, and to oversee its agencies. That body is the High Court. It is properly termed the “keystone of the federal arch.” “The legislature,” as Marshall puts it, “makes, the executive executes, and the judiciary declares the law.” What the legislature may make, and what the executive may do, the judiciary in the last resort declares; so that the ties which unite the judiciary to the legislature— the Australian High Court to the Australian Parliament—are those of mutual association and dependence in the accomplishment of a common task. The High Court exists to protect the Constitution against assaults. It exists because our Constitution, although an Imperial Act, has a dual parentage. It proceeds from the people of the whole continent. It is one of the institutions which the people of Australia, when they accepted the Constitution, required to be established for the purpose of insuring that there should not be a departure from the bond into which they thereby entered for themselves and for posterity. This Constitution is not the creation of our State Parliaments only, neither is it the creation of the Imperial Parliament only. It draws its authority directly from the electors of the Commonwealth, and it is as their chosen and declared agent that the High Court finds its place in the Constitution which they accepted. To put this part of the case in a nutshell, I would say that our written Constitution, large and elastic as it is, is necessarily limited by the ideas and circumstances which obtained in the year 1900. It was necessarily precise in parts, as well as vague in other parts. That Constitution remains verbally unalterable except by the process of amendment. Amendment is not nearly so difficult in our case as it is in the United States, but still it remains difficult . . . In the meantime, the statute stands and will stand on the statute-book just as in the hour in which it was assented to. But the nation lives, grows, and expands. Its circumstances change, its needs alter, and its problems present themselves with new faces.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:48 AM
Page 13
Bookhouse
E S TA B L I S H I N G
THE
H I G H C O U RT
13
The organ of the national life which preserving the union is yet able from time to time to transfuse into it the fresh blood of the living present, is the Judiciary High Court of Australia or the Supreme Court in the United States. It is as one of the organs of Government which enables the Constitution to grow and to be adapted to the changeful necessities and circumstances of generation after generation that the High Court operates. Amendments achieve direct and sweeping changes, but the court moves by gradual, often indirect, cautious, well considered steps, that enable the past to join the future, without undue collision and strife in the present. MR CONROY :
But we cannot read into the Constitution something which is not
there. MR DEAKIN : Perfectly true. Yet if he takes the doctrine of implied powers as developed by the Supreme Court of the United States, I will undertake to say that the ablest of its earliest lawyers—even Hamilton or Madison—could not have discovered the faintest evidence of the existence of a power which now authorises many of the greatest operations of its Government, and which has been of incalculable advantage to the United States. Why? Because the law, when in the hands of men like Marshall or those trained in his school, or of the great jurists of the mother country, becomes no longer a dead weight. Its script is read with the full intelligence of the time, and interpreted in accordance with the needs of the time. That task, of course, can be undertaken only by men of profound ability and long training. It is to secure such men that we desire the establishment of a High Court in Australia . . . One of its [the Constitution’s] features which most struck its critics at home, and most amazed foreigners abroad was the fact that the Imperial Parliament had so lavish and absolute a trust in the people of this Commonwealth, that it had under its own hand and seal endowed them with the power and the means of amending their Constitution, although that Constitution is in itself an Imperial Act. There is yet a further consideration. The Commonwealth Constitution stands apart from all other measures upon the statute-book of the Imperial Parliament, and, so far as I know, upon any statute-book. Certainly no Act of the United States or of Canada can show an equivalent authority to that under which our Constitution was drawn and passed. Its preamble sets out in simple terms the statement of a fact whose transcendent importance has yet to be understood and exhausted . . . For the first time in British history the special and express sanction of the people appears in the preamble of an Imperial Act in addition to the sanction given by the Imperial Parliament and by the Crown. That of itself is sufficient to distinguish our Constitution from every other Act upon the Imperial statute-book, including the British North America Act. It is desirable and necessary that these distinctions should be drawn. They will hereafter require to be interpreted in support of special sections or of the whole of the Constitution. The wording and the character of our Constitution, coupled with the power of amendment contained within it, and the peculiar sanction given in its preamble, make it more essentially and absolutely a
0885-main.qx5
14
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 14
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The Justices of the first High Court of Australia—Justice Edmund Barton, Chief Justice Samuel Griffith and Justice Richard O’Connor with two associates, 1903. NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA, A12340, 1.
charter of entire self-government than any other Act to which the British Parliament has assented . . . I trust then that this Bill will be considered in the light of history, and of federal principles, that it will be regarded as a fulfilment of the Constitution; that we shall create in it a tribunal worthy of the people for whom it will act, and of their forefathers whose practical genius has been demonstrated in their capacity to adapt their institutions and forms of government so as to fulfil the will of the people, and, while giving that will the fullest and freest course, impart to it the solemn sanction of the law.4
k Alfred Deakin (1856–1919), Protectionist Party 1901–10, Liberal Party 1910–13, Member for Ballarat 1901–13. Positions held: Attorney-General 1901–03, Prime Minister 1903–04, 1905–08, 1909–10, Minster for External Affairs 1903–04, 1905–08, Leader of the Opposition 1909, 1910–13.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 15
Bookhouse
E S TA B L I S H I N G
THE
H I G H C O U RT
15
While the Bill had been accorded a high priority by the Barton Government, it was not even debated during the 1902 session. Deakin reintroduced it with a short speech in June 1903 and it received assent at the end of August. One of Australia’s leading constitutional experts, Professor Greg Craven, commented on the significance of Deakin’s speech: Deakin demonstrated yet again his mastery of the constitutional spirit of Federation, as well as its legal technicalities. He understood perfectly that the Constitution without a proud, separate, independent Federal judiciary would be a mere husk. Ironically, the very vividness of his oratory probably increased the opposition of those fearful of an over-mighty Court, such as William Morris Hughes and Patrick McMahon Glynn.5
Sir Samuel Griffith became the first Chief Justice of the High Court, supported by Edmund Barton and Richard O’Connor. Barton ceded the prime ministership to Deakin to take up his High Court post and O’Connor retired from his role as Leader of the Government in the Senate to do likewise.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 16
Bookhouse
‘What is good for the man is good for the woman . . .’
Voting rights for women
N ORMAN E WING , Senator for Western Australia, 9 April 1902 Australia led the world in granting most women the right to vote and the right to stand for election at the national level. In 1901 most women in South Australia and Western Australia already had the right to vote in their home state and therefore could vote in the first federal election. The Franchise Bill 1902, introduced by the Barton Protectionist Government, extended this vote to another 750,000 women in the other states. Some parliamentarians expressed objections to female suffrage but they were not prepared to vote against the Bill. Senator Norman Ewing (Free Trade, Western Australia) made an eloquent speech in favour of the measure. After hearing some of the speeches that have been delivered this afternoon, I have begun to think— “What is this extraordinary creature to whom we propose to give the vote? What is it that we have amongst us, that lives in our midst, shares our life with us, that is generally understood to take part in most of the affairs of this world, and yet hitherto has had no interest whatever in, and no knowledge of, the practical conditions that surround her?” Honorable senators tell us that women know nothing about the Constitution under which they live. Are we to understand that the women of this country have been so stupid, so ignorant, so absolutely short of the ordinary faculties that are given to individuals, that throughout all these years they have been unable even to understand and grasp the fundamental principles according to which they are governed, and have been unable to learn that which is good for themselves and for 16
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 17
VOTING
Bookhouse
RIGHTS FOR WOMEN
17
their fellow men and women? To those who make that statement I say— “The women you have met must indeed be a sorry class! If they are not capable of exercising the franchise just as intelligently as men, you must have been unfortunate in your acquaintances.” My experience in the affairs of this life, and in my business and social relations, has shown me that women are just as intelligent as men, and are just as consistent and as reasonable as men are, speaking generally, throughout our community. That being so, surely if women can guide us, as very often they do in the ordinary affairs of life—if we as men have found time after time that if we had listened to the voice of some of the women we know we might have avoided many of the calamities with which we have come into collision—if women are capable of advising us wisely, what reason have we for saying that they shall take no interest in the affairs of the country? Can it be asserted that women have no interest in the laws we make for the government of the country? Can it be pretended that they have no interest in the divorce and matrimonial laws in connexion with which they labour under such distinct disadvantages to-day? . . . I say that women have just as much interest and just as much right to be heard, in connexion with the matrimonial laws as men have. Have we done justice to the women in the past? Is it not manifest that, in connexion with divorce, women are placed at a disadvantage as compared with men inasmuch as a man can secure divorce on grounds upon which a woman cannot? Is it not manifest that under the system of the representation of the country by men only, legislation for generations past has tended in the direction of curtailing the power of women to hold property? It is only in the later years of the nineteenth century that there have been conceded to women equal rights with men in many directions. Have we not found that in connexion with the laws in regard to the custody of children women have been cruelly and wickedly ill-treated? Do we not as lawyers know that a woman has no right over her child, and that a father has the right to take a babe of six months old out of its mother’s arms? These conditions show that we require representation on the part of the oppressed— and the oppressed in these cases are in my humble opinion the women. SENATOR PLAYFORD :
The women do not know it.
SENATOR EWING : The woman who comes to a lawyer for advice, and asks whether she has a right to her child or whether the father has the right to take it from her, does know that the law has treated her with injustice. SENATOR PLAYFORD :
A Judge can give her control over her children.
SENATOR EWING :
In very many States the custody of the child belongs as a matter of law to the father.
SENATOR DAWSON : SENATOR EWING :
When the child is over a certain age.
Quite so. If Senator Playford is not satisfied on that point, let me direct him to the law of divorce, by which a man on certain grounds can obtain a divorce from his wife, whereas if the wife can adduce the same evidence with regard
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
18
Page 18
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
to the husband there is no redress for her. What is good for the man is good for the woman; and I say that if any argument is required to show the necessity for women’s suffrage it is that men in the past have not done justice—have not done the fair thing—to the women of this country. Let us turn again to the question of industrial disputes. Is it not manifest that the women of this country have an important interest in all industrial affairs, in the avoidance of strikes, and in conciliation laws and other legislation of that class? Do not those of us who have seen large industrial strikes know that they fall first on the women, that the first pinch of poverty is felt by them? And is it not fair, therefore, that they should have some voice in determining the methods by which these evil consequences are to be avoided in Australia? SENATOR PLAYFORD :
We have given them that right in South Australia, and we propose to give it to them throughout the Commonwealth. Why whip a dead horse?
SENATOR EWING : The honorable senator assumes that we are going to give women
the right to vote for the Commonwealth Parliament. So far as the Senate is concerned, it seems fairly clear that we shall do so. I am endeavouring only to answer those persons who say that woman lives in a sphere separated from man; that woman’s sphere is entirely removed from politics and their influences. I assert that our political conditions are wrapped up in the life of every woman in the community; that the laws which control the men control the women; and inasmuch as every man in this country is given the right to take a part in the making of the laws that control him, so, in my humble opinion, a similar right should be extended to women . . .1
k Norman Ewing (1870–1928), Free Trade Party, Senator for Western Australia 1901–03.
k The all-male parliament passed the Bill on 12 June 1902. At the next federal election, in 1903, the pioneering feminist Vida Goldstein became the first woman in the British Empire to stand for a national parliament. Voters, however, were not yet ready to support a woman. It wasn’t until 1943 that the first women were elected to the federal parliament—Dame Enid Lyons (United Australia Party, Tasmania) and Senator Dorothy Tangney (Labor, Western Australia). Their maiden speeches can be found on pages 111–15 and 106–10 respectively. Dame Enid Lyons was the first woman to take a place in the federal cabinet when, in 1949, she became Vice-President of the Executive Council. The first female minister was Senator Annabelle Rankin (Liberal, Queensland), who was made Minister for Housing in 1966 in the Holt Government. Senator Margaret Guilfoyle (Liberal, Victoria) became the first female Cabinet minister when she was appointed Minister for Social Security in the Fraser Government in 1975. While in New Zealand women had won the right to vote in 1893 they could not stand for parliament until 1919. In the United Kingdom, women won the right to vote in 1928, in the USA in 1920, in France in 1944 and in Switzerland in 1971.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 19
Bookhouse
‘. . . it would be a monstrous thing . . . to deprive . . . [Aborigines of the] . . . vote in their own country . . .’
Voting rights for Aborigines RICHARD O’CONNOR, Government Leader of the Senate, 10 April 1902 The Barton Government’s attempt in 1902 to introduce a Bill providing for uniform federal franchise was met with strong resistence. The proposed Bill did not exclude from the franchise women or Aboriginal people. An attempt to confine the right to ‘male persons’ obtained little support, but an amendment proposed by Western Australian Senator Alexander Matheson to exclude Aboriginal people from the franchise was better supported. Senator Richard O’Connor, who had introduced the Bill, spoke against such an exclusion. Paul Kelly, in his book 100 Years said, In a powerful and eloquent attack on the amendment, Richard O’Connor adverted to Aboriginal dispossession, an unusual concession to the truth. His speech is an historic epic—a benchmark against which the young nation must be measured and found wanting.1
The honorable senator [Alexander Matheson] has made an interesting speech dealing with an important question, but it seems to me that the difficulty which has arisen cannot be settled in the off-hand and high and mighty way that he assumes. I would first of all ask the committee to remember that the question cannot be settled only from the point of view of the experience of Western Australia. We have to deal with Australia as a whole, and with the rights which exist already so far as these people are concerned. Although no one could be more staunch than I am in the maintenance of the policy of a white Australia, I think we ought to carry out that policy with a certain amount of reason, humanity, and common sense. We 19
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 20
SPEAKING
20
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
ought to leave out of consideration what I may describe as the jingoism of the music halls in regard to the greatness of the British Empire, the position of the servile races in India, our career in the Straits Settlements, and matters of that kind. We have to deal with a simple question: Certain persons being inhabitants of Australia, are we to grant or withhold from them the right to the franchise? The number of aboriginals that we have to deal with is a very important element. I find from the latest available statistics given by Coghlan, that at the census of 1891, only 38,789 aboriginals were enumerated, of whom 8,280 were in New South Wales, 565 in Victoria, 23,789 in South Australia, and 6,245 in Western Australia. SENATOR PEARCE :
How many are there who are not enumerated?
SENATOR O’CONNOR : I said these were the enumerated aboriginals. I think it must
be admitted that it is only to that extent that we can have any certainty about the number, for no doubt the whole of the aboriginals are not enumerated. SENATOR SIR WILLIAM ZEAL :
How many aboriginals are there in Tasmania?
SENATOR O’CONNOR : In Tasmania they are practically extinct. We may take it that,
although there may be an excess beyond the numbers enumerated, that is not a matter worthy of very serious consideration. These figures enable us to give in a rough way the relative positions of the different States. SENATOR MATHESON :
Those were the figures in 1891.
SENATOR O’CONNOR :
Yes. I have not the figures for the last census; but we know that the aboriginal races are decreasing, so that the probabilities are that the figures at the last census were much smaller. It is well to point out that in Western Australia the number of aboriginals as shown by these figures is comparatively trifling. The aboriginals in that State are not anything like so numerous as they are in New South Wales, and they represent only a fraction of the total in South Australia. How do we deal with these people? In New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania an aboriginal has the same right to vote as has any other inhabitant. SENATOR SIR WILLIAM ZEAL : SENATOR KEATING :
But the Tasmanian aboriginals are extinct.
The naturalized alien has the same right in Tasmania.
SENATOR O’CONNOR :
Yes; this is the policy in four States out of the six. In the remaining States of Western Australia and Queensland, where the largest number of what are generally described as wild blacks exist, the right to vote is given to an aboriginal, provided that he is the owner of property to the value of £100. Why was that right given? Every one was aware at the time that there were numbers of these aboriginals who, perhaps, would not understand very much about political questions. But I think it occurred to those who were framing these laws in the States, that it would be a monstrous thing, an unheard of piece of savagery on our part, to treat the aboriginals, whose land we were occupying, in such a manner as to deprive
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 21
VOTING
Bookhouse
RIGHTS FOR
ABORIGINES
21
them absolutely of any right to vote in their own country, simply on the ground of their colour, and because they were aboriginals . . . But what does Senator Matheson propose to do now? He proposes to go back upon all that legislation, and to say that although in the past a blackfellow in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia had a right to vote, his son shall not have a right to vote; and that although in Western Australia and Queensland he had a right to vote if he had property, his son shall not have that right . . . As we have in the past been liberal and jealous for those decaying races that owned this continent, and as at no time any harm or wrong has resulted from that liberality, surely we are not going to apply this doctrine to a white Australia, not only with irregularity but with a savagery which is quite unworthy of the beginnings of this federation? What will be the position of things if Senator Matheson’s view is carried out? In four of the States, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, we will have a class of blackfellows who will have the franchise, and may exercise it. SENATOR EWING :
Until the State Parliament takes it away.
SENATOR O’CONNOR : I have pointed out already that the State Parliament cannot take it away. I am surprised to hear honorable senators, who have been proclaiming the rights of the Commonwealth, sometimes in an aggressive way, suggesting for a moment that the States will have anything to do with our franchise once we have dealt with it . . . . . . I say that if this amendment is carried it will bring about this condition of things that, in all the States to which I have alluded, we shall have a class of aboriginals who will be entitled to be put on the roll, and entitled to vote under the existing laws, and those very men will have to tell their sons who are becoming more civilized, and perhaps as civilized, and as worthy of the franchise as the white men among whom they are living— “Although your people owned this territory for centuries before the white man came here, although you are his equal in intelligence, it has been prescribed by the Commonwealth that you shall not have the right to vote at all.” I say it would be a monstrous and savage application of this principle of a white Australia. I do not believe this committee will consent to go back upon what has been the policy of Australia ever since the white man came here.2
k Richard O’Connor (1851–1912), Protectionist Party, Senator for New South Wales 1901–03. Positions held: Vice-President of the Executive Council 1901–03.
k Despite passing the Senate, the Bill was amended in the lower house. The government, fearing the loss of the Bill in its entirety, did not insist on voting rights for Aborigines and
0885-main.qx5
22
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 22
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
the new Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 ‘specifically excluded “any aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa, or the islands of the Pacific, except New Zealand” from voting unless they were actually on the roll before 1901.’ 3 As O’Connor had feared, those aborigines who had been enrolled to vote in some states prior to 1901 could vote in federal elections; those who had not been enrolled were denied the right to do so. It was not until 1962, when the Menzies’ Liberal/Country Party Government successfully introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962, that all Aborigines won the right to vote in federal elections. Senator Neville Bonner (Liberal Queensland) was the first Aborigine to sit in parliament when he was appointed to fill a casual vacancy in 1971.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 23
Bookhouse
‘. . . protection . . . can be wondrously liberal to some at the expense of others . . .’
The fight for free trade
G EORGE R EID , Leader of the Opposition, 18 April 1902 In the first Parliament, Prime Minister Barton’s Protectionist Party held 32 seats, George Reid’s Free Trade Party 27 and the Labor Party 14.1 One of the first major battles fought in the federal parliament was that between the supporters of protection and those who believed that free trade would bring lasting prosperity. The Customs Tariff Bill 1902 was introduced to give legal backing to duties that had been imposed the previous year on a wide variety of commodities. Alfred Deakin, the AttorneyGeneral, was able to obtain the support of Labor to pass the first tariff measures. The leader of the Free Trade opposition, George Reid, strongly opposed the measures and made a powerful speech arguing that tariffs imposed an unfair burden on working people. . . . my honorable friends opposite are protectionists in dealing with the Tariff, mainly from these considerations—that the labour conditions, happily, of Australia are better than the labour conditions of other countries; that, therefore, our labour cannot produce a given article as cheaply as the labour in those other countries; and labour being an important element in production, they say—“We are protectionists in order to establish manufactures, and so that our men may earn something like an Australian rate of wage.” That is, fairly put, I think, one of their grounds. Now, there are some considerations that my honorable friends, I hope, will think over, which rather disturb that position. We have heard, for instance, of cheap Chinese labour . . . One of the most distinguished men in the United States, who was the ambassador of that country to China, in an article a few months ago in the North American Review, made this statement as the result of his knowledge of both America and China. He 23
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
24
9:49 AM
Page 24
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
said that those who state that Chinese labour is cheap and that good American labour is dear, make a profound mistake. He says that the American labour, with its high rates, is cheaper labour than the Chinese with its nominal rates. Well, whatever our fiscal views are, we should all rejoice to find that to be true . . . my honorable friends would rejoice if they could honestly believe that our white race, with civilized conditions and superior energy—not, perhaps, superior intelligence, but superior physical strength—was so much in advance of the Chinese. This ambassador picks out a cotton-mill in Shanghai worked by Chinese. He says that in that factory, which runs double shifts, there are 2,200 persons employed; but that a factory in his own country, with 350 hands, would turn out more work than the 2,200 Chinese! He says that in the engine-room of this establishment, which is called Soy-Che mill, there are 65 men working; and that in an American mill their work would be done by two engineers, two helpers, and two foremen. MR RONALD :
Two men and a boy!
MR REID : Two men and a boy worth having. Are not my honorable friends opposite
rather pleased to know that the white men can compete with the Chinese in that manner? Surely that is a source of satisfaction if it can be shown to be true, and I think that the broad facts are true. Do we think that civilization has just been sprung upon the Chinese? Do we not know that they were highly civilized centuries before we were even civilized at all; and yet with a civilization not two or three centuries or a dozen centuries, but many, many centuries old, that marvellous nation, with its enormous population, has been stagnant! Contrast that with the gigantic development of the United States in 150 years. Surely our own observation and the broad facts of the progress of this Commonwealth, must show that the idea of the Chinese being as good a worker as the American or the Englishman, is moonshine. But that is the basis of this appeal to equalize labour conditions . . . Shall we deliberately, with our eyes open, having a virgin continent to exploit, turn aside from the marvellous wealth which comes from those untilled and unprobed millions of acres, turn aside from the natural path of profit and enterprise, where we leave the exhausted nations of the old world thousands of miles behind—where we can compete with those old nations easily—shall we turn aside from those broad paths which lead labour to profitable results? And let us remember that it is the broad profits of enterprise that the wages fund of the future is to be found . . . There is something more to be added. As we all know, if there is anything absurd and ridiculous in the world it is the attempt which little Victoria has made to cope with the marvellous magnitude of the manufacturing industries of a great nation like America. From the very nature of the conditions, it is impossible that a small people, with a small home demand, can in manufactures, rise above the level of the great manufacturing nations of the Northern Hemisphere. The moment the Victorian product goes out upon the ocean, the Tariff ceases to follow it. Then the stilts of protection fall into Hobson’s Bay. Young Australia therefore sets itself an
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 25
THE
Bookhouse
FIGHT FOR FREE TRADE
25
absurd task in pitting its little factories against the vast manufacturing power of Great Britain and the United States. From that I do not mean that we cannot develop manufacturers. It is the greatest fallacy in the world to suppose that we believe that our policy will be fatal to manufactures . . . The advantage of a free-trade policy—which seems the cruel policy—is that the sprouts which come up in the open-air of the heavens are hardy, they are suited to the natural conditions of the soil and climate, and the winds, instead of withering them, make them grow stronger and stronger. We believe in encouraging manufacturers, but we do not believe in stifling them by placing them in an artificial atmosphere, or upon the footing of paupers. We believe in our manufacturers working like men to produce their own results, and we believe it is a political wrong of the worst kind that the masses, who bear the burden of the industries of Australia, should have only one object to serve, that is to make some industries snug and safe for those who inhabit a few large cities . . . If the protectionist stilts are necessary for the men of the towns, let us buy a few for those who are working under the burning sun. It is the old story over again. The great primary industries are so many obedient milch cows to be milked for the benefit, comfort and safety of the cities . . . If protection is a good thing for labour, why should not labour benefit all through? Why should not the swagman, the boundary rider, the hand on the farm, the hand on the station, the hand in the country store, and the man on the road, with his dray and his team, have a friendly helping hand from the State? If we could confer these benefits all round and help every one, all would be protectionists. But ridicule the principles of political economy as we may, we have never yet been able to prove that if we take a shilling out of one man’s pocket and put it into the pocket of another, it has not shifted its venue. Of course, the fellow who loses the shilling is told that in some mysterious way it travels all round the country, but eventually comes back to his pocket like a boomerang. That is good enough for some political economists, but, as a rule, the old-fashioned principle is the best—the man who has earned a thing has the best right to keep it. If from a motive of benevolence he chooses to pass his shilling to a fellow tradesman well and good; it is a noble act. If he realized the position he would not do it. The charm of the policy of protection is that we can be wondrously liberal to some people at the expense of others without being able to earmark the way in which it is done, and the money with which it is done. The reign of this sham political economy is going to break down. If protection be a good policy it must be extended from the overcrowded cities to the country; but if it is bad it had better be killed . . . What is the effect of the duties of 30 per cent. on boots, shoes, and caps, and duties of 25 per cent. on clothing down to the cheapest kind? On what other commodities, except narcotics and stimulants, do we find duties of 30 per cent.? Why should such heavy duties be placed on the clothing of human beings? Because clothing is necessary for the people, and affords the largest scope for monopoly.
0885-main.qx5
26
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 26
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Who wants a monopoly of any commodity that the poor do not use? What is a monopoly in champagne worth? What is a monopoly in diamonds worth? No; monopolists go straight for the biggest returns, and the necessaries of the masses of the people are sought after for that reason . . . I must admit that the Government have had a victory over us, owing to the force of their superior numbers; but it is a victory full of many humiliations. We have been defeated, but our defeat may prove to be one of those transient reverses which sweeten the success of ultimate triumph. I suppose that during our prolonged struggle to lighten the burdens of the people, we have incurred the dislike of men who have crowded those galleries, and infested the lobbies of Parliament, not to promote the public good, but to gain private advantage. I have no doubt that we shall be regarded with bitter aversion by those who have so strenuously endeavoured to win the aid and countenance of the Legislature in order to exploit the necessities of the poor. I think I can with all propriety claim that I voice the unanimous feeling of every member of His Majesty’s Opposition when I say that we shall always look back upon this prolonged struggle with feelings of satisfaction and pride. As to the future I am sure we shall be equally determined. I feel that we shall be united as
George Reid 1905. NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA, A1200, L11178.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 27
THE
Bookhouse
FIGHT FOR FREE TRADE
27
one man, to do all that we can, in this new land of ours, to save our infant Constitution from those evils which all the world over have turned systems of government into huge engines of favoritism and monopoly, adding abundantly to the wealth of the man of many possessions, whilst taking from him who hath little all that he hath.2
k George Reid (1845–1918), Free Trade Party 1901–06, Anti Socialist Party 1906–09, Member for East Sydney 1901–09. Positions held: Leader of the Opposition 1901–04, 1905–08, Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs 1904–05.
k Free Traders had to wait for almost 75 years for their arguments to gain ground. Although their cause was vigorously championed by Bert Kelly in the 1960s (see pages 169–72), his was virtually a lone voice. Protection, along with arbitration of wages and conditions for workers became two of the fundamental principles that underpinned the economic policy of successive Australian governments. Ultimately, it was the Labor Party, under the leadership of Gough Whitlam, that dramatically reversed the long-standing commitment to protection against which Reid had fought when, in mid-1973 it announced a 25 per cent tariff cut that ‘was the most substantial single assault on protection’.3
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 28
Bookhouse
‘. . . one of the greatest measures passed [in Parliament] . . .’
Introduction of invalid and old-age pensions L ITTLETON G ROOM , Attorney-General, 3 June 1908 In the early years of Federation, Australia established a reputation of pioneering social legislation. The Deakin Protectionist Government introduced the historic Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Bill in 1908. Some States were already providing aged and invalid pensions. However, under Australia’s Constitution the federal government was given the power over these payments. All political parties supported the payment of old-age pensions. It took until 1908 to enact legislation to provide pensions because of concerns about the cost to the federal budget. The Labor Party leader, Andrew Fisher, said the Bill was ‘an advance upon any legislation of the kind passed in any other part of the world’.1 The measure gives legislative force to a principle which has long been in the platforms of the various political parties of the Commonwealth. The Government has consistently advocated the payment of Commonwealth old-age pensions, and has always determined to provide for it at the earliest opportunity. It is not necessary at this stage of our national development to support with arguments the need for a Commonwealth old-age pensions system. In every enlightened community the establishment of old-age pensions is regarded as an ideal whose attainment should be earnestly sought, it being felt to be a reproach to civilization that many persons whose lives have been spent in working for the advancement of the State should in their old age, through no fault of their own, be compelled to end their days in charitable institutions. The States of New South 28
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 29
INTRODUCTION
Bookhouse
O F I N VA L I D A N D O L D - A G E P E N S I O N S
29
Wales, Victoria, and Queensland, pay old-age pensions to those who have resided within their borders for a certain period, but, in the remaining three States of the Union, no such provision is made for the declining years of those upon whom misfortune has fallen. The Bill provides for the establishment of a national system of old-age pensions. It recognises that our citizens must frequently move from State to State in pursuit of their various callings, and that it is unjust to base the right to a pension on continuous residence in any one State. We owe much to the labours of the Old-age Pensions Commission for formulating a national scheme. It took evidence, and presented an unanimous report, signed by members of every party. But it is not enough that this policy should receive the sanction of all political parties; it must be carried into effect by legislation . . . The Commonwealth proposals are liberal—though not unduly so—and just. We propose that a pension of £26 per annum shall be payable, under certain conditions, to every person who has attained the age of sixty-five years, or, if permanently incapacitated for work, the age of sixty years. We intend to make no deductions from the amount of £26 if the pensioners happen to be husband and wife, and are living together. But if a person is deriving an income from any source except that of a friendly society, or trade or provident society, there will be deducted from his pension one pound for every pound of income he receives in excess of £26. Thus, if a man is 65 years of age, and has an income of £30 a year from personal exertion, he will still get an old-age pension, but the amount will be reduced by the sum of £4. The amount of pension must not exceed £26 in any event, nor must it be at such a rate as will make the pensioner’s income together with his pension exceed £52 per annum. A second deduction is based upon the possession of property. A deduction of £1 will be made for every £10 by which the net capital of the property held by a pensioner is in excess of £50. In the case of property being a home the exemption is extended to £100. SIR JOHN FORREST :
Is that a new provision?
MR GROOM :
The principle is not a new one. It has been adopted in some of the States. Thus, if a man has accumulated property valued at £100, a deduction would be made from his pension of £5.
MR BATCHELOR :
The pension will be always kept at £26 a year?
MR GROOM : It is fixed at £26 per annum, but liable to reduction as stated. I am assuming that honorable members are familiar with the principle underlying these deductions. If a man has accumulated property, it is only fair that it should be utilized in supporting him, instead of being left to his descendants . . . We propose to grant pensions to invalids. At present the only State in the Union which grants these pensions is that of New South Wales. There they are granted upon the basis of about £26 per annum. In Victoria a qualified invalid pension obtains [sic]. But we do not propose to bring this portion of the Bill into operation
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 30
SPEAKING
30
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
immediately. We intend to give power to the Governor-General in Council to make it operative by proclamation at a future date . . . It is the intention of the Government, if the Bill should become law, to avail ourselves to the full of the services of Commonwealth officers for the purpose of administering it. There are many advantages to be derived from the adoption of that course. The officers are under our control, are subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act, and are part of a national system . . . I may add that in this Bill there are complete powers given for the imposition of necessary safeguards, for complete investigation of every claim, for a reference back of recommendations, and for cancelling and reducing claims. In short, everything has been done to enable us to exercise full control over the entire system . . . The Bill also provides for the imposition of severe penalties upon persons who obtain pensions by fraud, who make false statements, or who are otherwise guilty of improper conduct. I have been asked what the scheme will cost Australia. MR DUGALD THOMSON : MR TUDOR :
Pensions and administration.
What does it matter what it will cost so long as we do justice?
MR GROOM :
We must pay some regard to the cost of administration. It is estimated that the cost will be about £1,500,000 per annum . . . The Bill is to come into operation on the 1st July, 1909; and, unless something of a very unforeseen nature occurs, we shall, out of the reserves created by the Surplus Revenue Bill, and out of current revenue, be able to meet the expenditure for the year ending the 30th June, 1910, and have a proportion for the time from the 1st July to the 31st December.
MR GL YNN :
The weakness in our finances is that there is no permanent provision for old-age pensions . . .
MR GROOM :
The estimates of revenue I have given are on the assumption that the States continue their present systems of old-age pensions, or do not assist us in any way out of their three-fourths of the revenue. It would appear, however, from the resolution passed at the Premiers’ Conference, and the general tone of the discussions there, that, if we can come to a financial agreement, the States are quite prepared to permit of a deduction being made from their proportion of the Customs and Excise revenue. We all hope and believe that the States will desire to assist us in creating a thoroughly national system . . . Mr Howe, the member of the Federal Convention, who had the wise foresight to move that this power be conferred on the Commonwealth, quoted Mr John Morley as saying that the man or party who solved the question of preventing a man who had worked hard all his life—who had maintained a family, and been a good citizen—from going in his old age to the workhouse, would deserve more glory than that to be gained by winning great victories in the battle-field. These words are true to—day; and this Parliament, if the scheme be successfully brought
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 31
INTRODUCTION
Bookhouse
O F I N VA L I D A N D O L D - A G E P E N S I O N S
31
into operation, will be able to look back to this as one of the greatest measures passed here. In our modern civilization, States are beginning to realize the sense of deep national responsibility to every single unit in the community, and to feel that, if any single person in the great industrial army meets with disaster in the course of his work, a duty is owing to him. A carpenter, in erecting some fine building for us to live in, is, in his particular sphere, doing a national work; and we, as a nation, owe to him a duty, so that, if trouble or accident overtakes him, we should see that he is not sent to the workhouse or left to starve in the streets. That is the spirit and feeling which is more and more animating the legislation of the times . . . 2
k Littleton Groom (1867–1936), Protectionist Party 1901–10, Liberal Party 1910–17, Nationalist Party 1917–29, Independent 1931–34, United Australian Party 1934–36, Member for Darling Downs 1901–29, Member for Darling 1931–36. Positions held: Minister for Home Affairs 1905–06, Attorney-General 1906–08, 1921–25, Minister for External Affairs 1909–10, Minister for Trade and Customs 1913–14, 1924, Vice President of the Executive Council 1917–18, Minister for Works and Railways 1918–21, Minister for Health 1924, Speaker of the House of Representatives 1926–1929.
k The Leader of the Opposition, George Reid, strongly supported the Bill and commended the government for removing any suggestion that it was a charitable allowance: I should look upon a person who qualified under this Act to receive a pension as being just as fully entitled to it as is a Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces, or the Chief Justice of Great Britain, or of any other part of the Empire, to receive a pension under this system.3
However, Reid was concerned about the cost of the Bill and urged that it be delayed until this was resolved. He was very critical of the discriminatory provisions regarding Asians and Aborigines, arguing that pensions should be paid, ‘to all decent persons, of whatever colour and nationality who have resided continuously in Australia’.4 The leader of the Labor Party, Andrew Fisher, opposed any postponement of the Bill and looked forward to further amending the Bill as, ‘people become more enlightened and better educated on this question’.5 The old-age pensions were paid from 1 July 1909, and invalid pensions from 15 December 1910.6 Pensions were paid at the rate of £26 a year. In current dollar terms this represents about $2,500 a year. The cost of the old-age pension to the budget totalled £1,550,000 in 1908 or, in current dollar terms, $150,000,000.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 32
Bookhouse
‘. . . it is not fair to Judas . . .’
An attack on Alfred Deakin B ILLY H UGHES , Attorney-General, 28 May 1909 An historic turning point in Australian politics occurred when the Protectionist Liberals, led by Alfred Deakin, joined the Free Traders to form an alliance against Andrew Fisher’s minority Labor Government. The withdrawal of support by the Protectionist Party led to the collapse of the Fisher Government and ultimately to the formation of a new government. Alfred Deakin became prime minister for a third time. Sir William Lyne, a member of the Protectionist Party, did not approve of Deakin’s changing allegiances and, ‘boiling over with rage’, informed journalists of his intention to point at Deakin in the Parliament and shout ‘Judas! Judas! Judas!’.1 This theme was picked up by other Labor members, but ‘none could match Hughes for vitriol’.2 As they heard what was taking place in the chamber, members and senators came in from all parts of the building to hear Hughes’ ‘terrible indictment’ of Deakin.3 The press gallery was crowded. The reporters, accustomed though they were to frenzied and turbulent scenes, had never listened to anything so devastating as this speech. The veins stood out on the orator’s hands, and his face was suffused with the blood of boiling indignation.4
The honorable and learned member for Ballarat [Deakin] has just favoured us for the first time with some excuses for his present action. He has found that which we feared he had lost for ever—his facility for explaining and excusing everything— and has given us fresh occasion for amazement, and for some little amusement. The honorable gentleman has been endeavouring to elevate political assassination into a fine art, and to place it upon a scientific basis. It appears now that the reason 32
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 33
AN
Bookhouse
AT TA C K O N
ALFRED DEAKIN
33
why he assassinated the Watson Government was that he was inveigled under specious pretences to draft an amendment which he had not the faintest idea would have the result that followed its adoption. MR DEAKIN :
I rise to a point of order. Last night I contradicted the honorable member when he made the same statement. I told him then that it was entirely erroneous, and that he had read the speech in which the charge was made against me, but had failed to read the reply that I made at the same time.
MR SPEAKER :
I see no point of order in the honorable member’s contention . . .
MR HUGHES : The honorable member for Ballarat has explained that he was entrapped
into drafting the amendment which brought about the defeat of the Watson Government. I quoted last night, by way of reply, the words used by the right honorable member for East Sydney to the effect that that was a hollow and specious statement of facts. If the honorable member says it is not true that he drafted that amendment, or that he voted for it under the belief that it was not vital to us, let him still take refuge in what flimsy protection such a denial will give him, for no other man in the country will believe him. He has explained and justified the assassination of the Watson Government which he promised to loyally support. Had De Quincey lived until now he would have been able to include in his delightful essay on Murder as a Fine Art the methods of the honorable member for Ballarat, for no man has adopted such a variety of methods, and none has contrived to more successfully evade the consequences of his political crimes. His last assassination in some respects out-Herods Herod . . . Last night the honorable member abandoned the finer resources of political assassination and resorted to the bludgeon of the cannibal. Having perhaps exhausted all the finer possibilities of the art, or desiring to exhibit his versatility in his execrable profession he came out and bludgeoned us in the open light of day. It was then that I heard from this side of the House some mention of Judas. I do not agree with that; it is not fair—to Judas, for whom there is this to be said, that he did not gag the man whom he betrayed, nor did he fail to hang himself afterwards. MR SPEAKER:
Order; the honorable member is referring to a remark that was withdrawn, and his reference to it aggravates the injury of it. I ask him to withdraw and apologise.
MR DEAKIN :
Two old jokes. Keep on repeating them . . .
MR HUGHES :
There is surely some moral obliquity about a nature such as his. No act that he commits, no party that he betrays, no cause that he abandons, affects him at all. He regards himself as the selected and favoured agent of Providence. Everything that he does he does for the very best. He does it because there is nothing else that can be done to conserve the welfare of the people and the interests of the nation. To realize this noble ideal he has assassinated Governments, abandoned friends to the wolves, deserted principles, and deceived the people. Just now he
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 34
SPEAKING
34
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
wishes to fill the empty spaces of Australia; and he gathers about him those gentlemen who are responsible for the monopolization of the lands of Australia. He proposes to establish a citizen defence force. He has been converted to that policy. I have to declare that he has done much good in his time, for I heard him convert himself on the question of a national defence force when he spoke in London. Up to that time he had been uncertain. MR DEAKIN :
I had declared myself only five years before.
MR HUGHES :
The honorable member may change again, of course. He may come round to the other side once more. But he proposes to establish compulsory military training with the assistance of gentlemen who have declared it to be the most dangerous and infamous expedient to which a British-speaking people could resort . . . He is the political mercenary of Australia. He will lead any party—he will follow none! He is faithful to only one thing—himself. He is true to only one power, and bends the knee to only one principle, and that is that which is at any time the most powerful. To the Age he never turns a deaf ear. Of that organization, the Orange Lodge . . . we see him a servile and humble adherent. He has done all these things; he has abandoned his party, and he has applied the gag to those who were his friends and allies, and prevented them from explaining their policy, a policy which he declared—was it five or six or ten days ago—to be a good one for Australia and a policy which even now he is unable to attack successfully. He sits there now and declares that he is content to leave everything to the cool judgment of the people. He means the refrigerated, the hypnotised judgment of the people. Let him get to the people, whilst the facts and the memory of his latest acts are fresh in their minds. When he says, “We will sweep the country,” the statement is perfectly true. The honorable gentleman will sweep the country, but we shall be the men who hold the broom and he will be the broom with which we shall sweep it.5
k William (Billy) Hughes (1862–1952), Australian Labor Party 1901–16, National Labour 1916–17, Nationalist Party 1917–29, Independent Nationalist 1929–31, United Australia Party 1931–44, Liberal Party 1944–52, Member for West Sydney 1901–17, Member for Bendigo 1917–22, Member for North Sydney 1922–49, Member for Bradfield 1949–52. Positions held: Minister for External Affairs 1904, 1921–28, 1937–39, Attorney-General 1908–09, 1910–13, 1914–15, 1918–21, 1939–41, Prime Minister 1915–23, Minister for Trade and Customs 1916, Minister for Health 1934–35, 1936–37, Minister for Repatriation 1934–35, 1936–37, Vice-President of the Executive Council 1934–35, 1937, Minister in Charge of Territories 1937–38, Minister for Industry 1939–40, Minister for Navy 1940–41.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 35
AN
Bookhouse
AT TA C K O N
ALFRED DEAKIN
35
The new government was formed on 2 June 1909. This was Deakin’s third and last government and the only one where he had a clear majority. The Fusion Party subsequently adopted the title of ‘Liberal Party’, marking ‘the creation of a unified non Labor Party which, despite the subsequent emergence of the Country Party (National Party) has continued in various reincarnations to this day.’ 6 The fury of the Labor Party continued over the following weeks. Labor speakers ‘droned away in stone walling speeches of remorseless duration’.7 A record was set for the longest speech—10 hours and 57 minutes—by Labor Member for Gwydir William Webster. ‘At the height of one violent, vilifying debate, the Speaker, Sir Fredrick Holder, was heard to mutter, ‘Terrible! Terrible!’ before slumping dead in his chair.’ 8 Gavin Souter, in his book, Acts of Parliament, said that the, ‘death had a chastening effect upon the House, and less was heard in future about treachery and betrayal.’ 9 The Deakin Government lasted for just over a year. Andrew Fisher resumed the prime ministership when he led the Labor Party to victory at the 1910 election.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 36
Bookhouse
‘. . . the greatest battle of all . . .’
Private enterprise versus state control G EORGE R EID , Member for East Sydney, 14 July 1909 In an historic speech, George Reid, who had been a key figure in the fusion between protectionist and free trade forces, outlined the issue on which future political battles over Australian development would be fought—namely, whether private enterprise or socialism would be the driving force. His speech lasted over two hours and the, ‘Crowded benches and packed galleries followed his . . . bright sword play, with cheers first among one side and then from the other . . .’ 1 A former leader of the Free Trade Party and Prime Minister, Reid effectively brought about consolidation of the liberal forces in Australia. This extract from the speech focuses on the future of liberalism in Australia. . . . One of the most serious complaints which have been made from the other side is a fear as to the future of Liberalism in Australia under this new fusion of parties. They point to one or two individuals upon this side of the House as representing a policy of Conservatism, and they profess to be gravely alarmed as to our political future. Considering that the leader of the present Government [Alfred Deakin] was looked up to until recently by them as one of the strongest exponents of the most advanced Liberalism in Australia—considering that for six years the honorable and learned Prime Minister was the guide, counsellor, and friend of the Labor party— surely they should rejoice that this advanced leader in Liberal politics has been reinforced by some honorable gentlemen who at former periods were in a state of more or less antagonism to him. 36
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
P R I VAT E
Page 37
Bookhouse
E N T E R P R I S E V E R S U S S TAT E C O N T R O L
37
The belief opposite seems to be that the one or two gentlemen who are supposed to be Conservatives will direct the Government. That is a perfectly natural feeling on the part of those who have been accustomed to direct Governments for such a lengthened period of time; but I feel that the result will be, not the weakening of Australian Liberalism, but in the direction of strengthening it. Indeed, I believe it is a mere political trick of the most obvious kind to endeavour to describe any party, either in the Federal or in the State arena, as a Conservative party. There is no such party in Australia. There is no country in the world where the people are less paralyzed by reverence for the past . . . I cannot forget that there are in and behind this Government a large number of my own old friends and supporters. When honorable members seek to draw some artificial line of Liberalism, as the honorable member for Gippsland [George Wise] did the other night. I should like to ask them what line of Liberalism divides men like the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Customs, and the Minister of External Affairs, from men like the Minister of Defence, the Attorney-General, the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Postmaster-General? MR HALL : MR REID :
There is no line!
There is no real line. Once the fiscal question [tariffs] is set aside there is no substantial line dividing the Liberals whom I have named. When my friends opposite become so impatient as to the sinking of the fiscal question, which has been agreed to in this case, may I remind them that there is no party here which has sunk the fiscal question so persistently and so scientifically as the Labor party of Australia has done. Is it not marvellous that ardent Free Traders like the honorable member for West Sydney [Billy Hughes], Senator Pearce, the honorable member for Grey [Alexander Poynton], and, once, the honorable member for Wide Bay [Andrew Fisher], should be able to co-operate loyally for so many years with the most rabid Protectionists in the Labor party? If they had not done so the Labor movement would have been impossible; and, surely, they can allow their political opponents the same privilege? . . . surely, if my honorable friends opposite, in the pursuit of high political objects and great national changes, to which they attach importance, have been able to work amicably together, the same privilege, with the same objects in view, should be allowed to honorable members on this side of the House. May I be allowed to say that I listened to the speech of the honorable member for Gippsland [George Wise] with great pleasure? It was a speech of real ability, animated, I am sure, by honorable feeling. But may I also suggest to that honorable member that, as in the case of too many gentlemen whose politics have been fashioned in Victoria, the term Liberalism would appear to be defined in his view by the geographical boundaries of his State? Liberalism is altogether too broad a term, and represents too great a principle, for any such limitation. Liberalism was not invented in Victoria; Liberalism in Australia is the child of the great Liberalism
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 38
SPEAKING
38
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
of the Mother Country, and the child of Liberalism throughout the nations. One of the points about this fusion which recommends it most strongly to me is that, for the future, the term Liberal in Australian politics will have a broader meaning and a more generous sound—that this consolidation of Liberal forces will, I hope and believe, work effectively in our future political life. May I say, in all sincerity, that, in my deliberate view, aided as it is by a considerable degree of political experience, that if there is one party which should not lament this new development it is the Labor party of Australia? OPPOSITION MEMBERS :
Hear, hear.
MR REID :
That is the party which for so many years occupied a position in this Parliament altogether unworthy of its strength and its ability, and, if it has a future, equally unworthy of its future. Surely my friends opposite will feel a greater degree of satisfaction in standing together shoulder to shoulder with a leader of their own choosing. Whether we regard the matter from that point of view or from another, we are now on the threshold of a stage of Australian politics which will reflect greater credit on all parties. To show how awkward the honorable member for Gippsland’s [Wise] definition of Liberalism is, I may point out that if there is any one principle to which he devotes his undoubted abilities, it is the principle of Protection. If the honorable member went to reside in the Mother Country, who are the men with whom he would find himself associated in the political struggles there? He would have to join the Tories of England. This reflection upon some of us is equally a reflection upon honorable members of the Labor party who hold similar fiscal views. The fact is that Protection, which may be in the estimation of many patriotic men— and in the estimation of most nations it is—a patriotic policy, is not one that can ever mark the line between one set of advanced political thinkers and another. It has never done so.
MR HUTCHISON : MR REID:
No cheers from the Government benches now.
The honorable member who excites my greatest admiration, is the honorable member for Hume [William Lyne]. Great men like Gladstone could evolve from a position in which they were the hope of the Tories into another in which they became the hope of the Radicals of England. In the course of a long, active, fearless, and honorable public life, they could work conscientiously from one extreme to the other, without any suspicion of insincerity or of mercenary motive . . . But the one great statesman of the world, against whom no such reproach can be levelled, is the honorable member for Hume [Lyne]. If his own version of his political career be the correct one, he began as a fossil, and a fossil he remains. I know the honorable member too well, however, not to be aware that that does not justly describe his public career, and I trust that, notwithstanding the strength of the antagonism that prevailed between us for many years, there is no element of personal bitterness in our fight.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
P R I VAT E
Page 39
Bookhouse
E N T E R P R I S E V E R S U S S TAT E C O N T R O L
39
SIR WILLIAM L YNE : No, but I brought down the right honorable member every time. MR REID : If the honorable member did, that only shows what a rogue elephant can
do when he gets his feet on you . . . After all, the sooner we recognise fairly and manfully what is the real line of cleavage between honorable members opposite, and those on this side of the House, the better. The real line of cleavage is the line between those who believe in development by private enterprise as against those who believe in development, in the industrial world, by State monopolies. That is the line of cleavage. There are, on this side of the House, men who are just as genuine in their love of Australia—just as keen in their instincts of humanity—as is any honorable member opposite. But a broad line divides us. The question that separates us is, whether the development of Australia on lines of private enterprise is the right method of development, or whether the industrial development of Australia along lines of State control is the proper one. There is a broad principle involved, and it is upon that the battle must be fought. I was suspected of some sort of disposition to run counter to the fusion; but there is no man in Australia who ought to be prouder of the fusion than I should be, since I laid its foundation in the battle that I fought before the electors three years ago. It was then that I called for an alliance between Free Traders and Protectionists, sinking the fiscal issue, in order to fight what, in my opinion, was the greatest battle of all: the battle of those who believe in the development of Australia by private enterprise as against those who believe in development by State monopoly . . . 2
k George Reid (1845–1918), Free Trade Party 1901–06, Anti Socialist Party 1906–09, Member for East Sydney 1901–09. Positions held: Leader of the Opposition 1901–04, 1905–08, Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs 1904–05.
k This was Reid’s last major speech in the parliament. He accurately foresaw the battle between the Labor and Liberal forces in Australia that dominated politics for the following century. A week after this speech Reid was knighted. Bearing the letters K.C.M.G (Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George) after his name, Sir George Reid often proclaimed that the initials stood for, ‘keep calling me George’.3 The following January he left Australia to be Australia’s first High Commissioner in London, an appointment which was greeted with almost universal applause. The protectionist policies of all political parties were finally reversed in the 1980s and 1990s when Australia became one of the world’s more open economies.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 40
Bookhouse
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 41
Bookhouse
WA R A N D D E P R E S S I O N
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 42
Bookhouse
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 43
Bookhouse
‘. . . the boundary lines of misery are not in Belgium.’
Opposing war aid for Belgium F RANK A NSTEY , Member for Bourke, 14 October 1914 The ‘silver-tongued orator’,1 Frank Anstey, rose to his feet late in 1914 and, in the ‘first of a remarkable series of speeches which were increasingly to make him the centre of opposition to the Government, attacked the whole concept of the war’.2 This speech was made after his own leader, Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher, had proposed to parliament that £100,000 be granted in aid to the government of Belgium ‘as a tribute of praise for the valour of its people, and the great sacrifices they have made’ 3 following its invasion by Germany. Anstey, ‘probably the greatest orator and debater, with the exception of Alfred Deakin, that Parliament has known’ 4, gave a blistering speech that not only opposed the grant, but attacked the war itself as, ‘the outcome and the product of the capitalistic system.’ 5 I suppose that we all deplore this great war in Europe, and recognise that the fight for the possession of Australia is now taking place on the battlefields there. There is no doubt that it is a question as to which flag and what king Australia is to continue to exist under. We have, therefore, a personal interest in what is now taking place, and to that extent it becomes our duty to furnish all the aid we can, whether in arms or men. And when we say that this is our duty, in regard to men, we must not forget that under our Defence Act we have provided that we are to be exempt from any contest from which we consider it necessary to be exempt. But a thing worth voting for is a thing worth dying for and fighting for—not merely worth talking about, but, if need be, worth going to where the contest is, where the cannon are roaring, the rifles cracking, and the bayonets flashing. To that extent I question whether there is any one who disagrees as to the proposition, 43
0885-main.qx5
44
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 44
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
and who is not equally loyal, whether the cost be reckoned in thousands or millions, or whether or not our own homes may be in danger. But £100,000! What for? Will some one tell me? Not a word. Has the Prime Minister mentioned what this money is for? Not one word; I listened in vain. I have heard that it is to be a recognition of our appreciation of the heroic defence by the Belgians . . . Has the King become the recipient of our sympathy? . . . Are the widows and orphans confined within the boundary lines of Belgium? I read yesterday that Rheims is in flames, and that other places are smouldering ruins or reduced to dust; the boundary lines of misery are not in Belgium. Are we asked to believe that Belgium has continued this struggle without aid for ten weeks against the power of Germany? Has not Belgium had the aid of England and France, who are participants in the glory? But where is the £100,000 to go? Who is to distribute it? Is it a gift from the Australian people to the Belgian Government? Where is that Government? The Belgian people are now in such a position that they cannot escape the German yoke under which they are today; and it is Germany who controls their lives and destinies. To whom will this money be given? To the half-million men and women who have gone into Holland? No; we do not provide a single penny for those men and women. You would present it to a Government that exists only in name . . . The Government of the country has no control of its territory. What authority has it in Belgium? Are those of the moneyed classes of Belgium who have already fled to Great Britain to be intrusted with the distribution of these funds? . . . The other day we read in the newspapers that this king—who in the profits that he reaps from the horrors of the Congo which were left to him by his predecessor possesses enough to keep all his people in food—stood on a balcony in Brussels and told the populace, “I will be with you to the last. I will fight in the trenches, and will be shot in the last ditch.” A day or two later he added, “When the first German shot falls into Antwerp I shall shoot Prince Adelbert, who is my prisoner.” But did he wait for the shot to be fired? Did he wait for the ring round Antwerp to be completed? No. We read last Saturday that he was scuttling like a rabbit for Ostend. His action reminds me of a hero who kept asking for the enemy, but who thought it better to have it said of him, “There he runs” than “There he fell.” It is to this king that we propose to hand £100,000, without a word conditioning a guarantee for the expenditure of one single penny of it upon the relief of any suffering individual in Belgium. In 1910, when the miners of Charleroi were being shot down by the maxim guns of their Government, we of the Labor party here in Australia had not a penny to offer, nor a word of sympathy to say, on their behalf. We were told then, “We must leave these matters to a self-contained Government to deal with.” In those streets in which lie the dead to-day lay, three or four years ago, the bodies of miners
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 45
OPPOSING
Bookhouse
WA R A I D F O R
BELGIUM
45
who had been shot down, leaving behind them suffering wives and children. For them we had no expression of sympathy, no recognition of their great struggle, not a penny of help. It was said that, as a Labor party, we had to be modest and discreet. Now, however, we are waving the flag, and voting £100,000 for the Belgian Government to do what it likes with . . . I smile at the talk about civilization in connexion with the present war. The scalping knife and the tomahawk of the savage were humane weapons compared with those which modern science has forged for this conflict. You read of men being caught in electrically charged barbed wire entanglements. The entangling wires stretch out like the tentacles of an octopus, seizing one victim after another, and holding blackened corpses in their embrace. Do you call that civilization? We read, too, of funnel-shaped pits into which men fall, and fish hooks which catch them and rip out their bowels. We hear of shells which explode and dismember bodies, blowing arms and legs in all directions. We hear of other shells from which escape poisonous fumes which leave men dead on the fields, their mouths open, but their limbs unscathed. What a mockery to call this curse of war the upholding of civilization! We, the Labor party, should take the opportunity to point out to the masses of the people that this war is the product and the outcome of the domination of trade and commerce, and the greed of wealth. It is the outcome and the product of the capitalistic system, and all we do is to vote £100,000 to the King of the Congos. Little children’s fingers have been nailed to trees, and men and women have been torn and maimed, in order to bring him wealth. Rothschild is rich, Vanderbilt is rich, Pierpont Morgan was rich, but the King of the Belgians, with his enormous wealth, is as rich as the three of them put together . . . In Melbourne, and throughout Australia, there is a vast amount of unemployment, and it is constantly increasing. We are told that there is no poverty so great, no misery so awful, as that produced by war. I say that the poverty and misery which arise from industrial disaster are equally great. Capitalism has no solution for the present trouble. It has been paralyzed by the war, and we, the Labor party of Australia, have no solution to offer for the evils that confront us. We know not what the next few weeks may bring forth. The one outstanding fact is that thousands of men in every city of Australia are without means for supporting their wives and families. Swift death upon the battlefield is not more awful than hunger and misery. Carlyle wrote that to die is a small thing; the awful thing is to live without knowing what to-morrow will produce. There should not be a penny voted for the relief of destitution abroad—and this money is merely a presentation to the Belgian Government—until we have devised a scheme for relieving the misery, destitution, and hunger within our own borders . . . 6
k
0885-main.qx5
46
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 46
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Francis (Frank) Anstey (1865–1940), Australian Labor Party, Member for Bourke 1910–34. Positions held: Minister for Health and Repatriation 1929–31.
k The motion to grant aid to Belgium was passed by an overwhelming majority of 47 to 5. Anstey, however, was not deterred and continued vociferously to oppose the war and all measures relating to it. He opposed the War Precautions Bills of 1914 and 1915 and was integral to the anti-conscription campaigns of 1916–17 (see speeches by Joseph Cook and Frank Brennan on pages 50–53 and 54–57 respectively)
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 47
Bookhouse
‘. . . to our last man and our last shilling.’
First year of the Great War First year of the Great War
A NDREW F ISHER , Prime Minister, 4 August 1915 On the anniversary of the declaration of World War I, Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher spoke to the parliament of the government’s determination to continue the struggle. During the election campaign in July 1914, Fisher had pledged that Australia would support Britain to, ‘our last man and our last shilling’.1 The phrase had become something of a catchcry, and Fisher used it again in this speech. In April 1915, Australian soldiers had landed in Gallipoli and the idea that the war would be over by Christmas 1914 was long gone. I move— That we, the Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, do, on the expiration of a year of war, present to His Majesty our most loyal service, and record our unchanging determination to continue to a victorious end the struggle for the maintenance of the ideals of Liberty and Justice which are the common and sacred cause of the Allied Nations.
This is a fitting occasion for the renewal by this Parliament, representing as it does the Commonwealth of Australia, of our pledge of loyalty to His Majesty, and for a declaration to all our brothers of the British race and to the nations with which we are allied, of our undaunted determination to see the war through to a successful end. When the war broke out many thought that the year would see it close; to-day no one would predict when it will finish. It is enough to say that a successful end 47
0885-main.qx5
48
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 48
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
will be our aim and object. We are determined to make every sacrifice necessary to achieve it. The war has involved eleven nations. Fighting has taken place on three continents—America and Australia alone have been spared the spilling of blood. But, though Australian territory has remained unviolated, Australia’s sons are acting their part at the seat of war. Our justification for the part that we are playing in the conflict is that our interests, equally with those of the Mother Country, are involved. And Australia has no cause to feel other than flattered at the way in which her sons have responded to the call of arms—75,000 of the best and bravest have gone to the front overseas. More than 40,000 are undergoing training here in preparation for despatch. Those of them who have been privileged to meet the foe face to face have well upheld the honour of their country. Indeed, they have added lustre to her name, and have gained imperishable renown for themselves. But all has not yet been done that must be done. No one can foresee the necessities of even the hour, and we know not what the future will demand, but whatever the sacrifices that we may have to make, let them be made cheerfully. Far better that we should die than be under the servitude of the nation which is our enemy. A singular series of incidents marked the commencement of the war. Servia [sic] found herself in difficulties with Austria, and Russia took her part. Germany thereupon declared war against Russia. But she did not immediately commence to make war upon that country. Her first step was to invade—not Russia; not even Servia; but Luxembourg, a neutral state. She then demanded of France what that country proposed to do, and when France replied that it was her intention to protect her own interests, Germany declared war against France. Yet the first blow fell— not upon France, but upon Belgium, with whom Germany had no quarrel. In neither case did Germany attack in the first instance the nation against which she had declared war. Having declared war on Russia, she fell upon Luxembourg. Having declared war upon France, she fell upon Belgium. That fact in itself condemns that nation in the eyes of every free and freedom-loving people in the world. Whatever the military power and prestige of the Germans, it is the duty of the rest of mankind to put the German nation into its proper place. I believe that Australians will do in this war more than the most optimistic of us could, before war began, have believed possible. I believe, too, that our patriotism will rise to the measure of our requirements. It becomes us all, whatever may be our position, our wealth, or our ability of personal service, to do what we can to maintain our just cause. To repeat what I said at the very beginning, Australia in this business must be with the Mother Country and for her, to our last man and our last shilling.2
k
Andrew Fisher (1862–1928), Australian Labor Party, Member for Wide Bay 1901–15 Positions held: Minister for Trade and Customs 1904, Prime Minister and Treasurer 1908–09, 1910–13, 1914–15, Leader of the Opposition 1909–10.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 49
FIRST
Bookhouse
YEAR OF THE
G R E AT W A R
49
k The only other speaker on the motion was Joseph Cook, the Leader of the Opposition. In an emotional speech he said, ‘It is for the future we fight . . . we must finish it while we are at it . . . to hesitate at this time would be to earn the contempt of the generations that are to come’.3 The motion was carried unanimously, with acclamation.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 50
Bookhouse
‘War is marching in seven-leagued boots . . .’
In support of conscription J OSEPH C OOK , Leader of the Opposition, 13 September 1916 In the first century of Federation, conscription for overseas service became a contentious political issue on several occasions. In 1916 it destroyed the Labor Government and reignited sectarian tension. Faced with huge casualities on the battlefields of France and declining recruitment at home, Labor Prime Minister Billy Hughes decided to introduce conscription. However, major sections of Hughes’ own political party were opposed to his policy and so he sought public endorsement. The opposition supported Hughes’ moves to conduct a referendum. Sections of the Labor Party vigorously opposed it. In this speech, delivered during the second reading debate on the Military Service Referendum Bill, the Leader of the Opposition, Joseph Cook, passionately supports Hughes’ call for conscription. . . . I never before rose to address the House with a greater sense of gravity than I now feel. From whatever point of view it may be regarded, the position is very grave. The daily newspapers show that recruits are only dribbling in, while enormous casualty lists are piling up. War is marching in seven-leagued boots, and we must keep up or perish by the way. The sooner we address ourselves seriously to the position, and squarely face the real interests of the country, the better it will be for us, for our honour as a nation, for the Empire, for the Allies, and the civilized world . . . The Prime Minister has said that it is due to the public that they should be told how imperative and urgent the demand for men is. He has told us that the 50
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 51
IN
Bookhouse
S U P P O RT O F C O N S C R I P T I O N
51
Government, after long and earnest deliberation, has arrived at the conclusion that the voluntary system of recruiting cannot be relied on to supply the steady stream of reinforcements necessary. The members of the Government, after giving the matter the most serious consideration possible, have arrived at the conclusion that the present system has broken down, and fails to meet the situation. To falter now, the Prime Minister continued, is to lose what we have gained. I entirely agree with him. Now, he says, is the psychological moment, when every ounce of effort is called for. It has been said that he gives twice who gives quickly, and the proverb is abundantly true when applied to the giving of men for the greatest of all services— the defence of the country . . . How true are those words of our present circumstances. Every man that we send now will be equal to two sent months hence. The sooner we face the situation presented to us by the Prime Minister, who, from his visit to the Old Country, and to the front, must know, in a way that we cannot, the requirements of the situation, the better it will be for the successful prosecution of the war, and the greater will be the saving of our brave Australian soldiers’ lives. The more men we can pour into the theatres of war now, the more we shall save from the hell, as it has been called, into which our men must enter for the defence of their country . . . There are some who do not believe in the compulsory method of raising men, who say that Australia has done enough. I hope that there are not many in this Parliament who think that. We have not done enough, and shall not have done enough until we have won the war, even if, to use the words of the ex-Prime Minister, it takes “the last man and the last shilling’’ . . . We are proud of what the Empire has done, and our contribution must be adequate, and in every way worthy of that effort. We must emulate the sacrifices that are being made elsewhere. While we have sent men, we have had to rely on the Motherland for rifles, shells, and guns of all kinds. We manufacture very little warlike material in Australia, and must go a long way before we have a self-contained and efficient army. It is our duty to do the best and utmost that we can do. The late President Garfield made use of words which I commend to the notice of every man in this Chamber, and which I should like every man and woman in Australia to hear. Considering the possibilities of war, he said: A nation is not worthy to be saved if, in the hour of its fate, it will not gather up all its jewels of manhood and life, and go down into the conflict, however bloody and doubtful, resolved on measureless ruin or complete success.
. . . the nation must burn its boats behind it, and be prepared to face either irreparable ruin or complete success. Without success in this war, Australia can no longer be free. We are now coming to the real test of patriotism, and of sacrifice. Hitherto we have sent out of our abundance men and material. Now both are becoming scarcer.
0885-main.qx5
52
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 52
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
It is therefore more difficult to meet our demands by voluntary methods. It is times of stress and strain that are the real test of a nation. To give when we have a surplus of wealth and men does not test our metal so much as to give in these times of stress and strain when things are not so easy. Now is the day of our real sacrifice. We have not been hurt much in Australia except for the sacrifice of some of the bravest and best of our men. I am not so sure that the war has not done us good actually, economically, in business, and in many other ways. Money has circulated plentifully, and we have not been hurt very much by the war yet . . . Either we are in this war to stand up to our pledges, our honour, and our responsibilities, or we are not. If we are going to make good our statements—if we are going to honour our pledges—to stand in and with the Empire to the end of
Pro-conscription cartoon from 1917. PICTURES COLLECTION, NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 53
IN
Bookhouse
S U P P O RT O F C O N S C R I P T I O N
53
this bitter fight, the sooner we set about remedying this dilatory condition of things the better for us all . . . I will do nothing to interfere with the free course of the referendum, but everything to help, in the sincere hope that it may do what I consider to be necessary, namely, conserve our honour amongst the nations of the world, and enable us to take our rightful place in the Empire alongside our brothers who are fighting for our freedom and our liberties. It is our duty to stand behind the Government and help them to carry their proposals to success. We must fight on in this matter, and there must be no faltering. To falter now would be a national sin, a national calamity. As the Prime Minister has said, we must do all that we set out to do originally. We must see the fight through to the bitter end, and even if it costs us many more lives, and much more of the wealth of Australia, all must be given freely to this most sacred of all purposes, the defence of our country and the preservation of our civilization.1
k Joseph Cook (1860–1947), Free Trade Party 1901–06, Anti-Socialist Party 1906–10, Liberal Party 1910–17, Nationalist Party 1917–21, Member for Parramatta 1901–21 Positions held: Leader of the Opposition 1908–09, 1913, 1914–17, Minister for Defence 1909–10, Prime Minister 1913–14, Minister for Home Affairs 1913–14, Minister for the Navy 1917–20, Treasurer 1920–21.
k Prime Minister Hughes obtained parliamentary endorsement for the referendum by just two votes. While the opposition supported the Bill, 12 senators and 15 Members of the House of Representatives opposed it at every stage.2 The referendum held on 28 October 1916 was lost, with almost 52 per cent of Australia voting no, despite very strong support in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. Some 54 per cent of soldiers voted yes to the referendum. Two weeks after the referendum, Prime Minister Hughes left the Labor caucus with the words, ‘let all who support me follow me’. Twenty-four of the sixty-five members of the caucus walked out of the room with him.3 With the support of the opposition, Hughes continued as Prime Minister, leading the pro-conscription National Labour Party until February 1917, when a new Government was formed—the Liberals and the National Labour Party merged to become the Nationalist Party, again with Hughes as Prime Minister. Joseph Cook, the Liberal Party leader who had so strongly supported Hughes in the debates on conscription, became Hughes’ Deputy Prime Minister. A second referendum was held on 20 December 1917 and was also lost with 53.78 per cent voting no.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 54
Bookhouse
‘. . . there are questions upon which a majority . . . has no right to coerce a minority . . .’
The case against conscription The case against conscription
F RANK B RENNAN , Member for Batman, 14 September 1916 During the second reading debate on the Military Service Referendum Bill, Frank Brennan, a Labor Member of Parliament, rose to attack Labor Prime Minister Billy Hughes to the cheers of some of his own colleagues. He led the opposition to the Bill, on the basis ‘that there are questions upon which a majority, however large, has no right to coerce a minority, however small’.1 The press reported that ‘every bit of available space in the public galleries was filled’ 2 as Brennan rose to attack conscription in a ‘white heat of passion’.3 Amidst interjections, Brennan accused the prime minister of breaking his word and introducing ‘oppression and coercion’ against Australians.4 . . . I am not surprised that, as the result of this grave and gross breach of faith on the part of the Prime Minister, his Government is already beginning to crumble. Indeed, I would have been surprised had it remained united, in the circumstances. Apparently, it was thought that, because it was determined to take a referendum on this subject, those who were adherents of the Labor party, and exponents of the Labor policy, would be bound to support this Bill; but we shall not proceed very far before we see that many strong Labor men in this House, and men who for years have been advocating the initiative and referendum, are not in the least deceived by the misuse—to use a mild word—of a democratic instrument for an undemocratic purpose . . . 54
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 55
THE
Bookhouse
CASE AGAINST CONSCRIPTION
55
No glowing periods uttered by the Prime Minister, no phrases however well selected or picturesquely delivered, no appeals however emphatic, can blot out the essential facts connected with this Bill. They are, first, that it is a departure of the gravest character from the Prime Minister’s plighted word, and, secondly, that an unexampled act of oppression and coercion is proposed to be exercised against the hitherto free citizens of this Commonwealth . . . We have heard of compulsion and of conscription in many countries. Conscription was proposed, and in a measure adopted, in America, but it was a failure there. That great Democrat, Abraham Lincoln, applied it to his own country when in a state of civil war, and for service within the limits of that country, but even in that case it was a failure. MR HUGHES :
At any rate, he won the war.
MR JOSEPH COOK :
He won the war for freedom. Is that to be called a failure?
MR BRENNAN : He won the war with the patriotic support of free American citizens . . .
Conscription has succeeded in serving the special interests of Prussia. It has also served the military autocracy of Russia. But it has never served the German people, nor the Russian people, nor the French people as a whole, and never, in any part of the world, has any one ventured to apply it under conditions which compel men to travel 12,000 miles across the sea to fight. . . . it has always been recognised that there are questions upon which a majority, however large, has no right to coerce a minority, however small . . . To take a vote of that kind, a vote of the whole people of Australia, to deal with the bodies of a certain limited section of the people of this country, that is not what I understand by a fair referendum, and I do not feel myself either as a Laborite or as a man, in any way called upon to support the proposal. I shall not support it. This Government should try to realize at once that its policy is foredoomed to failure, that it is driving the country to disaster, chaos, confusion, loss, and, probably, bloodshed . . . They have pledged this country to send division upon division. SIR ROBERT BEST : MR BRENNAN :
Hear, hear! “The last man and the last shilling” . . .
Although we were told a little while back that a referendum of the people on proposed alterations of the Constitution could not be taken because it would create strife and ill-feeling, they propose now to throw this country into the vortex of a struggle more acrimonious and bitter than any that has ever happened in the history of Australia. And eventually, if this referendum is rejected, as I believe it will be, we shall be held up to the rest of the world as a nation that refused to do its duty. That is what will be said of us, notwithstanding the magnificent efforts made by this country, the glowing reputation now enjoyed by it, and the magnificent results achieved by it. Because the willing horse has been flogged, and because the burden upon the horse has been doubled instead of lightened, we will be told that
0885-main.qx5
56
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 56
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Poster produced by the anti-conscriptionists in 1917. PICTURES COLLECTION, NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA.
this country has failed in its duty. It will not have failed. It will have done better, having regard to its geographical position, than any other part of the Empire. Having regard to the distance we are from the conflict, the expenditure that is involved in sending our soldiers abroad, and having regard also to our limited population, if justice is done to Australia by those who speak for her, it will have to be admitted that she has done brilliantly . . .5
k Francis (Frank) Brennan (1873–1950), Australian Labor Party, Member for Batman 1911–31, 1934–49. Positions held: Attorney-General 1929–32.
k Despite Brennan’s stance, the Bill was passed. However, the resulting referendum was defeated as was the subsequent one held in 1917. Consequently, conscription was not introduced during World War I. During World War II, a number of key people who were anti-conscription reversed their position. Foremost of these was Labor Prime Minister, John Curtin. In 1916, he had been
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 57
THE
Bookhouse
CASE AGAINST CONSCRIPTION
57
secretary of the Anti-Conscription League, but in 1943 his government introduced conscription for overseas service in the south west Pacific. Billy Hughes had the pleasure of pointing out in his second reading speech on the Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Bill on 4 February 1943 that: this Bill imposes conscription in this country for the first time in its history, and it is imposed by a man [Curtin] who for all his life has bitterly opposed it and has pledged himself and his party many times to prevent its imposition.6
Frank Brennan, who led the attack on conscription in 1916 with this passionate speech, made a moderate speech in 1943. While opposing conscription he did not vote against the Curtin government’s plan.7
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 58
Bookhouse
‘The whole world lies bleeding and exhausted . . .’
The Treaty of Versailles
B ILLY H UGHES , Prime Minister, 10 September 1919 Prime Minister Hughes was known as the ‘little digger’ for his vigorous support of Australia’s troops during World War I. In the following speech, in which he seeks parliament’s formal endorsement of the Treaty of Versailles, Hughes displays all the skills of oratory for which he was famous. The prime minister was on his feet for over two and a half hours. Describing Hughes’ performance in The Argus on the following day, a parliamentary observer recorded: Mr Hughes grows more and more excited. Gesticulating as lavishly as is his custom, he shot out his right arm and uppercut a hypothetical Hindenburg. He mentioned the Kaiser, and his clutching fingers catch the unfortunate monarch by the throat. “Bang!” his two fists come crashing down on the table. The empty teacup shivers in its saucer, papers jump in the air. The death-blow of the Kaiser’s dominion in the Pacific . . . Halfpast 5, and the Prime Minister is finishing his long speech. He sits down amid a burst of applause from both House and gallery. A member of the Opposition is on his feet now; there is vague talk of motions and amendments. But the audience is rapidly filing out. The star turn is over.1
. . . I have laid on the table of the House a copy of the Treaty of Versailles, which is not as other Treaties that have marked the cessation of war and the making of peace between contesting nations in the days that have gone. It is a document of monumental importance, the like of which the world has never before seen. It not only makes peace between Germany and the Allied and Associated Powers, but it 58
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 59
Bookhouse
T H E T R E AT Y
OF
VERSAILLES
59
also reapportions great areas of territory in Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa. It is the charter of a new world. We must examine it in that light, if we wish to ascertain whether it is worthy of the ideals for which the Allies fought and the sacrifices which they made to realize them . . . On the 21st March, 1918, the legions of the enemy, inspired by the hope of speedy victory, and having at their disposal an overwhelming superiority of numbers at that point, hurled themselves against the Fifth Army, which, resisting valiantly, was, after some days, bruised and beaten, and driven back in headlong retreat . . . Imagine this far-flung line of the Allies, the legions of the enemy having broken through it, the Fifth Army in headlong retreat, and these mighty German legions pressing on, flushed with victory, and confident of success. Imagine the city of Amiens, some 80 miles or more distant from Paris, a junction of railways and roads, which commanded practically the whole of the country between there and Paris, and which was indeed the gateway of the citadel itself. Imagine the roads and the countryside filled with flying fugitives, with men who had resisted valiantly, but who had at length broken before the weight of overwhelming numbers. And then imagine a handful of Australian soldiers, brought down hurriedly from the north, and launched against this advancing tide of the Huns. A few miles from Amiens, at a little village called Villers-Bretonneux, the German soldiers had reached the ridge which overlooks Amiens and the country for miles around, when they were met by the Australians advancing through the retreating soldiery of the defeated British Army. These men went forward as confidently then, in the hour of reverse and deadly peril, as they had at any time during this great war. It is a fine thing to be able to say of this small community of 5,000,000 people that at that hour, when every circumstance tended to damp the courage of the most indomitable, her young soldiers went forward and held the German legions, so that not from that day did they advance one yard. The very day on which my colleague and I left these shores was fought the battle which proved to be the turning point of the war on the Western Front. Around Villers-Bretonneux, along the ridge in front of Amiens, and among the hamlets scattered in the neighbourhood, was fought and won that great fight which determined our fate and the fate of all free men; and from that day, inch by inch, the legions of the enemy were pressed back and back. The whole of the Australian Army was brought down and placed in position in front of Amiens, and for a time the two lines swayed backwards and forwards, neither side seeming to gain the advantage; but in the end, little by little, that indomitable will to conquer, that resource and initiative, and that invincible valour, which mark the Australians, overcame all resistance, and backwards, faster and faster, the army of the Huns was forced, until, at the culminating point of the war, the offensive of 8th August was launched, resulting in the final destruction of the last hopes of victory for the Germans; and Australians, Canadians, British, and French pressed onwards, broke the Hindenburg line, and brought victory within our grasp.
0885-main.qx5
60
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 60
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
At the time my colleague and I left Australia, and, indeed, in the days following our arrival in London, it seemed that nothing but a miracle could save the Allies. Certainly, nothing but a miracle could have given us complete and decisive victory, without a long and fearful struggle drawn out over a series of dreadful months or years. No man would have ventured to say that what was done was possible in the time in which it was done, or in the way in which it was done. A miracle was needed, and lo! a miracle was performed—a miracle of valour, heroism, and sacrifice—and every Australian citizen must surely be proud to know that in this glorious achievement the Army of Australia played a great and noble part. Not only on the Western Front, around Villers-Bretonneux—that glorious name— at Mont St. Quentin or Peronne, or in the piercing of the Hindenburg line, did the troops of Australia, take a splendid share in achieving victory, but also in Palestine, where, perhaps, the greatest victory in the history of all the ages was achieved by the forces under General Allenby, the flower of whose Army was made up of Australian soldiers. Where Coeur de Lion and Napoleon had failed, Allenby succeeded; and as soldiers of Australia in the frozen and sodden trenches of France and Flanders had endured and battled, so did their brothers press forward under the burning sun of Palestine, and across its deserts, to achieve a great and complete victory. I want to emphasize once more the greatness of the victory in Palestine, in which our soldiers had so large a share. It was, as it were, the finishing blow that shattered the last hopes of Germany, and snatched from her grasp that Empire of the East, which was her cherished ambition through the long ages, and for which she had been plotting to destroy the world. It was not merely a victory like that of the Marne, which, although decisive, left the German Army almost intact; it was a victory that at one fell swoop not only achieved its objective and prevented the onward march of the Turkish Forces, but absolutely annihilated them; so that, where there was an army, lo! in a few days there were but a few straggling fugitives. In the history of the world there never was a greater victory than that which was achieved in Palestine, and in it, also, as in France, the soldiers of Australia played a great part. When I ask this Parliament to approve of this Treaty, I have a right, as the spokesman for Australia to speak proudly of what Australia has done through her soldiers, her sailors, and all those who have striven, each in their own way, to serve their country in its hour of peril—the women, the nurses of Australia, and those who went out to serve their country, even in the manufacture of munitions, and aid in every possible way in the great conflict which has shaken the world to its very foundations. There never was, in the history of the world before this war, a record like that of this young community of 5,000,000 of people. We sent out a greater Army than Great Britain herself had ever sent out before, and we transported it over 12,000 miles of ocean. We maintained five divisions of fighting men at the front line, men who will stand comparison with the finest and bravest soldiers of any of the Allied and Associated Powers . . . The next point we had to deal with was the White Australia policy . . .
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 61
Bookhouse
T H E T R E AT Y
OF
VERSAILLES
61
I desire to indicate to the House some of the difficulties which confronted us in our struggle. The Japanese delegation moved an amendment to the Covenant of the League of Nations as follows:— The equality of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the high contracting parties agree to accord as soon as possible to all alien nationals of States members of the League, equal and just treatment in every respect, making no distinction, either in law or in fact, on account of their race or nationality.
I think I am entitled to tell the House something of the story of the struggle for the White Australia. That amendment was put forward in a dozen different ways . . . I said then, and I knew I spoke for Australia, that no matter how much the amendment was altered, no matter what words were used, I would not accept it . . . Baron Makino said that the Japanese were a proud people, and had fought by our side in this war. They regarded it as intolerable that they should not be treated as the equals of us and other races. I replied that I would be one of the first to recognise them as our equals. I hope—and I hope so still—that they would always remain our friends and Allies. I recognised to the full what they have done in the war. No one had a greater admiration than myself for the habits of industry and perseverance of the Japanese race. Australia was bounded by the same ocean and hemmed about by the same conditions as was Japan. “But,” I added, “the history of your people has its roots in far different soil. I hope they will always be our friends and Allies. But in ordinary everyday life, men do not invite all their friends into their houses, nor even when they invite them into their houses do they make them permanent residents therein.” Because I do not invite every man in this Parliament into my house, it cannot be said that I do not regard him as my equal. I may select whom I please to enter my house; that has always been regarded as the right of every free man. We are not, therefore, to be regarded as unfriendly to Japan, or as looking down upon the Japanese people when we say, “Your ideals, your institutions, your standards, are not ours. We do not say that ours are greater or better than yours; we only say they are different. Our paths lie in different directions. Our destiny beckons us, and we must tread the road along which we are led by the impulses and instincts which come from our history and our race.” That is the position of Australia towards Japan. We hope that not only with Japan, but with all nations, we shall remain for ever on terms of the most perfect friendship. We claim the right, however, to say in regard to Australia who shall enter and who shall not. This is our house. To keep it ours, our soldiers have sacrificed their blood, and they have placed the keys in our hands. The war was waged for liberty. We had this right before the war, and we claim to retain it now . . . Victory has come and peace. Is the peace worthy of the victory? Is the Treaty worthy of the sacrifice made to achieve it? I shall not measure, or attempt to measure, that sacrifice by money. I put that aside. The sacrifice is to be counted in the lives
0885-main.qx5
62
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 62
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Prime Minister Billy Hughes addresses members of the 5th Australian Field Ambulance at La Motte in France on 3 July 1918. AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL, NEGATIVE NUMBER E02652.
of our bravest and best, who died that we might live. Thousands of them lie buried in foreign soil. Over their graves there is no monument, but their names will live for ever . . . What has been won? If the fruits of victory are to be measured by national safety and liberty, and the high ideals for which these boys died, the sacrifice has not been in vain. They died for the safety of Australia. Australia is safe. They died for liberty, and liberty is now assured to us and to all men. They have made for themselves and their country a name that will not die . . . Industrially, socially, politically, we cannot, any more than other nations, escape the consequences of the war. The whole world lies bleeding and exhausted from the frightful struggle. There is no way of salvation, save by the gospel of work. Those who endeavour to set class against class, or to destroy wealth, are counsellors of destruction. There is hope for this free Australia of ours only if we put aside our differences, strive to emulate the deeds of those who by their valour and sacrifice have given us liberty and safety, and resolve to be worthy of them and the cause for which they fought . . .2
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 63
Bookhouse
T H E T R E AT Y
OF
VERSAILLES
63
William (Billy) Hughes (1862–1952), Australian Labor Party 1901–16, National Labour 1916–17, Nationalist Party 1917–29, Independent Nationalist 1929–31, United Australia Party 1931–44, Liberal Party 1944–52, Member for West Sydney 1901–17, Member for Bendigo 1917–22, Member for North Sydney 1922–49, Member for Bradfield 1949–52. Positions held: Minister for External Affairs 1904, 1921–28, 1937–39, Attorney-General 1908–09, 1910–13, 1914–15, 1918–21, 1939–41, Prime Minister 1915–23, Minister for Trade and Customs 1916, Minister for Health 1934–35, 1936–37, Minister for Repatriation 1934–35, 1936–37, Vice-President of the Executive Council 1934–35, 1937, Minister in Charge of Territories 1937–38, Minister for Industry 1939–40, Minister for Navy 1940–41.
k The debate on the Treaty was, at times, acrimonious. The leader of the Labor Party, Frank Tudor, argued that if other wars were to occur, ‘then the Treaty was hardly worth the paper on which it was written’.3 He pointed to the fact that there was no proposal to reduce armies other than that of Germany and there was no abolition of conscription. He felt that the best guarantee of peace was the League of Nations and that, ‘Every civilized man should do his best to have a proper League of Nations brought into existence’.4 Reflecting the bitterness of the debates in the war years he recalled: The Labor Party, at all events, was denounced because it spoke of peace by negotiation, but we find that many people to-day are prepared to applaud the Peace which was arrived at in that way.5
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 64
Bookhouse
‘. . . this bloody and accursed Empire . . .’
Expulsion of Hugh Mahon B ILLY H UGHES , Prime Minister, 11 November 1920 Only one member has ever been expelled from the Commonwealth Parliament. On 11 November 1920, Prime Minister Billy Hughes moved to expel Hugh Mahon, who had been Australia’s Minister for External Affairs (1914–16) for ‘seditious and disloyal utterances’ 1 On 25 October 1920, Terence McSwiney, a leading figure in the Irish Republican Army and the Lord Mayor of Cork died in Brixton Prison, London, following a 74-day hunger strike. This was at the height of the troubles in Ireland, and the shock of McSwiney’s death was felt in many parts of the English-speaking world. Hugh Mahon, an Irish expatriate, and the Labor Party member for Kalgoorlie, chaired a meeting of 3000–5000 people held by the Irish Ireland League on 7 November in Melbourne. At the meeting Mahon delivered a passionate speech denouncing British rule in Ireland. Reports of the speech caused a sensation and four days later Hughes moved the expulsion motion. The Argus reported that ‘the public galleries were full, and scores of people, eager to hear the debate on the expulsion of Hugh Mahon . . . were unable to gain admission’ 2 The paper continued: When Mr Hughes rose to speak there was a hush of expectancy. He began slowly and haltingly but towards the end of his speech denounced Mr Mahon’s statements with such passion that his voice broke.3
I move— That, in the opinion of this House, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, the Hon. Hugh Mahon, having, by seditious and disloyal utterances at a public meeting 64
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 65
EXPULSION
Bookhouse
OF
HUGH MAHON
65
on Sunday last, been guilty of conduct unfitting him to remain a member of this House, and inconsistent with the oath of allegiance which he has taken as a member of this House, be expelled this House. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie [Mahon], who I had hoped would have been in his place this afternoon, has written to me stating that he does not intend to be present. I have only this moment received the letter, although he was at an early hour this morning served with the notice that this motion was to be moved . . . His letter is dated “Ringwood, 10th November,” and is as follows— Right Hon. W.M. Hughes, M.P., Prime Minister Sir, I receive at 1.20 p.m. to-day, at my home, in a remote part of this district, your summons to attend in Parliament at 2.30 p.m. I regret that the accident which prevented me from complying will also deprive me of the pleasure of hearing your speech in support of the proposal to expel me from Parliament. In giving notice of this proposal, I observe that you have been generous enough to imply that my absence from the House was due to lack of courage. May I say that recollection of some incidents in your own career should have saved you from impugning any man’s courage. I shall recall one only. Early in 1916, when the enemy submarine menace became alarming, you ostentatiously announced your projected departure for Europe by an Orient steamer. You pretended to leave for Melbourne, but you secretly left the train at a suburban station and skedaddled from Sydney by an American ship. You cared nothing for the unfortunate crew and passengers by the Orient steamer, whose risks were increased by your supposed presence on board. You added to their dangers by the precautions taken for your own safety. So much for your courage—and humanity. Now, as to the speech which has given you offence. You based your interrogatory yesterday on an incomplete report in an enemy newspaper of passages garbled and divorced from what preceded and followed them. No one knows better than you do that to fairly judge a speech or an article you must read it in its entirety. If so read, no impartial person will pronounce my speech to be either “seditious” or “disloyal.” In every civilized community a man who kills another without lawful excuse or recourse to the process of law is regarded as a murderer. The epithet, therefore, rightly applies to a lawless force which slays innocent people whenever they fail to find the guilty. My criticism, which was confined to the acts of British Ministers and their agents in Ireland, made no reference whatever to the Sovereign. I am not aware that the oath of an Australian parliamentarian binds him in allegiance to Mr Lloyd George and his associates. If it did I think a considerable body of honorable members would refuse to
0885-main.qx5
66
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 66
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
take such an oath. In my case it would be specially repugnant, for some six years ago two members of the present British Cabinet advocated an organized armed resistance to the forces of the Crown. One of these potential rebels is leader of the House of Commons, the other Lord Chancellor of England. I submit, therefore, that the terms “seditious” and “disloyal” are not properly applicable to my speech. The newspaper from which you yesterday quoted omitted some points in my speech which did not serve its partisan purpose. I pointed out (1) that the best friends of the Empire were those working for peaceful recognition of Ireland’s rights; its worst friends those who relied on the rule of force in Ireland; and (2) that England’s future is best assured by such a settlement as will obliterate the bitter memories of the past, and enable the two nations to develop a kindly relationship which time might cement into a firm and happy alliance. I regret that I am unable to accommodate you with a statement in person; but really do you seriously think it would make any difference? If, as reported, your Caucus has already decreed my expulsion, then if one spoke with the tongue of an angel he would not alter in one iota their clandestine decree. Yours, &c., H. MAHON
. . . The gravity of the offence committed by the honorable member cannot be over-estimated. We in Australia form the part of a great Empire that encircles the world, and upon whose integrity and power the very existence of this Commonwealth as a free nation depends, and the honorable gentleman is a member of this Parliament, which has been established under the Australian Constitution, a British Statute, the preamble of which declares the Commonwealth to be an “indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.” Yet he publicly denounces the Empire of which the Commonwealth forms a part, as a “bloody and accursed Empire,” and appeals to God to shake its foundations. In the letter which I have read to the House, he has sought to make it appear that, while some persons have drawn from these words of his which I have quoted a sinister meaning, they were susceptible of quite another interpretation; that although he denounces this Empire as one “bloody and accursed,” he was really the best friend of the Empire, and all he was seeking to do was to establish its greatness more firmly. He does not deny using the language complained of, but now says that the report which I read in the House the other day was garbled and incomplete, and that if the whole of his speech had been given, it would be seen that it was far from being a seditious or disloyal utterance. I am not in the position to quote the whole of the speech made by the honorable gentleman. I have no verbatim report, but I have four affidavits by journalists employed by the two leading newspapers of Melbourne, stating that the words which the honorable member is
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 67
EXPULSION
Bookhouse
OF
HUGH MAHON
67
charged with having used were actually uttered by him. According to one affidavit, the honorable gentleman said— The worst rule of the damnable Czars was never more infamous. The sob of the widow on the coffin would one day shake the foundations of this bloody and accursed Empire.
The other three affidavits completely corroborate this . . . As I have already said, the gravity of his offence can hardly be overestimated. He has publicly denounced, in most violent and intemperate language, this Empire, upon whose integrity and power our national safety and very existence depend. He has incited citizens of the Commonwealth, subjects of the King, to pass resolutions for the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, the disruption of the Empire, and for the establishment of a Republic in Australia. His seditious fomenting of ill-will and hostility is entirely unprovoked. Australia has no quarrel with any part of the Empire. Unhappily, it is true that grave differences have arisen between Ireland and England, the solution of which presents, perhaps, the most difficult problem England has ever had to face; but the honorable member is not in Ireland, he is in Australia, and is a member of this Australian Parliament. Yet he is doing his utmost to fan into fiercer flame the trouble between England and Ireland, to injure Britain by vile slander, and to disintegrate the Empire. What he has done amounts to treason to Australia, and makes him unfit to sit here as a member of the Australian Parliament. He has openly advocated the disruption of the Empire, upon whose integrity, as I have already said, this Commonwealth rests. He has covered the honoured name of the Empire with the foulest slime. He has cruelly insulted and humiliated the overwhelming majority of his fellow-citizens in this country . . . And have we not the right to say that the Empire shall not be disrupted, and that there shall be no dismemberment of Britain, because such dismemberment would mean the beginning of the end for us? As Australian citizens, we clearly cannot allow conspiracies against the Empire. We must divorce ourselves entirely from the Irish question, and anybody who counsels the disruption of the Empire must be a traitor to this country . . . Sympathy with Ireland is one thing, sympathy with murder is another . . . His first duty is to Australia. He owes allegiance to Australia. Dare he say for one moment that the action he took, the speech he delivered, the sentiments he uttered, are conducive to the welfare of Australia? Those misguided persons who were present at that meeting, perhaps hardly hearing what the resolutions were, voted for them, and in doing so voted for a republic for Australia. He was chairman of that meeting. He is responsible for all things done at it. What would be the position of this House today if it were confronted by a situation such as the honorable member seeks to create, and which would throw upon us the burden of defending,
0885-main.qx5
68
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 68
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
alone and unaided, this great island continent? How could we do it? I speak of that which I know. This country cannot be defended by 5,000,000 people. All soldiers know, those charged with the responsibility of government know, every man of sense in this country knows, that we are to-day a free Australia because we are an integral part of the British Empire . . . The honorable member said that this meeting was called in order to express indignation of Australia at the murder of Alderman McSwiney, and to express profound sympathy with his widow. I am not a man who, because I differed from Alderman McSwiney in opinion, would deny him that tribute which every man willingly gives to another who is willing to die for a cause. But the honorable member holds up this one man as a martyr, this one man, who deliberately put himself to death, and says that “the sobs of this man’s widow will shake the foundations of this accursed and bloody Empire.” Surely the honorable member has forgotten the mothers and widows of the 60,000 young Australians who died for this “bloody and accursed Empire”? Does he forget them? Are the sobs of that great host of bereaved mothers and widows to go for nothing, while the tears of this one woman are to shake the foundations of this mighty institution, upon which we and all that we stand for, rest and find safety? He says Alderman McSwiney is a martyr. The honourable member forgets the 60,000 martyrs who died for the sake of Australia and liberty . . . This honorable member has been false to his oath of allegiance. He has committed treason to Australia. He has been false to his oath as an Executive Councillor, false to his oath of allegiance as a member of this Parliament. He has bitterly humiliated and insulted the people of this country. He has branded with epithets foul and slimy our fellow citizens in Britain. He is endeavouring to embroil Australia; he is endeavouring to disrupt and dismember the Empire. He has done all of these things deliberately, and is no more worthy to be a member of this House. I therefore submit the motion I have read.4
k William (Billy) Hughes (1862–1952), Australian Labor Party 1901–16, National Labour 1916–17, Nationalist Party 1917–29, Independent Nationalist 1929–31, United Australia Party 1931–44, Liberal Party 1944–52, Member for West Sydney 1901–17, Member for Bendigo 1917–22, Member for North Sydney 1922–49, Member for Bradfield 1949–52. Positions held: Minister for External Affairs 1904, 1921–28, 1937–39, Attorney-General 1908–09, 1910–13, 1914–15, 1918–21, 1939–41, Prime Minister 1915–23, Minister for Trade and Customs 1916, Minister for Health 1934–35, 1936–37, Minister for Repatriation 1934–35, 1936–37, Vice-President of the Executive Council 1934–35, 1937, Minister in Charge of Territories 1937–38, Minister for Industry 1939–40, Minister for Navy 1940–41.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 69
EXPULSION
Bookhouse
OF
HUGH MAHON
69
Apart from Hughes, who at this time led a Nationalist Party Government, there were only two other government speakers. The opposition Labor members attempted to amend the motion, calling for a trial by judge and jury. The amendment was lost. After an all-night sitting the motion was carried by 34 votes to 17 and Mahon was expelled. Frank Anstey, the Member for Bourke, attacked the principle of the government’s actions, stating, ‘some day these tactics will operate against you, and you will be the victims of the doctrine which you . . . for the first time in history . . . have established’.5 Hughes’ speech was subject to some criticism and attacked by some as ‘theatrical and hysterical’. Among his own supporters, Earle Page, for example, ‘recalled years later that he was so disgusted by Hughes’ theatricals that he almost, but not quite, decided to vote against him’.6 A by-election was called to fill the vacancy on 18 December 1920. Mahon was a candidate, but lost to Hughes’ Nationalist Party candidate George Foley.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 70
Bookhouse
‘What is needed is co-operation between the parties to industry.’
Returning arbitration to the states S TANLEY B RUCE , Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs, 23 August 1929 The Maritime Industries Bill led to the fall of the Nationalist Party Government and ended the prime ministerial career of Stanley Bruce. The Bill aimed to hand back responsibility of arbitration of wages and conditions to the states, except in the case of maritime industries. Industry was increasingly frustrated by overlapping and conflicting awards from the state and federal jurisdictions. An attempt to expand the commonwealth arbitration powers had failed in a referendum held in 1926. Among other things, many Labor supporters, ‘suspected that the government’s immediate aim was to give the commonwealth the power to override legislation of Labor state governments seen as too favourable to workers’ interests’.1 As the states refused to cede powers to the commonwealth, Bruce’s answer was to hand back responsibility for arbitration in most areas to the states. Bruce hoped that this would simplify industrial regulation which in turn, he believed, would lead to closer co-operation between industry and unions. This is a measure to give effect to the policy of the Government which already has been announced, to withdraw from the field of industrial regulation save in respect of the maritime and waterside industries, which will continue to be controlled by the Commonwealth, not under its arbitration powers, but under the trade and commerce powers of the Constitution . . . The Government believes that the existing financial and economic position of Australia renders necessary the introduction of a measure of this kind, and that the bill is a real contribution towards the solution of the economic problems confronting 70
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 71
RETURNING
Bookhouse
A R B I T R AT I O N T O T H E S TAT E S
71
us. The passing of this legislation will free industry from many of the embarrassments from which it has suffered in the past, and enable real progress to be made in the development of our primary and secondary industries . . . Every thinking citizen must be concerned with the position now confronting Australia. The state of public finance, Commonwealth and State, is causing considerable embarrassment. The difficulty of raising the loan money necessary for the development of our great heritage is increasing. With regard to private finance also the position is extremely difficult, because of the growing feeling of uncertainty as to the trend of affairs . . . The Government has carried out an investigation in order to ascertain the causes of our troubles and to find a remedy for them. In reviewing the position I ask honorable members to consider first the revenue of the Commonwealth. The financial year 1927–28 ended with a deficit of £2,628,743, which the transactions of the following year increased to £4,987,718, and yesterday the Treasurer, in presenting the Government’s financial proposals for the year, stated that, in order to balance our ledger, it would be necessary to impose additional taxation. But the drastic steps proposed to be taken to improve the position are not expected to better our finances by the end of the present financial year by more than £1,500,000. The financial position of the States is similarly unsatisfactory . . . Now, as the ledger cannot be balanced without the imposition of more taxation, which will increase the cost of production, and thus further hamper the development of our great industries, we must endeavour by increasing our national prosperity and stimulating industry to enlarge the field over which our taxation is spread. How to do that is the problem we have to face to-day. Excluding wool, wheat and certain metals, there is practically no primary product which Australia can now export and sell at a profit in the markets of the world. This position cannot continue indefinitely. Furthermore, in regard to both wool and wheat, our two great staple commodities, there has been recently a heavy decline in prices. It is true that the price of wheat has recovered, which is very fortunate for us, but the recovery has been due to seasonal circumstances in other parts of the world, and we cannot look forward to the present price being maintained. Again, our secondary industries are being subjected to an increasing competition from overseas. Probably there is not one honorable member present, who could not mention some secondary industry on whose behalf he has been approached for an increased measure of assistance under the Tariff. This is the more startling because we have progressively advanced the protection of our secondary industries, to secure to them the home market . . . The obvious answer to our problems is to reduce our costs of production, and I propose to show that, if we go about this thing in the right way, we can reduce the costs of production and yet maintain our high standard of living; and far from doing anything to the detriment of the worker, we shall confer on him the greatest benefit by providing more employment and increasing the purchasing power of his
0885-main.qx5
72
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 72
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
wages. It is, however, absurd to imagine that this can be done merely by passing acts of Parliament. What is needed is co-operation between the parties to industry. A very important contributing fact in the troubles of industry to-day is the duplication of control in regard to industrial regulation, which prevents that co-operation. Trouble has also been caused by the over-riding authority of the Commonwealth, which has led us to enter more and more into the field of industry. Our authority can be exercised in regard to disputes only—and interstate disputes at that—and then only by the method of arbitration and conciliation. It is this that has imposed the limitations and created the legal atmosphere which, to a great extent, are responsible for keeping the parties to industry apart and preventing that co-operation without which there can be no solution of our industrial, economic and financial problems . . . Objection has been taken to the contemplated action of the Government, it being claimed that this constitutes an abrogation of the principle of industrial regulation. It is nothing of the sort. I believe that everybody in Australia thinks industrial regulation essential, not merely for the protection of the individual worker against exploitation by the employer, but for the protection of the decent employer against an unscrupulous rival. It is as necessary for the protection of the employer as for that of the employee. But every State in the Commonwealth has powers of industrial regulation, and has exercised them. We seek merely to prevent the duplication of industrial regulation, in order to overcome difficulties that have manifested themselves as a result of the operation of the two authorities in the same field . . . Let me give a few examples of what could be done if the two sections of industry could be brought together to consider the great issues which are facing us in Australia. One of the major problems that we have to solve if we are to win substantial prosperity is how to secure an adequate return for the wages that are paid. This involves consideration of the piece-work system and payment by results. The great majority of our working people—in fact all except the few extremists—would welcome the introduction of piece-work in order that they might earn as much as possible for the maintenance of their families, provided that the system was safeguarded so that they could not be exploited. One recognizes the difficulty of getting men to accept any system which might be thrust upon them in an award given by a judge who might know very little about the details and ramifications of the industry concerned. But if the two sides could meet around a table and evolve a properly safeguarded system I am sure that it would be welcomed by the great majority of our workers. A few persons in the community desire to enforce a principle which would result in keeping everybody down on the same dead level and so be disastrous to all concerned. They know that they can only keep their positions in their organizations by advocating the adoption of this pernicious policy, and so they resist every effort that is made to introduce an improved system. Another question which the two sides in industry could face with advantage at a round table conference is whether the return obtained by capital from industry
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 73
RETURNING
Bookhouse
A R B I T R AT I O N T O T H E S TAT E S
73
Prime Minister Stanley Bruce in his office in Canberra, January 1926. H. H. FISHWICK/FAIRFAX PHOTOS.
is fair or otherwise. It is probable that no single issue is causing so much unrest in the mind of the average working man to-day, as the suspicion that capital is getting more than an adequate return for the money invested in particular industries. A closer personal touch between employers and employees would make possible the disclosure of authentic information on these matters, and this would remove one of the principal grounds for the suspicion that exists . . . In commending the measure to the House, I again appeal to honorable members to approach its consideration with a full sense of responsibility, and with a realization of its importance to Australia. There is no question of more outstanding importance to the citizens of Australia than the solution of our industrial problems. For years we have been trying to find a solution, and after what has occurred in recent years, I am convinced that we shall inevitably fail unless we are able to bring the contending parties closer together, and obtain that co-operation which is essential. That objective cannot be achieved whilst the dual system of control continues. The measure provides for the abolition of that system, and I believe it will be the means of settling many of the economic and financial troubles confronting us to-day. It will bring the parties in industry closer together, and in that way ensure that better understanding between those engaged in industry, which is vital to the prosperity and happiness of the Australian people.2
k
0885-main.qx5
74
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 74
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Stanley Bruce (1883–1967), Nationalist Party 1918–29, United Australia Party 1931–33, Member for Flinders 1918–29, 1931–33. Positions held: Treasurer 1921–23, Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs 1923–29, Minister for Health 1927–28, Minister for Trade and Customs 1928, Honorary Minister in London 1932–33.
k The Bill was strongly opposed by the Labor Party. There was also dissent in Nationalist Party ranks. Billy Hughes, the former Prime Minister, moved that the Bill be deferred until support for ceding responsibility for industrial regulation to the states could be tested at a referendum or election. The government lost the vote when five rebel Nationalist Party members and the Labor Party supported Hughes’ motion. Bruce then called an election with industrial relations as the central issue. The Scullin Labor Party won a landslide victory. Bruce became the only prime minister in Australian history to lose his own seat.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 75
Bookhouse
‘A grave injustice has been done to me . . .’
Resignation from Scullin ministry T ED T HEODORE , Member for Dalley, 8 July 1930 On the day that ‘Red Ted’ Theodore was to present Scullin’s Labor Government’s first budget, he resigned as Treasurer after only eight months in the role. His resignation followed a report by the Royal Commission established by the Queensland Government into the Mungana Mines. The Commission found that Theodore had an interest in silver-lead mines sold to the Queensland Government at an inflated price while he was Queensland Premier in 1919. A ‘shattered’ Prime Minister Scullin, who was left to cope without his Treasurer as the great depression enveloped Australia, introduced Theodore’s budget to the House the following day.1 Theodore sat on the backbench to hear his budget being delivered. Experienced observers suggested Theodore’s resignation speech was ‘one of the most powerful utterances ever heard in the Federal Parliament’.2 His biographer, Ross Fitzgerald, said the speech was ‘a fine example of the clear and cultivated intellect which was so sorely needed at the time of economic and social disaster which was unfolding about the nation’.3 I thank the Prime Minister for the very generous tribute he has paid to the services rendered during the brief period I occupied the position of Treasurer of the Commonwealth. The circumstances that have led to my retirement from ministerial office are well known to honorable members and the public. The recent report of a royal commission in Queensland has reflected so seriously upon my character, and has impugned my honesty so definitely, that I had no alternative but to hand in my resignation as a Minister of the Crown, and await an opportunity to vindicate my character. I do not wish anyone to infer that my retirement from ministerial office is in any sense an admission that the report of the royal commission is justified. 75
0885-main.qx5
76
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 76
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
I have resigned in recognition of the duty I owe to my former colleagues in the Cabinet, to Parliament, and to the country. A grave injustice has been done to me, and an opportunity must be afforded to me to clear my character . . . The impression has been created by the press that I failed to present myself as a witness before the royal commission, and am, therefore, in some sense to blame if the report is unjust to me. I wish to remove that misapprehension. When the royal commission was appointed, the terms of reference in no way challenged my honour, although they related to certain administrative acts and other happenings in Queensland appertaining to the time when I was Premier of that State. Certainly, the terms of the reference were wide, but nothing in them suggested to me that the inquiry was in any way directed against me, or involved serious charges against my honour. During the course of the inquiry I read in the newspapers reports of evidence in which my name was frequently mentioned. Accordingly, during the month of May I communicated with the Department of Justice in Queensland, calling attention to the fact that my name had been mentioned several times in evidence, and suggesting that I should appear as a witness before the royal commission . . . I suggested that the commission should adjourn its inquiry in order to give me an opportunity to present myself for examination later. I added that I was surely entitled to be heard, as my name had been so frequently mentioned, and as the commissioner had, according to newspaper reports, required the Bank of New South Wales to produce particulars of my private and personal banking account. The only other communication I received was again from the Justice Department in Queensland, advising me that the Commissioner would keep the inquiry open until the 28th June, within which time I could present myself to give evidence. In view of these communications, the only conclusion I could come to was that the Commissioner considered that my evidence would not be of importance. In view of the fact that he refused to concede the time necessary to present myself, it certainly did not occur to me that he was contemplating the bringing of a damning indictment against me. It is a recognized principle of British justice that a postponement must always be granted in a court of any jurisdiction to meet the convenience of essential witnesses, even in the ordinary walks of life . . . Naturally, I feel my position keenly. I consider that I have not been given ordinary fair play; that I have not received that measure of British justice to which, in matters of this kind, every man is fully entitled. The Commissioner must have known how his mind was being affected by the evidence, if he was taking notice of it. If his mind was being directed in such a way as to inculpate me, is it not reasonable to assume that he ought, as a concession to justice, to have done something to meet my convenience? Is it any wonder, in the circumstances, that I have come to the
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 77
R E S I G N AT I O N
Bookhouse
FROM
SCULLIN
MINISTRY
77
conclusion that I have been the victim of a hired assassin in this matter? I naturally speak strongly. Possibly I am embittered against the man who has made this report. I have only seen the newspaper reports of the commission’s finding; but as these practically agree, I have no doubt that they are accurate. Having studied them carefully, I have discovered that there are six or seven points which involve myself. I am merely going to refer to these; I do not propose to answer them in this House. This is not the place for that. The Commissioner finds that Goddard, who was the manager of the Government smelters at Chillagoe, was dishonestly appointed by Mr Jones, the then Minister for Mines, Mr McCormack and myself; that the allocation of capital between the Chillagoe railway, the smelter enterprise, and certain mines that were purchased from the Chillagoe company—an allocation arbitrarily made by me when Treasurer of Queensland in 1918—was illegally made. He finds that from the outset, presumably from 1917, when Reid acquired certain leases at Mungana, there was a corrupt intent to sell them to the Government, in which I am alleged to be implicated. He finds further that there was an improper and secret interest held by myself in mining concerns known as the Argentum and Fluorspar mines; that there was improper influence used by Mr McCormack and myself in connexion with certain contracts for the supply of timber to the Mount Mulligan mine—a contract placed with the Tarzali sawmills in 1926; that the purchase of the Mungana leases was not justified; that the mines were worthless, and that the proceeds of the sale were shared, in some secret understanding arrived at, apparently years before, between Mr McCormack, Mr Goddard, Mr Reid and myself. I am not going to answer these charges here; I am looking for a better opportunity. But that I may throw some light on them, or by way of justifiable passing comment, let me say this: In suggesting that Goddard was dishonestly appointed by Messrs Jones, McCormack and myself in 1918, I can only conclude that the Commissioner, in framing his report, evidently did not know, or overlooked, or somehow negligently dealt with, the fact that Mr McCormack was not a Minister in Queensland at that time, and had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of Goddard. With regard to the alleged improper influence over the manager of the enterprise in regard to the Tarzali timber contracts, the Commissioner states that Goddard acted under the malign influence of his superiors, McCormack and Theodore. That contract, I remind the House, was made in May, 1926, fourteen months after I had ceased to be a Minister in the Queensland Government. I only wish to say at this stage with regard to these charges that all of them are damnably false, and that where they are founded upon evidence, that evidence is tainted and malicious. I know this is only a statement; I am not asking honorable members to judge me here. I shall indicate directly how I hope to be judged on these matters. This morning I received a communication from Brisbane informing me that Messrs Fahey and Real, leading counsel at the Queensland Bar, who acted at the
0885-main.qx5
78
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 78
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
inquiry for Messrs McCormack, Goddard and Reid, and Mr McPherson, the solicitor who instructed them, had a conference in Brisbane yesterday, presumably in connexion with the Commissioner’s report, and they prepared the following statement:— The Commission’s finding was absolutely unjustified and biased. There was no oral evidence connecting Mr Theodore in any way with the charges. The Commission’s finding was based upon assumption and inference only. We regard it as a scandalous decision.
I did not solicit that opinion from counsel. They acted entirely voluntarily, so far as I know, in meeting in conference, and in making this comment upon the report. I claim that I am entitled to a fair and rational opportunity to clear my name . . . I have, so far as I can see, only one hope; and that is that the Queensland Government, by formulating against me an indictment covering without abatement every one of the charges that have been made against me by the Royal Commissioner, may give me an opportunity to face my accuser or accusers and to answer those charges. I ask not for the appointment of another royal commission, but for a fair trial of these issues before judge and jury which, I suppose, can be afforded me only by the Attorney-General of Queensland presenting an indictment against me. To have to submit to such a course is humiliating; yet it appears to me to be the course which I must seek and which I now demand. It is only in this way that I can clear my name . . . I have given a lifetime to public service in this country—public service that I hope has been useful. I have had exalted ideals. I believe that I have recognized what is necessarily expected of a man occupying a high and an honorable office in public life. I claim that in the administration of any office that I have held I have kept my hands clean. These definite charges have been made against me; there is imposed upon me the duty of demonstrating that I have acted honorably; and I shall do it. I assure my former colleagues and my friends—who, as I have had ample evidence in the last two days, are a numerous band—that they need not have any misgiving on my account, no apprehension that I cannot entirely clear my name if given an opportunity to do so. Finally, I demand that the Queensland Government formulate without delay an indictment against me, or in some manner enable me to appear before an unimpeachable tribunal to be heard in my defence against these calumnies and these damnable charges that have been levelled against me.4
k Edward (Ted) Theodore (1884–1950), Australian Labor Party, Member for Dalley 1927–31. Positions held: Treasurer 1929–30, 1931.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 79
R E S I G N AT I O N
Bookhouse
FROM
SCULLIN
MINISTRY
79
Theodore’s demand was granted and civil proceedings were commenced by the Queensland Government. He was cleared of all charges. He was reinstated as Treasurer on 29 January 1931. When the reappointment was announced to the parliament it was greeted with shouts of ‘Shame’ from the opposition. Joe Lyons, who had acted as Treasurer while Prime Minister Scullin was overseas, resigned from the government over his ‘profound disagreement’ with their handling of the depression crisis.5 The deepening depression through 1931 led to further major splits in the Labor Party. At the election called in December 1931, the Scullin Government was crushed, Theodore lost his seat and Lyons became prime minister of the newly formed United Australia Party Government. In assessing the effect of Theodore’s resignation, Gough Whitlam later wrote, Theodore’s suspension as Treasurer was temporary but decisive. The consequences went far beyond his physical loss of office for six months. There was a stunning loss of morale. The Scullin Government never recovered its nerve. Theodore never recovered his authority.6
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 80
Bookhouse
‘. . . I have lost confidence in the right honorable gentleman . . .’
Leaving the Labor party
J OE LYONS , Member for Wilmot, 13 March 1931 As the Depression gripped Australia, the Scullin Labor Government, which had been elected in 1929, started to disintegrate. Treasurer Theodore’s resignation on the eve of Scullin’s first budget in July 1930 (see pages 75–79) had rocked the government and the divisions came to a head when Acting Treasurer Joe Lyons resigned on 29 January 1931. He did so in protest over the economic policies of the government, particularly that of credit expansion. When parliament resumed in March, the opposition moved a no confidence motion in the Scullin Government. The debate on the motion culminated in an all-night sitting. Lyons had supported the motion and was one of the last speakers in the debate, which had lasted over a week. Lyons stated dramatically in his opening remarks that his vote would automatically sever his lifelong links with the Labor Party and went on to make what was described at the time as an ‘outstanding speech’.1 . . . I realize that my position to-day is a serious one. In recording my vote on this motion I shall be taking a stand which, according to the rules of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor party, will automatically place me outside my party. I realize that the effect of that will be to separate me politically from men for whom, since I have been in this Parliament, I have developed a real affection and respect, men who have been not only colleagues, but comrades in the truest sense of the word . . . I believe that the policy of this Government means an increase of unemployment, misery and destitution. I see these things in our midst to-day, and that is why by my vote, voice and action, I want to enter my protest against that policy in an endeavour 80
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 81
Bookhouse
L E AV I N G
THE
LABOR
PA RT Y
81
to have it changed. Time after time in the party room have I appealed to honorable members in the interests of the workers of Australia to proceed along lines which, I think, are sound and likely to prove beneficial, and even now, if the Government will adopt that course, I am prepared to sit back in the corner helping it every moment of its cabinet life . . . Because I believed in the policy which was enunciated by the Leader of the Labor party throughout Australia; because I believed in the honorable gentleman himself, I preached his virtues throughout the Wilmot electorate, and I gave him every support because of my regard for his reputation as a leader of a party. I was elected as his humble follower, and I was proud to be one. I have a very vivid recollection of the day when we first assembled in the party room waiting for the appearance of our leader, and, how, when he entered the room, he was greeted with cheers and songs from every corner of the room. To quote the words of the old song, I cheered, God forgive me, I cheered with the rest.
But since that day I have lost confidence in the right honorable gentleman—not in his personal integrity or anything of that kind, but in his leadership. I have also seen important portions of the policy placed before the people of Australia by this party turned completely upside down, while this Government has been in office . . . Let us see who has broken the pledge. When, during the last election campaign, the right honorable the Prime Minister was enunciating the policy of the party throughout this country, and explaining its financial proposals, did he make the slightest mention of anything in the nature of expansion of credits or inflation? Was there any talk of fiduciary issues or anything of the kind? If any of his listeners had asked him if he was in favour of such things, I can imagine with what rhetoric— of which he is a master—he would have denounced the very suggestion and pointed out that the Labor party stood for “sound methods of finance.” Why, since he has been Prime Minister he has just as stoutly denounced any such suggestions; that is, until recently. Such a policy was never placed before the people of this country. Who is placing it before the people to-day? Who is telling us what the policy of Labor should be and interpreting it? It is being interpreted by the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor party, a body which is not responsible to the people. We were elected by the people, not on that policy at all, but to-day we are asked to come to heel and accept the dictation of people who have no responsibility whatever. The policy on which we were elected has been turned completely over, and because some of us will not somersault with it we are said to have broken our pledges . . . We must put our house in order. I know that it is unpopular to talk about cutting down expenses; but we have to do it. I heard the Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr Parker Moloney) warn honorable members who support this motion that they
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 82
SPEAKING
82
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
could not get away from the fact that in doing so they were allying themselves with those who were prepared to cut down pensions, Public Service salaries, and the rest. The Minister threatened those who supported the motion with certain results. I hope that the honorable gentleman will visit Wagga and tell the farmers there that he is such a generous-hearted fellow that he intends to insist upon paying everybody their present remuneration, but that if he cannot pay it, the farmers and business men will have to pay it out of the miserable incomes which they are at present receiving. He is saying in effect, “Members of Parliament and the Public Service will have to be paid even if the banks have to pay them, and pensioners will have to be paid even if the banks have to pay the pensions.” What sort of a proposition is that? It is a reflection upon Parliament to even suggest that the banks should pay the parliamentary allowances, Public Service salaries and pensions of this country. The proposal is absolutely Gilbertian . . . I do not suggest that public servants alone should make sacrifices in the present time of difficulty. I referred to them chiefly because the Minister for Markets and Transport did so. Every section of the community should be prepared to make some sacrifice. MR PARKER MOLONEY :
I shall never do what you did while I was away—
[HONORABLE MEMBERS INTERJECTING.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGrath): I ask honorable members to refrain from interjecting, and to assist the Chair in maintaining order. MR L YONS :
If I misrepresented the Minister I did so unintentionally.
MR PARKER MOLONEY :
I shall never do what the honorable member did while the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues were in London. I shall never conspire, as he did while we were away, with the Leader of the Opposition to form a coalition government.
MR LYONS:
There is only one word which will describe that statement. It is a confounded and contemptible lie.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER:
The honorable member for Wilmot must withdraw that
remark. MR L YONS :
In deference to your ruling, sir, I withdraw it.
MR PARKER MOLONEY : MR L YONS :
I can prove my statement.
I was proceeding to show that I am not concerned about any one in this country who is receiving some emolument—whether it be by way of salary, wages or interest—but with those unfortunate unemployed who have no income at all. If a sacrifice has to be made, it should be general. Long ago I publicly declared that interest rates should be reduced, and when the honorable member for
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 83
Bookhouse
L E AV I N G
THE
LABOR
PA RT Y
83
Maribyrnong (Mr Fenton) was Acting Prime Minister he and I were working in that direction in conjunction with the banks. MR FENTON :
And we had made considerable progress, too.
MR L YONS : Sir Otto Niemeyer—that alleged arch-fiend, concerning whom we have heard so much—returned from New Zealand to Australia to assist the Commonwealth Bank in its negotiations with other banks with the object of reducing the rate of interest. Right back there we were endeavouring to do this. But how could we get the interest rate down when resolutions such as we have heard of were being carried and statements about repudiation were being made? The Government, of course, was not responsible for those statements. It had set its face against repudiation in any form, but such statements have been made, such resolutions have been carried in Australia, and have had their effect. How can we get the interest rate down today when one can go into the market and purchase Commonwealth stock at a price that will give a highly remunerative return? While these things continue we cannot get the rate reduced; but I contend that bondholders should make some sacrifice just as the wage-earners do. Unless they are prepared to do so it will not be long before a position will arise when they may be unable to receive any interest at all. In their own interest they will be wise in assisting any movement in that direction. I believe that if the problem were tackled there would not be any difficulty in reducing interest rates; we might possibly fund a substantial portion of our overseas indebtedness at a lower rate of interest and thereby give relief to the taxpayers of Australia . . . I have given some reasons why I am disappointed in the Government’s policy, why I cannot continue to support it, why I would not have remained in the Cabinet had I known that that policy, which was adopted by the party in the absence of the Prime Minister, who has always been opposed to inflation, would be adhered to. I felt that the right honorable gentleman would, on his return from abroad, oppose such a scheme, but he did not. He has fallen into line, and has rejected the policy which I advocated, and which I thought he did also before he went away. The Prime Minister having taken to his bosom those who stood for that policy, I could no longer remain in his Cabinet. He has within his ranks to-day those who declared for what he and I had described as repudiation, and so I have withdrawn my support from the party. I do not charge my late colleagues of being guilty of willingly and knowingly advocating the policy of repudiation, but I say that what they propose is to me an act of repudiation to which I refuse to be a party, and so there they are in office to-day, and I am out . . . The proposal to-day is that there should be a fiduciary note issue of £18,000,000. That proposal differs from its predecessors only in its verbal definition. This and similar proposals merely attempt what is possible only to the Creator—the performance of a miracle. We are told that price levels are to be raised, that every one of us will charge the other fellow something more for what he provides or produces, and
0885-main.qx5
84
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 84
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
that we shall then be able to say, “We have earned millions more this year than we did last year.” If this Government could get real money, it would not have to resort to these schemes. It is because it cannot do so that we have this proposal placed before us. It knows that, out of the savings of the people, there is money available in Australia to-day; but that money will not be placed in a fund for any scheme for which this Government stands . . . The rehabilitation of industry can be effected only with real money. I say that real money is that which comes from the accumulated savings of the people, and that it is dependent upon confidence and credit. All the real money that is wanted by this Government to-day would be available if the people who hold it had confidence in the Government and in this Parliament. That was demonstrated by the success which attended the flotation of the £28,000,000 loan . . . All over this country, in my little State just as in every other State, wherever you find a number of men gathered together, you hear the story of good, honest fellows who are tramping the country looking for work that they cannot obtain. Yet we sit here, talking nonsense about visionary schemes that we know will not be accepted! We are well aware that unemployment is growing, and that women and kiddies are suffering and starving while we draw our salaries . . .
Prime Minister Joe Lyons speaks at a function in Brisbane in 1934. NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA, CP103/19,22PHOTO1.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 85
Bookhouse
L E AV I N G
THE
LABOR
PA RT Y
85
The Government has set its face against repudiation; but these schemes will lead it, even though they be along different paths, to exactly the same place as Mr Lang’s repudiation scheme. There is no escaping that fact. We have to get back to honest, straightforward methods . . . I am sorry that, by my own act, I am voluntarily and automatically dissociating myself from valued colleagues, and from a party that I have helped to build up and raise in the estimation of the people in my little State during the last 22 years. I say again that I do so with the utmost regret, and with very unpleasant feelings; and only because I feel that if I did not, I would be untrue to the people whom I represent.2
k Joseph Lyons (1879–1939), Australian Labor Party 1929–31, United Australia Party 1931–39, Member for Wilmot 1929–39. Positions held: Postmaster General 1929–31, Minister for Works and Railways 1929–31, Leader of the Opposition May 1931–January 32, Prime Minister 1932–39, Treasurer 1932–35, Minister for Commerce 1932, Minister for Health 1935–36, Minister for Repatriation 1935–36, Vice President of the Executive Council 1935–37, Minister for Defence 1937.
k The government survived the no confidence motion by only five votes, but Lyons’ resignation led to an historic realignment of political forces in Australia. Within months he became the leader of the new United Australia Party (UAP), which consisted of a combination of Labor Party members who had resigned with Lyons and dissident Nationalists. In December 1931 the UAP swept Scullin’s Labor Government from office. Lyons became prime minister with former Nationalist leader, John Latham, as his Attorney-General. Lyons went on to become the first prime minister to win three consecutive elections and when he passed away on Good Friday 1939, he was the first prime minister to die in office.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 86
Bookhouse
‘The Australian Government needs a leader . . . of courage, loyalty and judgment . . .’
Attack on Robert Menzies
E ARLE PAGE , Prime Minister, 20 April 1939 Following the death of Prime Minister Joe Lyons on 7 April 1939, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Country Party, Earle Page, was sworn in as Australia’s prime minister. Page had allied the Country Party with the much larger United Australia Party in 1934 and emphasised that he would play ‘caretaker’ prime minister only until the UAP selected a leader to replace Lyons. With world war imminent, Page was keen to bring Stanley Melbourne Bruce (Prime Minister 1921–29) back to lead an all-party government, but the UAP chose Robert Menzies as leader and he became prime minister on 26 April. Page refused to serve in the Menzies’ Government and, in this speech to the parliament he launched against Menzies ‘one of the most sensational and extraordinary personal attacks ever known in an Australian Parliament’.1 . . . Mutual confidence and loyalty are still essential conditions for the existence and proper functioning of a composite government; but at present, unfortunately, there is another consideration which overrides, but does not dislodge, these conditions. Every one realizes that to-day we are perhaps on the threshold of war. During the last four or five weeks actions have been taken by certain aggressor countries, which, if permitted to continue, would undoubtedly finally lead to Australia having no option but to fight in self-defence. More recently, extraordinary steps have been taken by other nations, such as the United States of America, for instance, in an endeavour to assure the peace of the world. It seems to me that if a wartime government is to function—and that may be the position at any time, although I 86
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 87
A T TA C K
Bookhouse
ON
R O B E RT M E N Z I E S
87
hope not—it must function in such a way as to secure the greatest possible measure of co-operation in the community. The Australian Government needs a leader with not merely the qualities I have mentioned, but also the three essential qualities of courage, loyalty and judgment, in such degree as will ensure that the people of Australia will give the last ounce of their energies and resources in a united national effort to ensure our preservation. Therefore, as the Leader of the Country party, which had been associated for so many years with the United Australia party in the government of this country, I was compelled to consider the qualifications of the new Leader of the United Australia party [Menzies]—not that the Country party is interested in the personnel of the ministerial members of the United Australia party, or of its representatives in this Parliament. That is entirely a party domestic matter, but if the leader of that party was to become the leader of a united national effort, I was entitled to consider whether he possessed the qualifications necessary for his high office. I had to ask myself whether his public record was such as to inspire the people of Australia to the maximum unstinted effort in a time of national emergency. Because of that I was reminded of three incidents in the public career of the newly elected Leader of the United Australia party. The first of the three happened only 24 days previously, when, honorable members will remember, the right honorable gentleman tendered his resignation as Attorney-General in the Lyons administration. This country is spending many millions of pounds in preparations for a defensive war, and we are endeavouring to get every industry to put forward the maximum effort in order that Australia may be prepared for any eventuality. At this time, when all our efforts were being strained to put the defences of this country in order, the right honorable gentleman insisted on resigning from the Government because he differed from its attitude towards national insurance . . . I shall quote but one sentence from his letter of resignation to the late Prime Minister. He said— I frankly do not think we can expect to be taken seriously if we start off again with conferences and drafting committees at a time when we have already so notoriously failed to go on with an act which represents two years of labour, a vast amount of organization, and a considerable expenditure of public and private funds.
Now the right honorable gentleman says that that is exactly what he intends to do. The second incident is this: Some 24 weeks ago he went to Sydney, where he made a speech on leadership; that pronouncement was regarded by the public and the press of Australia as an attack upon his own leader. I do not say that it was; I merely say that it was construed in that way . . . I come now to the third incident: Some 24 years ago the right honorable member for Kooyong was a member of the Australian Military Forces and held the King’s
0885-main.qx5
88
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 88
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Commission. In 1915, after having been in the military forces for some years, he resigned his commission and did not go overseas . . . I am not calling into question the reason for the right honorable gentleman’s action, nor would I question the reason of any other individual in similar circumstances. All I say is that the right honorable gentleman has not explained, to the satisfaction of the very great body of people who did participate in the war, his reasons, and because of this I am afraid that he will not be able to get that maximum effort from the people of Australia to which I have referred. I, personally, have been very considerably perturbed in regard to the whole position. I believe that the present is a time when we should be in a position to pull our whole weight in a combined national effort to ensure the defence of Australia. Because I felt the urgent need for this unity, on Wednesday last I sent a message to the High Commissioner for Australia, Mr Bruce, at Honolulu, telling him that in my view there would, in all probability, be turmoil, and possibly an election, in Australia at a time when we would need the whole of our national effort for one purpose—the defence of Australia—and I believe that if he returned to this country he would be able to exercise an ameliorative influence in public affairs. To this end I informed him that if he were willing to return to active public life in Australia, I would resign my seat which, as honorable members know, is a fairly safe one, in order to enable him to reenter this Parliament. Mr Bruce cabled to me a reply to the effect that he was not prepared to accept my seat, but would be willing to come back to Australia if, by so doing, it would be possible to bring into existence a non-party government of the Commonwealth—a government comprising members of all parties, irrespective of their affiliations. He added that he had no wish to interfere with the internal organization of those parties, but would be prepared to place himself at the disposal of the people of Australia if there was a general desire that he should do so. That offer was made and the Country party has considered it. Though the party objects strongly to my leaving politics, it desires such a national government to be brought about. I believe that the United Australia party is still considering the suggestion, but it will be of no avail to approach any other party unless we can get substantial agreement on the proposal . . . 2
k Earle Page (1880–1961), Farmers and Settlers Union 1919–20, Country Party 1920–61, Member for Cowper 1919–61. Positions held: Treasurer 1923–29, Minister for Commerce 1934–39, 1940–41, Minister for Health 1937–39, 1949–56, Prime Minister 7–26 April 1939.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 89
A T TA C K
Bookhouse
ON
R O B E RT M E N Z I E S
89
Cartoon depicting Earle Page’s refusal to serve as part of a Menzies-led UAP Government. THE AGE, 20 APRIL 1939
The parliament was in uproar over the charges laid against Menzies for his role in World War I. ‘Menzies’ wife, who was in the gallery when Page spoke, stood up and pointedly left during the attack, and never acknowledged Page again’.3 Menzies responded immediately to Page’s speech dealing separately with each of the charges made. He pointed out that his resignation from the Lyons Government was made because he had made a specific pledge in writing to his electorate. In relation to the second charge he denied that he had made an attack on Lyons. On the issue of military service in World War I Menzies said: When my period of universal training expired, my activity in connexion with the system also expired. I did not resign anything. I served the ordinary term of a compulsory trainee. I was in exactly the same position as any other person who at that time had to answer the extremely important questions—Is it my duty to go to war, or is it my duty not to go? The answers to those questions cannot be made on the public platform. Those
0885-main.qx5
90
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 90
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
questions relate to a man’s intimate, personal and family affairs, and, in consequence, I, facing those problems, problems of intense difficulty, found myself, for reasons which were and are compelling, unable to join my two brothers in the infantry of the Australian Imperial Force.4
He concluded by saying he hoped: I shall exhibit none of those miserable attributes that have been suggested by the Prime Minister in the most remarkable attack that I have ever heard in the whole of my public career.5
His mother, Kate Menzies, said that the decision to stay had been forced on him by the family: . . . we told him again and again that two sons from a family was as much and more than a country expected . . . we needed someone home to look after us . . . and I think that is why he was perhaps the bravest of all my boys.6
A number of Page’s Country Party colleagues were appalled by Page’s attack on Menzies. Arthur Fadden and Bernard Corser announced they would sit as independent Country Party members. Page’s words contributed to his loss of the party leadership on 13 September 1939 to Archie Cameron. While time may not have healed the wounds for Menzies’ wife, Menzies subsequently appointed Page as Minister for Health and he held that post from 1949–56 during Menzies’ second period as prime minister.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 91
Bookhouse
‘. . . gave their lives in the service of government . . .’
Canberra air disaster
J ACK B EASLEY , Leader of the Australian Non-Communist Labor Party, 14 August 1940 Ten months into World War II, three cabinet ministers, two senior military officials and their crew took a routine flight aboard an RAAF Lockheed Hudson Bomber from Melbourne to Canberra. As the plane made its final approach into Canberra, the aircraft suddenly crashed into Cowan Forest, adjacent to Canberra airport, killing all ten occupants instantly. Those killed included the Minister for Army and Repatriation, Geoffrey Street, the Minister for Air and Civil Aviation, James Fairbairn, the Minister in charge of Science and Industrial Research, Sir Henry Gullett, and the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Cyril Brudenell Bingham White. The Canberra Times reported, ‘the tragedy assumes the proportions of a national disaster in view of the loss of the chief administrators of Australia’s war effort’.1 The following day, Prime Minister Robert Menzies told the parliament, ‘we meet this afternoon in the shadow of a great calamity’.2 John Curtin, Leader of the Opposition, said, ‘this calamity brings to each of us a deep personal sense of how little men can do to decide what the next day’s events shall be for them. Life is very short’.3 This is an occasion when words are totally inadequate to express our feelings. Never in the history of this Parliament have we experienced so sad an occasion as this; I hope and pray that we shall never experience another such. When we pause to think that the familiar voices of these men, to whom we had so frequently listened in this chamber, even in the last week, are now silent for ever, we must realize very 91
0885-main.qx5
92
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 92
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
clearly that we do not know the day or the hour when the call will be made to any one of us. These men lost their lives in a great race against time in the cause of our country. We all are aware of the urgent demands that these perilous days make upon members of Governments. The days are not long enough for them to see all who wish to see them, and to consider and determine all the problems that have to be considered and determined, in the interests of this country in the present great crisis. To conserve their time, and no doubt to enable them to give some attention to their wives and children, these men chose, as they had so often done previously, the speedy means of transport by air. They, therefore, gave their lives in the service of government—a service which, in these days, demands every ounce of energy that can be given to it in order that our country may be saved from the terrors and destructive forces that are now overpowering Europe. All men do not possess the same qualities of approachability and friendliness; all do not make the same claim upon the personal regard of others. We are well aware that men vary in these respects, and sometimes we judge them according to our own personal reactions to them. I therefore pay tribute to the courtesy which I and my party have at all times received from the deceased Ministers. They were always most obliging and ever ready to give personal attention to the many and varied representations made to them from time to time. They worked hard and long, and undoubtedly they faced the problems presented to their departments by this strange new world with the courage of their convictions and acted in accordance with the dictates of their honest judgement. To all who are left to mourn their loss my party extends its profound sympathy. May these tributes to the many acts of kindness of our departed friends and to the high esteem in which they were held, be a source of consolation to their families in this darkest hour. May I join with them in the thought that those whom we have lost in such tragic circumstances have passed on to a brighter and happier sphere, where the sufferings, the turmoil, and the anxieties of this disturbed and troubled world are no more.4
k John (Jack) Beasley (1895–1949), Australian Labor Party 1928–31, 1936–40, 1941–46, Lang Labor 1931–36, Australian Non-Communist Labor Party 1940–41, Member for West Sydney 1928–46. Positions held: Minister for Supply and Development 1941–42, Minister for Supply and Shipping 1942–45, Vice-President of the Executive Council 1945, Minister for Defence 1945–46.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 93
Bookhouse
CANBERRA
AIR DISASTER
93
The next Prime Minister of Australia, Arthur Fadden, had declined an invitation to travel on the plane that crashed. The press reported at the time, ‘Mr Fadden owes his life to the fact that he had booked his berth on the train and it was inconvenient to cancel his seat . . .’ 5 Prime Minister Robert Menzies and many members of the parliament left for Melbourne to attend a national memorial service described as ‘the most tragic funeral in the nation’s history’.6 With a general election pending, by-elections were not called for the seats of the men who had been killed. Menzies recalled Harold Holt from his military service as a gunner in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force to take up a position in the Cabinet.7 In 1966, Holt was to replace Menzies as prime minister. At the September election, the United Australia Party retained two of the three seats, Corangamite and Flinders. The seat of Henty fell to an independent, Mr Arthur Coles. At subsequent elections, the sons of both Geoffrey Street and Henry Gullett became members of the House of Representatives in their fathers’ former seats, Corangamite and Henty respectively. A Court of Inquiry found that the accident was due to the aircraft stalling on its landing approach, resulting in a ‘loss of control, at a height too low to recover’.8 Following the tragedy, the RAAF base at Canberra Airport was named in honour of James Fairbairn.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 94
Bookhouse
‘. . . General MacArthur may count to the limit on the co-operation of the Australian Government and people . . .’
MacArthur: Supreme Commander J OHN C URTIN , Prime Minister, 25 March 1942 By February 1942 Australia faced its ‘darkest hour’. Australian territory came under direct enemy attack with over 590 people killed or wounded in the bombing of Darwin. The Allied forces in the Pacific were retreating in the face of sustained enemy attack. Singapore fell to the Japanese in February 1942 and 130,000 commonwealth troops (including over 15,000 Australians) surrendered to Japanese forces. The famous United States general, Douglas MacArthur, was ordered to abandon his command in the Philippines and proceed to Australia. MacArthur’s dramatic journey by air, often through Japanese controlled airspace, finished in Alice Springs where his party caught the train to Adelaide. Crowds rushed to the railway station at Terowie (220 kilometres north of Adelaide) to meet MacArthur, 1 where he delivered a speech that became famous for his commitment to the Philippines—‘I shall return’.2 MacArthur arrived in Melbourne on 21 March and was greeted by 5,000 people at the Spencer Street Railway Station.3 Four days later, Curtin announced that MacArthur would be appointed Supreme Commander of the South West Pacific with control over all Australian forces. . . . In referring to events since the last sitting of the House, I give first and outstanding place to the achievement of unified Allied command in the Pacific war area. The United Kingdom and the United States of America have given ready co-operation with the Commonwealth Government in this matter, and have shown a cordial understanding of our wishes. This Government and Parliament, and the whole 94
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 95
Bookhouse
M A C A RT H U R : S U P R E M E C O M M A N D E R
95
country, greet with pride and intense satisfaction the appointment to the supreme command of General Douglas MacArthur. Since Japan entered the war, the Commonwealth Government has concentrated its efforts in two main directions: first, to secure the rapid disposition of men and supplies in maximum possible strength to the points where they could be used most effectively; and, secondly, to secure speed and efficiency in the higher Allied war direction. Under the second head, I am satisfied that the appointment of General MacArthur represents a very considerable advance. Unified command in the person of one who enjoys authority of the highest order, both here and in America, is a vital condition for the defence of Australia and for the gradual organisation of offensive action against Japan, which we are now undertaking with the powerful aid of the armed forces of the United States of America. I wish to record here that General MacArthur may count to the limit on the cooperation of the Australian Government and people, and all Australian war-time authorities, in the great task assigned to him by President Roosevelt. Close discussions have been held with General MacArthur since his arrival, with a view to defining without delay the new arrangements in the Commonwealth which his appointment entails. Meanwhile, the Minister for External Affairs (Dr Evatt) is actively pursuing in Washington the further plans which the Government has in mind for the better adaptation of the machinery of Allied war direction to the present needs of the Australian–New Zealand–Pacific area . . . The conduct of operations in the Anzac area will be vested in the supreme commander. There will be local commanders of the Australian forces for the Navy and the Army. For the Air Force, General Brett has that office. Australia has, and has had from the beginning, two major requirements to press in this connexion; first, that whatever machinery is set up should be uncomplicated, and such as would help and not hinder quick decision; and, secondly, that, at the final stage of decision, the Commonwealth Government should have a direct voice on equal terms with the other principals concerned. The weight and authority which that voice might command are for ourselves to ensure. They will bear a direct relation to the resolution we bring to our own defence, and to the exertions we apply to the common cause of the united nations. I affirm that, in neither respect, will the force of Australia’s representation in war councils abroad ever find cause for impairment or hesitation. Simultaneously with the news of General MacArthur’s arrival in Australia, announcement was made of the presence in this country of substantial numbers of American armed forces, together with general war equipment. That announcement was received in a way which laid before the whole world the cordiality of our association in arms with the United States of America. We have all known that when the danger of violent assault on Australian independence, democratic institutions, and ways of life moved nearer this continent no spur would be needed to inspire Australian patriotism to the extremity of effort and resistance. If we had had to stand alone,
0885-main.qx5
96
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 96
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Australians would have fought in the only way consonant with the traditions of the British race, and our own spirit. That, in passing, can serve as our answer to General Tojo’s suggestion to Australia to consider a separate peace. Yet, if there is one thing more that could encourage in us a greater resilience and a stronger determination, it is the knowledge that powerful support is already with us. Australia is of cardinal importance in the Allied conduct of the war. This Government has never wavered in the view that, on the grounds of highest strategy, as well as by reason of all that Australia and New Zealand represent on the side of human values for which the Allies are fighting, the Anzac area is a vital area to the world war. The calamitous trend of events since the invasion of Malaya has reinforced that view, which is now generally accepted, and may well indicate a turning point in the war. I should make this proviso—a turning point, provided it is followed by swift and resolute action. The support that has now reached us imposes a high obligation on Australians to spare nothing in their own efforts. As we envisage our role in the major strategy of the war, our necessities in man-power and equipment become more and not less exacting. There have been forecasts of Australia’s function as an offensive base in the ultimate process of driving back Japan from the southwestern Pacific. That is, in fact, our goal, but let us not exaggerate the speed with which we can reach it. We must first ensure that Australia shall be held, and to that end accumulate all the resources open to us . . . On the 19th February, the first attack on the Australian mainland was made when Japanese aircraft raided Darwin. To date there have been six raids on Darwin, whilst Wyndham, Broome, Derby and Katherine also have been attacked . . . Nevertheless, the Royal Australian Air Force and the United States of America Air Force have struck back. Day after day we have maintained an air offensive against the enemy. One outstanding operation was against the enemy-occupied aerodrome at Lae, when no fewer than 25 Japanese aircraft were destroyed and damaged. Blows have been struck at Koepang and Dilli. Further, allied aircraft carried the offensive against Japanese naval and merchant shipping, as a result of which 23 vessels were either sunk or left burning. We are met in this Parliament to give expression to the will of the Australian people that all measures which can be taken by us to hasten the time of victory shall be taken, without regard for sectional or selfish interests. The Government that is called on to execute this policy is entitled, indeed bound, to claim the people’s full confidence and support. I believe that there is in Australia to-day an intense love of country, greater in its expression than has yet been called forth at any previous period in Australia’s history. At an hour of trial no different from that which has afflicted many other countries in the last two and a half years, the Australian people are determined, and must also see to it that they are united. With those qualities in us, the enemy will find that he has kindled in this country a fire and a resolve which are not in his power to quench and which will make a massive contribution to his downfall . . . 4
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 97
Bookhouse
M A C A RT H U R : S U P R E M E C O M M A N D E R
97
Prime Minister John Curtin and General Douglas MacArthur in Canberra, 1942. JOHN CURTIN PRIME MINISTERIAL LIBRARY. RECORDS OF THE CURTIN FAMILY, JCPML00376/114.
k John Curtin (1885–1945), Australian Labor Party, Member for Fremantle 1928–31, 1934–45. Positions held: Leader of the Opposition 1935–41, Prime Minister 1941–45, Minister for Defence Co-ordination 1941–42, Minister for Defence 1942–45.
k The day following this speech General MacArthur arrived at Parliament House in Canberra and Curtin and members of the War Council immediately commenced discussions with him. Later the same day, MacArthur visited the House of Representatives and was applauded as he entered the chamber. He listened to a heated debate on employment on the waterfront. On leaving the chamber, MacArthur said to the Speaker, ‘if the men of Australia fight as well as they argue we are certain of victory’.5
0885-main.qx5
98
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 98
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The prime minister held a dinner for General MacArthur that evening which was attended by all members and senators. General MacArthur in his remarks said, ‘We shall win or we shall die, and to this end I pledge you the full resources of all the mighty power of my country and all the blood of my countrymen’.6
At the end of the war, the parliament formally thanked General MacArthur. The motion moved by Prime Minister Chifley recalled, ‘with deep gratitude this outstanding contribution to the victory in the Pacific and to the defence of Australia during this most critical period in our history’.7
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 99
Bookhouse
‘. . . a great naval battle is proceeding . . .’
Battle of the Coral Sea
J OHN C URTIN , Prime Minister, 8 May 1942 On 8 May 1942, John Curtin rose to move the adjournment and, to an almost empty parliament, delivered what ‘was widely regarded as his finest speech of the war’.1 Having just received from General MacArthur a message that the Battle of the Coral Sea was underway, Curtin announced it to the House. Curtin biographer, David Day, writes: As the import of what he was saying became clear, journalists scrambled into the empty seats of the press gallery, as much to witness the historic moment as to report it. Don Rodgers recalled that the speech brought a lump to his throat and a tear to his eye and ‘that before Mr Curtin had finished half the Press Gallery were in tears too’.2
An editorial in The Canberra Times highlighted the importance of the battle that brought the war alarmingly close to Australia: The boom of naval gun fire and the crash of bombs reverberates across the waters of the Pacific for all Australia to hear the further penetration of enemy forces into what are virtually Australian waters. This noise of battle will sound all over the world giving final warning that the Pacific battle zones are no longer to be regarded as something of a war sideshow . . . On us are the eyes of the free world and of the millions enslaved and waiting for their torch of freedom to be lit again.3
I have received a communiqué from the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces in the South-west Pacific Area stating that a great naval battle is proceeding in the South-west Pacific zone. This battle arises from the operations which began on the 4th May and to which I referred in the House this morning. 99
0885-main.qx5
100
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 100
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The events that are taking place to-day are of crucial importance to the whole conduct of the war in this theatre. I have no information as to how the engagement is developing, but I should like the nation to be assured that there will be, on the part of our forces and of the American forces, that devotion to duty which is characteristic of the naval and air forces of the United States of America, Great Britain and the Commonwealth. I should add that at this moment nobody can tell what the result of the engagement may be. If it should go advantageously, we shall have cause for great gratitude and our position will then be somewhat clearer. But if we should not have the advantages from this battle for which we hope, all that confronts us is a sterner ordeal and a greater and graver responsibility. This battle will not decide the war; it will determine the immediate tactics which will be pursued by the Allied forces and by the common enemy. I ask the people of Australia, having regard to the grave consequences implicit in this engagement, to make a sober and realistic estimate of their duty to the nation. As I speak, those who are participating in the engagement are conforming to the sternest discipline and are subjecting themselves with all that they have—it may be for many of them the last full measure of their devotion—to accomplish the increased safety and security of this territory. In the face of such an example I feel that it is not asking too much of every citizen who to-day is being defended by these gallant men in that engagement, to regard himself as engaged in the second line of service to Australia. The front line needs the maximum support of every man and woman in the Commonwealth. With all the responsibility which I feel, which the Government feels, and which, I am sure, the Parliament as a whole shares, I put it to any man whom my words may reach, however they may reach him, that he owes it to those men, and to the future of the country, not to be stinting in what he will do now for Australia. Men are fighting for Australia to-day; those who are not fighting have no excuse for not working.4
k John Curtin (1885–1945), Australian Labor Party, Member for Fremantle 1928–31, 1934–45. Positions held: Leader of the Opposition 1935–41, Prime Minister 1941–45, Minister for Defence Co-ordination 1941–42, Minister for Defence 1942–45.
k The last lines of Curtin’s speech were a reference to workers on the Hunter Valley coalfields, where there had been industrial unrest for some time. The unrest continued despite Curtin’s words, with the Newcastle Morning Herald reporting 1650 miners involved in stoppages on 13 May 1942. Curtin saw a pressing need to galvanise Australians to a greater war effort and sacrifice on the home front—a need highlighted when just a few weeks later Japanese submarines entered Sydney Harbour and shelled the eastern suburbs.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 101
Bookhouse
‘. . . the people of this country will not support those who would stand for such a defeatist policy.’
The Brisbane Line
E DDIE WARD , Minister for Labour and National Service, 22 June 1943 A nine-month campaign by Eddie Ward against Robert Menzies and Arthur Fadden of the opposition over the so-called ‘Brisbane Line’ culminated in dramatic parliamentary events in the last week of June in 1943. The opposition had launched a no confidence motion against the Curtin Government for grossly inefficient administration. In debate on this motion, Ward alleged that the former Menzies/Fadden governments (1939–1941) had been prepared to abandon the whole of Australia north and west of an arc running from Brisbane to Adelaide if the Japanese invaded. Menzies called Ward’s allegations ‘the greatest of all lies’.1 As Ward rose to speak in the debate: Spectators in the crowded public galleries leaned forward . . . Now storming along at 180 words a minute, Ward uttered 16 words that brought the Brisbane Line controversy to a head . . . ‘I am most reliably informed’, Ward told the House, ‘that one important report is now missing from the official files’.2
The aim of Eddie Ward’s attack was to damage the opposition, and former Prime Minister Menzies in particular, by arguing Australia was unprepared for war and that Menzies was prepared to surrender large sections of the country without a fight. . . . I shall give just one or two reasons why I believe that this attack is being made upon the Government, and then I shall give the whole of the facts in regard to “the Brisbane line”. First, it is evident that honorable members opposite are skipping 101
0885-main.qx5
102
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 102
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
over the fact that the Labor party assumed office in October, 1941, not because it had received a mandate from the electors, but because those who previously occupied the treasury bench knew the frightful state into which they had permitted the defence of this country to drift, had become panic stricken, and were glad to be released from the responsibility of government. Now, however, seeing the great improvement that has been effected by a Labor government, and realizing that the party which wins the next elections will determine the post-war policy of this country, honorable members opposite find that their own privileges, and those of the people whom they represent in this Parliament, are in danger, and they realize how important it is that they should be successful at the polls. Their greatest fear is that Labor will retain the reins of government, and will undertake the planning of the post-war reconstruction of this country. So we find that there is a conspiracy between the jackals and the mouthpieces of capitalism in this Parliament to discredit this Government through the anti-Labor press, and to bring about its defeat before it is too late. I shall now give to honorable members one or two facts in regard to “the Brisbane line” which so far have not been disclosed. I say emphatically that it was the present Opposition parties, then in power, which were responsible for the state of affairs in this country which made it impossible to have any other plan than a defeatist plan. Further, I say that the plan was actually concocted whilst honorable members opposite occupied the treasury bench. Let us deal with the facts of the matter. In a recent broadcast over station 2UE, the right honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Menzies) said that he first heard of “the Brisbane line” in February, 1942 . . . In his broadcast from station 2UE, the right honorable member for Kooyong said that when the Fadden Government was defeated in October, 1941, there was no actual threat of attack by Japan. It appears now that the right honorable member was deliberately misleading the public, because he says that when his Government was in office, it was always contemplated that Japan would enter the war, and that this country would be called upon to resist an invasion. But here is something very important which has not yet been mentioned; Despite the fact that the right honorable gentleman has said that Australia was not directly threatened with attack when the Fadden Government was defeated in October, 1941, on the l0th June, 1941, some five months before we assumed office, and shortly after his return from abroad, the right honorable member made a statement to War Cabinet in which he indicated that the General Staff had reported the probable early entry of Japan into the war, and the need for a co-ordinated plan for the defence of Australia against probable invasion. What I want to know is, following upon the right honorable member’s statement to War Cabinet on the 10th June, 1941, what plans were evolved. Was the first plan that was produced the one that was revealed on the 4th February, 1942? Is it suggested that the Chiefs of Staff of this country are so lacking in military science that they took eight or nine months to evolve a plan for the defence of this country against
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 103
Bookhouse
THE BRISBANE LINE
103
a probable early invasion? The facts are that on that occasion the War Cabinet directed the Chiefs of Staff to evolve a plan for home defence. General Sir Iven Mackay, who has been mentioned in the course of this debate, was then in the Middle East. He did not return to Australia until August, 1941. Lieutenant-General Sturdee was Chief of the General Staff in Australia at the time. We want to know what plan was submitted to the government of the day following that submission to War Cabinet. Is it not a fact that there was an earlier plan than the proposal of the 4th February, 1942? I am not contradicting or denying that the available records disclose that the first plan was dated the 4th February, 1942, but I am most reliably informed that one important report is now missing from the official files. If honorable members opposite have nothing to hide, they should be able to indicate why no plan was submitted to the War Cabinet from the l0th June 1941, to the 4th February, 1942. I am also reliably informed that this earlier plan was submitted while the honorable member for Warringah (Mr Spender) was Minister for Defence. MR SPENDER : That is wholly false, but I expected the honorable member to make such a statement. He does not care about the truth. MR WARD :
The right honorable member for Kooyong said in this Parliament—
He would be a complacent fool who believed that at any time during the last two years war with Japan was not a distinct possibility.
It is well known that a large and important aerodrome was constructed in New South Wales just outside the Victorian border. The land for the purpose was resumed in February, 1942, four months after the present Government took office . . . The aerodrome cost approximately £2,000,000. Will it be suggested that a plan for the construction of such an aerodrome could be prepared in five minutes? I ask honorable members opposite why the aerodrome at Tocumwal was constructed? Its purpose, of course, was to accommodate large American flying fortresses, which could not be accommodated on smaller aerodromes. These fortresses were required to defend from hostile air raids the industrial areas adjacent to Melbourne and Sydney. That is a fact that cannot be denied. MR MCEWEN : MR WARD :
It is not a fact.
If no plan was in existence, and if it was not expected that a retirement would have to be made to the south, why were preparations on foot to defend this southern area, and also the south coast of New South Wales and the Melbourne industrial area? The Tocumwal aerodrome, as a matter of fact, was a part of the present Opposition’s defeatist plans. The Opposition must be fully aware that such a plan as I have described was actually in existence, and it is not likely to succeed in its attempts to confuse the issue by using the name of General Sir Iven Mackay, who was recalled from the
0885-main.qx5
104
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 104
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Middle East in August, 1942. Lieutenant-General Sturdee was Chief of Staff from August, 1940, to August, 1942, and was in office when the threat of early invasion was first reported to War Cabinet, and the right honorable member for Kooyong was Prime Minister at the time. On the facts I have put to honourable members, there is ample evidence to justify the statement that a plan existed. The right honorable member for Kooyong has said that I have stated that a plan existed for the evacuation of the area in question. I did not say that a plan for evacuation existed. I said that a plan existed for the abandonment of it. It would have been impracticable to completely evacuate areas in Western Australia and north Queensland, for sufficient transport was not available. The intention was to abandon those territories. In other words, it was intended to desert our own people there! The men, women and children in that country were to be left to the mercy of the invading Japanese. Honorable gentlemen opposite are now becoming alarmed because they know that the people of this country will not support those who would stand for such a defeatist policy. They desire a government which is prepared to take the necessary action to defend every foot of Australian soil. They realise now that we can show not only that this Government was not responsible for “the Brisbane line” and for other defeatist plans of that nature, but that it is able to govern this country in the best possible way . . . 3
k Edward (Eddie) Ward (1899–1963), Australian Labor Party 1931–32, 1936–63, Lang Labor 1932–36, Member for East Sydney March–December 1931, 1932–63. Positions held: Minister for Labour and National Service 1941–43, Minister for Transport and Minister for External Territories 1943–49.
k Prime Minister Curtin announced at the end of the debate that an election would be called. Ward’s speech led to a Royal Commission being established into the missing document. Ward was stood down from the ministry by Curtin after he refused to resign while his allegation was being investigated by the Royal Commission. However, in the lead up to the election on 21 August 1943, the Labor Party was happy to capitalise on the controversy. Stephen Loosley, a former Labor Party Senator, recalled that the ALP used the slogan, ‘Labor fights the Japs’, at the local electoral level, effectively reminding the public of Ward’s Brisbane Line accusation.4 The Curtin Government won a landslide victory gaining 17 seats. Ward claimed that the Government victory was due to his stand on the Brisbane Line. The Royal Commission found in October 1943 that the allegations regarding a missing document ‘concerning a matter known as the Brisbane Line’ 5 were without substance. Despite this finding, the Brisbane Line continues to be referred to even to this day. A search of the Parliamentary Hansard shows that there have been over 40 references to the Brisbane
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 105
Bookhouse
THE BRISBANE LINE
105
Line during the past two decades. An article in The Weekend Australian in March 2003, argued: the existence of the Brisbane Line has never been proved but it has seeped into popular mythology because of the number of people who believed it at the time. Ward would be chuffed that sixty years on, the Brisbane Line is still being used by Labor to bash its opponents.6
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 106
Bookhouse
‘. . . it is not as a woman that I have been elected to this chamber.’
Maiden speech
D OROTHY TANGNEY , Senator for Western Australia, 24 September 1943 Forty-one years after the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, gave Australian women the right to vote in federal elections and to sit in the federal parliament, the House of Representatives and the Senate heard, for the first time, female voices. In the landmark 1943 election, Dorothy Tangney (Labor Party) was the first woman to be elected to the Senate and Enid Lyons (United Australia Party) became the first woman to take a seat in the House of Representatives. At 32, Dorothy Tangney was a comparatively young parliamentarian and she covered a range of topics in her first speech. Unlike her counterpart in the House of Representatives, she spoke little of women and families and focussed on social security for all and the need for federal control of education and health. . . . I . . . realize my great honour in being the first woman to be elected to the Senate. But it is not as a woman that I have been elected to this chamber. It is as a citizen of the Commonwealth; and I take my place here with the full privileges and rights of all honorable senators, and, what is still more important, with the full responsibilities which such a high office entails . . . I pay tribute, first, to the wonderful achievements of our men and women in the fighting forces who in every sphere of action have so gallantly upheld the prestige of Australia. I also pay tribute to the remarkable achievements of our Allies, to the men and women of China who for so many years now have fought our common enemy, to the thousands of Americans who left their homes and came to our 106
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 107
Bookhouse
MAIDEN
SPEECH
107
assistance in our most critical hour, when, for the first time in the 150 years of our existence as a free nation, we were threatened by a foreign enemy; to our gallant Dutch allies who from our Australian homeland are now doing their utmost to drive back the Japanese aggressor to the confines of his own territory; to our gallant kinsmen in New Zealand who, for a second time, have shown that the word Anzac has no hollow meaning but really symbolizes the kinship of blood which unites us and makes the peoples of the Commonwealth and of New Zealand the standardbearers of freedom in this far-flung outpost of the Empire . . . Particularly, I pay tribute to the women in industry who, for the first time, have been called upon to take their places in fields hitherto the prerogatives of men, especially those engaged in the engineering industry who have turned night into day, and have pursued a way of life completely foreign to anything they had known before . . . I hope that when the day of peace comes what has been so willingly surrendered by our workers in industry will not be forgotten, and that the maximum of what they have voluntarily given up in the war effort will be the minimum upon which our new industrial standards will be based . . . I pay tribute to the Curtin Government which was called to office at a time of crisis unprecedented in the history of the nation. Under conditions never before paralleled in this country, and with a minority in both Houses, it was still able to call the nation to a total war effort and to co-ordinate the various forces necessary for the success of that effort. We know of the policy of regimentation imposed on the Australian people. Such a policy is absolutely foreign to our normal way of life; the imposing of it upon us must have been most distasteful to any government, and particularly to a Labor Government . . . but we are not free from the responsibilities which lie upon all of us to bring to the oppressed peoples of the world the same measure of freedom and democracy as we enjoy, and we must not rest from our labours until that happy state of affairs is instituted. That is why we have a foreshadowing of very heavy taxation because by that way of sacrifice victory will be achieved . . . We must . . . remember that the Government which was recently elected by the people of Australia has a twofold duty to perform. First and foremost is the winning of the war . . . there is also a very heavy responsibility upon the Government to see that the peace shall not be lost. All of us know what happened after the last war; that it was a war to end wars, and would make this country fit for heroes to live in, but instead of Australia being made fit for heroes to live in it became a land for paupers to die in. We must be certain that a similar state of affairs shall not follow in the wake of this war . . . The last Parliament laid down the foundation of a plan of social services. Social security is the right of every Australian; and I trust that on the foundation already laid we shall be able to build a much stronger edifice which, no matter how fierce the winds of reaction may blow against it, will be able to endure. Thus we shall
0885-main.qx5
108
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 108
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
make this country what it should be, a model for all other democracies to follow. In order to do this we must observe fully the Atlantic Charter. Every citizen has at least two rights—freedom from fear and freedom from want. In order to safeguard those rights the Commonwealth Parliament will need to take over a great deal of work that has hitherto been regarded as the prerogative or duty of the States. If this war has done nothing else it has at least made our people Australia-minded. We are no longer Western Australians, or Victorians, or New South Welshmen. We all are Australians, and we come here with a common duty to perform, not in the interests of any special section of the community, but in the interests of Australia as a whole. We say that Australia is a democracy. I hope that that is true. I believe that if any democracy is to succeed it must be an educated democracy, and its leaders must come from the people themselves . . . In this policy of reconstruction we must give, first, social security to all. I understand that a portion of the Government’s revenue from income tax has already been earmarked for that purpose. We shall be too late if we wait until the last gun is fired or the last shell has burst before we enter upon this era of reconstruction . . . We must have federal control of education, and see that the various State education departments are freed from their present financial worries and enabled to carry out a policy which will give to every Australian citizen the benefits which only education can confer . . . That applies also to our other social services. We have at present a system of pensions which, to my mind, are [sic] very inadequate . . . It is time that pensions were abolished, because we are all share-holders in this vast Commonwealth; there are 7,000,000 of us, and it is the duty of this Parliament to provide that men or women who have given a lifetime of service to the nation shall be given, when they reach pensionable age, not £1 6s. a week as a dole, but their share of the national dividend which they have helped by their labour to create over the years . . . The medical schemes listed under the social service proposals should also be put into operation, because at present only the two extremes of our people are receiving the very best that medical science can give. The very poor receive it as a charity or dole, and at the other end of the social ladder we have those who can work to pay for it, but the people in between, the vast middle class, have to spend the rest of their lives paying for one severe illness . . . We must have a healthy community, and prevention is better than cure . . . I therefore hope to see during the life of this Parliament legislation enacted which will remove from all the fear which comes from long protracted illness, and ensure a decent standard of health in our community . . . Our present housing conditions are causing a great deal not only of discomfort but even of hardship to many members of the community. The Commonwealth Bank has now sufficient powers to enable it to help the workers to secure their own homes. By homes I do not mean flats or one-room tenements. I am thinking of
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 109
Bookhouse
MAIDEN
SPEECH
109
homes with gardens to enable families to live in decency, instead of being brought up like rabbits . . . The rehabilitation of the men and women of the forces will be perhaps the most important problem which will face this Government, because if those who have offered their lives so valiantly do not return to an Australia which is better than the one they left, their sacrifice will have been in vain. I hope that in this policy of reconstruction we shall build on the very best of what is in the old system, and discard the rest . . . We must also be very careful that those whom we select as the representatives of this nation at the peace conference shall be men and women of integrity— because I believe that women should play their part there—imbued not with a spirit of revenge but with a spirit of justice, resolved that we and other democracies shall receive even-handed justice at the settlement. In this respect I should like finally to remark upon the importance of Australia, first as a very vital unit in the British Commonwealth of Nations, and secondly as a vast Pacific power . . . The Government’s policy in connexion with foreign affairs must take cognisance of the vital importance of Australia as a Pacific nation.
Senator Dorothy Tangney sits in the Senate Chamber with the Honorable W.E. Aylett on the day she delivered her maiden speech—24 September 1943. AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL, NEGATIVE NUMBER 139696.
0885-main.qx5
110
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 110
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The financial burdens which the Government of Australia will call upon the people to bear in the next few months will be heavy, by comparison with peacetime requirements, but the times are very difficult and must be faced with courage . . . 1
k Dorothy Tangney (1911–1985), Australian Labor Party, Senator for Western Australia 1943–68.
k Dorothy Tangney served in the Senate for twenty-five years. As a Temporary Chair of Committees, she was the first woman to preside over either House in the Federal Parliament.2 Although Senator Tangney did not identify herself as a feminist, she advocated changes such as equal pay for equal work. Prior to retiring in 1968, she moved a motion against Prime Minister Holt, ‘claiming that the Government had failed to honour its international obligations by taking legislative steps for achieving equal pay for men and women for work of equal value’.3 She also argued that Labor should not be a party of low taxation and that, ‘the electorate expected from the Labor Government social security, and preferred this to tax cuts promised by Menzies’.4 At the time of Dorothy Tangney’s retirement, she was still the only Labor woman in the federal parliament. The next Labor women elected to federal parliament were Senator Ruth Coleman and Ms Joan Child in 1974. By 2003, there were twenty Labor women in the House of Representatives and nine in the Senate. In 1968, Senator Tangney was created a Dame Commander of the British Empire.5
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 111
Bookhouse
‘. . . hatred of oppression, love of ‘a fair go’, a passion for justice . . .’
Maiden speech
D AME E NID LYONS , Member for Darwin (Tasmania), 29 September 1943 Dame Enid Lyons, the first woman elected to the House of Representatives, entered politics four years after the death of her husband, former Australian prime minister, Joe Lyons. She was the mother of twelve children, the youngest of whom was not yet 10 years old when Dame Enid entered politics, and brought a unique perspective to the Australian Parliament. In her maiden speech, Dame Enid Lyons covered a number of topics including population, the family, taxation and pensions and Australia’s national character. The speech was peppered with references to home life and highlighted her views on the importance of the family. Not surprisingly, perhaps, she later wrote that she seemed to be, ‘drawn into every controversy that arose relating to children, marriage and motherhood’.1 . . . I believe, very sincerely, that any woman entering the public arena must be prepared to work as men work; she must justify herself not as a woman, but as a citizen; she must attack the same problems, and be prepared to shoulder the same burdens. But because I am a woman, and cannot divest myself of those qualities that are inherent in my sex, and because every one of us speaks broadly in the terms of one’s own experience, honorable members will have to become accustomed to the application of the homely metaphors of the kitchen rather than those of the operating theatre, the workshop, or the farm. They must also become accustomed to the application to all kinds of measures of the touchstone of their effect upon the home 111
0885-main.qx5
112
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 112
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
and the family life. I hope that no one will imagine that that implies in any way a limitation of my political interests. Rather, it implies an ever-widening outlook on every problem that faces the world to-day. Every subject, from high finance to international relations, from social security to the winning of the war, touches very closely the home and the family . . . Somewhere about the year 1830 there began a period in Australian history which for me has always held a peculiar fascination . . . It was during those years that we learned those things which still characterize the great bulk of our people—hatred of oppression, love of “a fair go”, a passion for justice . . . We are now on the threshold of such another era, when further formative measures will have to be taken; because we are to-day an organized community which no longer exists purely upon the initiative of its individual members, and if we would serve Australia well we must preserve those characteristics that were formed during that early period of our history . . . In the matter of social security one thing stands out clearly in my mind. Such things are necessary in order that the weak shall not go to the wall, that the strong may be supported, that all may have justice. But we must never so blanket ourselves that those fine national qualities of which I have spoken shall no longer have play. I know so well that fear, want and idleness can kill the spirit of any people. But I know, too, that security can be bought at too great a cost—the cost of spiritual freedom. How, then, may we strike a balance? That, it seems to me, is the big question for us to decide to-day. There is one answer. We know perfectly well that any system of social security devised to-day must be financed largely from general taxation. Yet I would insist that every person in the community in receipt of any income whatsoever must make some contribution to the fund for social security. I want it to be an act of conscious citizenship . . . there should be pensions for all; there should be no means test; those who have should contribute according to their means. But every one, however little he or she earns, should contribute something, be it only a three-penny stamp, as a sort of token payment for the advantage of Australian citizenship. I am delighted that the honorable member for Denison (Dr Gaha) should have secured the honour of having introduced to this chamber, in this debate, the subject of population . . . I, like him, have pondered on this subject—not with my feet upon the mantle-piece, but knee-deep in shawls and feeding bottles. I have pondered it, surrounded by those who, by their very numbers, have done quite a good deal to boost the population of Australia. I believe that I have at least tried out some of the theories which would make for a better population, and that I know some of the difficulties that present themselves to any person who, in these days, desires to rear a family. One honorable member has spoken of the need for a greater population for reasons of defence. That, of course, is something that has to be considered. But
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 113
Bookhouse
MAIDEN
SPEECH
113
there has also to be considered the fact that, unless we fill this country we shall have no justification in the years that are ahead for holding it at all . . . State paternalism became necessary, and even in State paternalism certain reasons for the decline of family life can be found. At the other end of the social scale other reasons can be found for the declining birth-rate. New inventions, and the provision of luxuries, provided new ways of spending incomes and leisure. There was less domestic help to be had. Finally, people began to think that the woman who became the mother of a family was something of a lunatic. About 30 years later she began to be regarded as something of a criminal lunatic. In the end the belief developed that it was a social virtue to produce fewer and fewer children. Where such a state of affairs exists, it is a matter of courage, even of hardihood, to have a family of more than two or three . . . We must look to the basic wage, which at present provides for the needs of three children for every man who receives it; yet how many thousands of men in this country have no children at all? . . . Let the man’s wage be a direct charge upon industry, but the children should be a charge on the whole community. If we hope to increase the birth-rate we must look to a resurgence of the national spirit, a resurgence of national vitality . . . Now let me turn just for a moment to the international sphere. I have heard expressions of opinion that have surprised and even hurt me, and I have heard some that have cheered me greatly. Some honorable members have assured us that there can never be any hope that mankind will escape the horror of war that descends upon the world every now and then. Others have assured us that by international co-ordination we can usher in very quickly the reign of peace for which we all long . . . I . . . saw a film dealing with the war in Europe. There was one scene which portrayed the evacuation from Dunkirk. We saw how the German army flowed across the Low Countries and over northern France, and how the small British army was squeezed into an ever-decreasing compass, until finally it was compressed into the small area immediately around Dunkirk. Then the picture showed a mist on the water, and the voice of the announcer said this: “And then out of the mist there came a strange flotilla—warships and fishing smacks, and craft of all kinds filled the sea. It was the sea-going English come to rescue their own”. And I felt, as I believe every other person felt who saw the picture, that this indeed was one of the greatest moments in the history of our race. I thought then, as I think now, that we should not fail occasionally to pause and look back upon the great moments of our past. We go along, thinking always that we progress, but sometimes we have to pause and take stock. I think that every Australian should pause now and again and say to himself, “Only 150 years ago this land was wilderness. Now we have great cities, wonderful feats of engineering and beautiful buildings everywhere. And this is still a land of promise”. We cannot afford to neglect some recognition of our past, even though we gaze into the future. Now, honorable members will forgive me, I know, when I say that I bear the
0885-main.qx5
114
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 114
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Dame Enid Lyons, the first woman elected to the House of Representatives, with some of her colleagues in the United Australia Party committee room at Parliament House on 24 September 1943. AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL, NEGATIVE NUMBER 139711.
name of one of whom it was said in this chamber that to him the problems of government were not problems of blue books, not problems of statistics, but problems of human values and human hearts and human feelings. That, it seems to me, is a concept of government that we might well cherish. It is certainly one that I hold very dear. I hope that I shall never forget that everything that takes place in this chamber goes out somewhere to strike a human heart, to influence the life of some fellow being, and I believe this, too, with all my heart that the duty of every government, whether in this country or any other, is to see that no man, because of the condition of his life, shall ever need lose his vision of the city of God.2
k Dame Enid Lyons (1897–1981), United Australia Party 1943–44, Liberal Party 1944–51, Member for Darwin, Tasmania 1943–51. Positions held: Vice President of the Executive Council 1949–51.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 115
Bookhouse
MAIDEN
SPEECH
115
Prime Minister John Curtin rose immediately after Dame Enid’s speech. He said that the first speech by a woman in the House represented one of the historic episodes in the Commonwealth Parliament. The struggle for the enfranchisement of women, and for the right of women to sit in Legislative Assemblies belongs indeed to the great struggle for freedom and free institutions which has marked the evolution of our race . . . We do not any longer sit here as men, nor does the honorable member for Darwin attempt to suggest that she sits here as a woman: we all sit here as persons upon whom our fellow citizens have imposed a duty by preferring us to others who offered at the poll.3
Dame Enid Lyons became the first woman to sit in federal Cabinet when, in 1949, she became Vice-President of the Executive Council. She stood at three elections and increased her majority on each occasion. The next Liberal woman elected to Federal Parliament was Annabelle Rankin in 1946. By 2003, there were seventeen Liberal women in the House of Representatives and seven in the Senate.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 116
Bookhouse
‘. . . the captain has been stricken in sight of the shore.’
Death of John Curtin
F RANK F ORDE , Acting Prime Minister, 5 July 1945 John Curtin, Australia’s war time prime minister, died in office just six weeks before the end of the Pacific war. His death, after a long illness, was announced to the Parliament by the Acting Prime Minister, Frank Forde. The public galleries were crowded as Forde delivered his sad message. Parliamentarians on both sides sat with heads bowed. The press reported that Dame Enid Lyons wept when a reference was made to her late husband, prime minister Joe Lyons, who was the first Australian Prime Minister to die in office.1 It is my melancholy duty formally to inform honorable members of the tragic death early this morning of the Prime Minister, the Right Honorable John Curtin. To-day, the Australian nation mourns and offers to this common man, this son of the people, a tribute of affection, gratitude and honour, which has been offered rarely, even to kings. For this man was truly one with the masses who populate our country. He had striven and struggled among them, and when he came to the highest place in the land he was still one of them. John Curtin is as one to-day with those fighting men of our race who have given their lives that we might live. For them, interposing, as he himself put it, their bodies between us and the enemy, he worked day and night for many weary months and years that they might have the strength to hold out. For the British race and for the cause of the United Nations, he did everything that was in his power to shape policies that would produce the maximum effort on the part of this country. 116
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 117
D E AT H
Bookhouse
OF
J O H N C U RT I N
117
. . . the captain has been stricken in sight of the shore. His memorial stands around us—a free land, a free people. And I feel that he has chosen his own epitaph—in the words of Swinburne, which he quoted to the Australian people on that momentous day, the 8th December, 1941, when Japan struck. They were— Come forth, be born and live, Thou that hast help to give, And light to make man’s day of manhood fair, With flight outflying the sphered sun, Hasten thine hour And halt not till thy work be done.
John Curtin’s work was done, well and faithfully done. Nothing remained for fulfilment, but the laurel wreath of victory and the benefaction of peace. And so he was called home to rest. It may be said that the call came before its time. But I think I interpret the feeling of all men when I say that I am thankful that he was spared for so long during this dreadful struggle to guide our nation’s destiny. It is true that he had dreams for the future. He had an abiding faith in the future national greatness of Australia, . . . But it was not to be for him. For those of us who remain, he has set a course to follow, and the best tribute we can pay to his memory will be to do as he would have wished us to do. In this regard, his faith in Australia was expressed by himself on that day in April, 1939, when, in this place, he offered the sympathy of his party to the family of the late Mr JA Lyons. Mr Curtin said then: “We believe that the country that yielded such a man can continue to produce such men”. When the hour arrived, Australia produced John Curtin, and now that he has gone this country is without its leader. In this moment of grief, I am sure he would, if he could, say to us to have faith in ourselves and to carry on the task of building our nation to greatness. We, in this Parliament, here and in another place, have lost a colleague. We have lost, too, a guide and a friend. And Parliament, as a democratic institution, has lost one of its staunchest adherents, who revered it, and did much to uphold its dignity and influence. We of the Federal Parliamentary Labor party cannot assess our loss in a measure of words. His period of leadership, extending over the record term of nine years, nine months and five days, commenced at a time of trouble in the party’s fortunes. His untiring work, shining example, and high ideals raised it to its zenith, and today it has a strength unapproached at any time in its history. All of us will treasure those rare moments when, with the informality of which he was suddenly and spontaneously capable, he would chat with us individually or in groups. To those of us who had the honor and privilege to sit under his chairmanship in the Cabinet room, he gave a wealth of knowledge which will stand us in good stead. I had refrained from referring to the feelings of persons, governments and countries other than our own, but I feel that, as a tribute to Australia, it should go
0885-main.qx5
118
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 118
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Prime Minister John Curtin’s casket lying in state at King’s Hall, Old Parliament House, 6 July 1945. THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA, AN23294046.
on record here that during this morning and this afternoon expressions of sympathy and deep regret have been received from all parts of the world; and, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia, I acknowledge them with pride and gratitude. The tributes paid by the world to our great Australian, reflect John Curtin as a world figure. That is very fitting, for John Curtin worked for all humanity . . . And so we now bid farewell to a man for whom, I am confident, history will mark a place as Australia’s greatest son. It is a consolation to every one to know that this gallant, happy warrior passed on without pain. He faced the last great crisis, fortified by the philosophy which had seen him through so many personal and political crises, both before and after he became Prime Minister. His last words were spoken to his dearly beloved wife, his constant and never failing helpmate and counsellor . . . 2
k Francis (Frank) Forde (1890–1983), Australian Labor Party Member for Capricornia 1922–46. Positions held: Minister for Trade and Customs 1931–32, Minister for the Army 1941–46, Prime Minister 6–13 Jul 1945, Minister for Defence 1946.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 119
D E AT H
Bookhouse
OF
J O H N C U RT I N
119
The Leader of the Opposition, Robert Menzies, also made an emotional tribute to his political opponent, focussing particularly on Curtin’s character: Of John Curtin I can say, as I believe we all can say with a full heart, ‘He was my friend, faithful and just to me.’ . . . I have long admired his political skill, his capacity for securing unity of purpose and direction, his unflagging industry, his willingness to put upon a far from robust constitution burdens which most men would have been glad to avoid, his selfless devotion to the Australian people . . . It was possible, and from my point of view necessary, to attack on political grounds John Curtin’s politics or his public administration; it was impossible and unthinkable to attack his probity, his honesty of purpose, and the man himself.3
Following the condolence speeches, parliament adjourned. The next day Curtin’s body was laid in state in King’s Hall, Parliament House. Hundreds of people paid homage to him. The Governor General, the Duke of Gloucester, said that Curtin’s death was, ‘a shattering blow to Australia and the Empire’.4 American General MacArthur said, ‘Mr Curtin was one of the greatest war time statesmen and the preservation of Australia from invasion will be his immovable monument’.5 Ben Chifley, was reported to have wept as he passed the open coffin. The casket was then taken by gun carriage to the RAAF airfield and flown to Perth where: There was an outpouring of grief as the funeral cortege passed through tens of thousands of people lining the Perth streets on the way to the Karrakatta cermetery.6
Frank Forde was sworn in as prime minister on 6 July. Seven days later the Labor Party caucus elected Ben Chifley as their new leader and Australia’s prime minister.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 120
Bookhouse
‘. . . we cannot continue to hold our island continent . . . unless we greatly increase our numbers.’
Populate or perish
A RTHUR C ALWELL , Minister for Immigration and Minister for Information, 2 August 1945 Just three weeks after the Chifley Government was sworn in, Arthur Calwell rose in the House of Representatives to proclaim what was, ‘the most important [decision] ever made by an Australian Government since it would significantly change the nation’s size and character’.1 As Australia’s first Minister for Immigration, he announced that Australia was to undertake a large-scale immigration program. In the 1930s Australia’s immigration averaged just over 3,000 a year. The new program aimed to expand this dramatically to around 70,000 a year. Calwell called on Australians to change their attitude to foreigners and said that migrants should be encouraged to ‘fit into our way of life’.2 Assimilation and integration were key objectives. The Government wanted the emphasis of the program to be on British migrants—and Europeans if enough British could not be found—and it remained totally committed to the long-standing White Australia Policy that had been legislated in 1901 (see speech by Edmund Barton on pages 7–10). This speech establishes that the driving force behind the new immigration program was the need to bolster Australia’s population for defence and national development. It was a courageous action by a Labor government and Calwell spent some of his speech reassuring the Labor movement that jobs would not be threatened. If Australians have learned one lesson from the Pacific war now moving to a successful conclusion, it is surely that we cannot continue to hold our island continent for ourselves and our descendants unless we greatly increase our numbers. We are but 7,000,000 people and we hold 3,000,000 square miles of this earth’s surface. Our 120
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 121
Bookhouse
P O P U L AT E
OR PERISH
121
coastline extends for 12,000 miles and our density of population is only 2.5 persons per square mile. Much of our land is situated within a rain belt of less than 10 inches per annum and this area is, therefore, largely uninhabitable. In those parts more favourably situated, much development and settlement have yet to be undertaken. Our need to undertake it is urgent and imperative if we are to survive. While the world yearns for peace and abhors war, no one can guarantee that there will be no more war. A third world war is not impossible, and after a period of fitful peace, humanity may be face to face again with the horrors of another period of total war. It would be prudent for us, therefore, not to ignore the possibility of a further formidable challenge within the next quarter of a century to our right to hold this land. We may have only those next 25 years in which to make the best possible use of our second chance to survive. Our first requirement is additional population. We need it for reasons of defence and for the fullest expansion of our economy. We can increase our 7,000,000 by an increased birth-rate and by a policy of planned immigration within the limits of our existing legislation. Immigration is, at best, only the counterpart of the most important phase of population building, natural increase. Any immigration policy, therefore, must be intimately related to those phases of Government policy that are directed towards stimulating the birth-rate and lowering the infant mortality rate in Australia itself. It must, further, be related to the whole social service programme of creating greater economic security and a higher standard of living, as an inducement to young Australian couples to have larger families. In this connexion, the work of the new department must and will be closely integrated with the work of the Department of Social Services, the Department of Health, and the Department of Labour and National Service. On the other side of the picture, the department will approach its problem from the basis that it is economically unsound to bring migrants to the country until there is continuous employment for them, and secondly, proper housing and other social amenities to help them to fit themselves quickly into the Australian way of life. In its turn, employment potential depends not merely on production, but on the development of new and expanded markets for Australian products. In this way, therefore, immigration policy is closely interwoven with the work of the new Housing Department, the Secondary Industries Commission, the Rural Industries Commission, and the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. It is only by giving it its proper setting in the whole national economy that the question can be brought into a right perspective. People who talk glibly about bringing millions of people to Australia in relatively short periods have no conception of either the physical or the economic factors that operate in an expanding population. It has been proven by hard experience over long periods that the maximum effective population absorption capacity in any expanding country is usually somewhere about 2 per cent. of its numbers . . .
0885-main.qx5
122
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 122
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
This would [mean] . . . a migration ceiling of 70,000 a year, assuming that the economy was fully expanded to take the maximum number. It is obvious, therefore, that any suggestion to treble or even double the population within a generation is not likely to be realized. In view of the alarming fall in the birth-rate, and the decline of the average Australian family from six children in 1875 to three children in 1925, and then to slightly over two children at present, our immediate problem will be to hold our population figures without some migration. The Department of Immigration, accordingly, is facing its problem from a realistic basis rather than a sentimental one, and is taking all the relevant factors into consideration. We make two things clear, first to the British people, and then to other peoples who might make good Australian citizens. The one is that Australia wants, and will welcome, new healthy citizens who are determined to become good Australians by adoption. The second is that we will not mislead any intending immigrant by encouraging him to come to this country under any assisted or unassisted scheme until there is a reasonable assurance of his economic future. Any immigration plan can succeed only if it has behind it the support and the goodwill of the Australian people. These assurances, therefore, are equally important and are equally given to the workers in our Australian industries and to the Australian people generally . . . The attraction of new residents to Australia is, however, unlikely, to be an easy task. The birth-rate in Britain and European countries has been declining to an extent alarming to their governments, and we may be faced with the position that those governments will not willingly encourage their nationals to emigrate. Steady long-term decline of the birth-rate in the United Kingdom suggests a condition of danger which we can be assured the Government of the United Kingdom will take all means to combat . . . The conditions under which migrants from countries in Europe other than the British Commonwealth of Nations should be selected and admitted have been closely investigated by the Inter-departmental Committee, whose report is now receiving the consideration of the Government. Pending the resumption of large-scale adult migration, the Government will take every available opportunity to facilitate the entry into Australia of accepted children from other countries. The Government has already approved in principle a plan to bring to Australia, in the first three years after the war, 50,000 orphans from Britain and other countries that have been devastated by the war. Discussions on the details of this plan are proceeding with the States, and we hope soon to reach a stage where the full possibilities of the scheme can be properly assessed. Various views have been expressed in this Parliament from time to time on the subject of child migration. The following extract from a speech delivered by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr Spender) in September, 1943, epitomizes, I think, what most honorable members of both Houses feel about it—
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 123
Bookhouse
P O P U L AT E
OR PERISH
123
I believe that the young people from European countries, particularly orphans, constitute a promising source of new population for Australia, and this applies even to those from enemy countries.
While discussions with the States are proceeding the Government will continue to encourage the activities of different religious and social organizations in bringing children to Australia under various approved adoption schemes. This, like all other forms of migration, is dependent in the first place upon the provision of shipping. But once this difficulty is surmounted, the child migrant will be welcomed particularly as children create no immediate economic problem . . . Apart from schemes of organized and assisted British migration, the door to Australia is always open within the limits of our existing legislation to people from the various dominions, the United States of America, and from European continental countries who are sound in health and who will not become a charge on the community, to come here and make their homes. The Australian people must help newcomers to become assimilated. We have been too prone in the past to ostracize those of alien birth and then blame them for segregating themselves and forming foreign communities. It is we, not they, who are generally responsible for this condition of affairs. Fortunately, we have only three areas in Australia where non-British migrants have tended to congregate in considerable numbers. One of these is in Shepparton, Victoria, the second is in the Leeton–Griffith irrigation area of New South Wales, and the third is on the northern cane-fields of Queensland. That these people can be absorbed into our community life in the course of one generation is proved by the fact that the Australian-born children of most foreign-born parents have played their part in the fighting services in the defence of Australia in this war and regard themselves as Australians, having equal citizen rights, and bearing equal national responsibilities with every other Australian. Compared with other countries, Australia has no alien problem. Our total Italian population in Australia is to-day, 13,018, and our total German population, 1,592. In this connexion, I cannot do better than quote one further extract from the speech by the honorable member for Warringah— I repeat that, if we really want more people, we must change our attitude towards immigrants from foreign countries. We must encourage such people to become Australians, and to fit into our way of life. They must not be subject to the gibe that they were originally aliens, as is often the case now, even after immigrants have been here for years. It is of no use for us to speak of the need for migration, if we are to continue criticizing migrants and placing restrictions in their way when they come to Australia.
. . . Unfortunately, campaigns are fostered in this country from time to time on racial and religious grounds by persons who have ulterior motives to serve. The activities of such people cannot be too strongly condemned. They are anti-Australian
0885-main.qx5
124
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 124
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Arthur Calwell, Minister for Immigration, welcoming 100 000th British migrant, Isobel Savery, 1949. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA, AN24717043.
and anti-Christian, and make not for national unity and national well-being but for the creation of discord and bitterness that is harmful to Australia at home and abroad . . . The accomplishment of our immigration policy will require the support of every political party in the House and of every public organization in the community. We cannot afford to fail. There is so much dependent on the success of our population policy that failure will spell national disaster.3
k Arthur Calwell (1896–1973), Australian Labor Party, Member for Melbourne 1940–72. Positions held: Minister for Information 1943–49, Minister for Immigration 1945–49, Leader of the Opposition 1960–67.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 125
Bookhouse
P O P U L AT E
OR PERISH
125
By 1949, the last year of the Chifley Government, the total Australian intake had in fact expanded rapidly to an annual figure of around 150,000, double the initial target. The incoming Menzies Government continued the program initiated by the Chifley Government. Australia’s longest serving Minister for Immigration to date, Philip Ruddock later said: Nearly 60 years after Calwell set in motion Australia’s immigration program, Australia has become a country that is uniquely defined by the settlement of migrants. Today, nearly one in four Australians are born overseas. Clearly the migration program evolved from Calwell’s early vision of British and European migrants. Today’s program is non-discriminatory, embracing people from all around the globe, making Australia one of the most diverse and dynamic countries in the world.4
The program initiated by Calwell helped take Australia’s population from 7 million in 1945 to 20 million in 2003.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 126
Bookhouse
‘My mind is still very much in splints . . .’
Return from Changi
A DAIR B LAIN , Member for the Northern Territory, 26 September 1945 Despite having been wounded in action in 1918, Adair Blain joined the 2nd Australian Imperial Force in 1940. He was captured, along with the rest of the 8th Division, when Singapore fell to Japan in 1942. He was subsequently interned in the notorious Changi, Sandakan, Kuching and Outram Road prisons. Blain remained an independent member of parliament throughout the war and was reelected unopposed in 1943 while in a Japanese prison. In 1943 he took part in an attempt to escape from the Sandakan POW camp in Borneo and, after this failed, he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. . . . his jail experiences were terrible. He was made to sit daily from 7 a.m. till 10 p.m. cross-legged on a cement floor . . . Talking was not allowed and was punished with brutal bashing, of which he still bears the marks. For 14 months he was so closely confined that he did not even see the stars. One companion in his cell was reduced from 14 st. weight to 6 st . . . He himself was down to under 7 st. weight when he was put into hospital in Changi camp in April, 1945. He was still in the hospital when rescued in August, 1945.1
Blain delivered the following speech when he resumed his seat in Parliament, only weeks after his release from Changi. A contemporary newspaper reported: Federal members stood and cheered when the member for the Northern Territory took his seat in the House . . . Ministers and party leaders grasped him by the hand. His uniform, on which he wore a double row of service ribbons, was old and rumpled.2
126
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 127
RETURN
Bookhouse
FROM
CHANGI
127
Adair McAlister Blain is welcomed in Darwin on his return from Singapore by the Honorable Mr C.L.A. Abbott, Administrator of the Northern Territory. This photograph was taken on 16 September 1945—just ten days before Blain resumed his seat in parliament. AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL, NEGATIVE NUMBER NWA 1003.
I thank the Prime Minister (Mr Chifley) the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Menzies), and the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr Fadden) for the kind things they have said. I realize that honorable members do not expect to hear a speech from me, but I shall say a few words, if only so that I may get my mind, shall I say, out of the splints in which it has been bound during the last three and a half years. I am sure that the welcome extended to me by the three right honorable gentlemen who have spoken is sincere, and that they have expressed the sentiments of all honorable members of the House, irrespective of party. I ask honorable members not to worry about me. I am physicalIy OK, although it is true that we have been through a few trials, which I do not wish to magnify. My mind is still very much in splints, as I have said, but this welcome has already had the effect of loosening the bandages. I thank those who have helped my constituents during my absence, and, particularly, I thank the honorable member for Barker (Mr Archie Cameron) for the way in which he has assisted the people of the Northern Territory, whom a small minority accused me of deserting. However, I know that that does not represent
0885-main.qx5
128
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 128
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
the opinion of a majority of those who dwell in that vast electorate, where men have on their brows the mark of those who gaze at distant horizons. The men of the Northern Territory were the first to answer the call of duty when war broke out. I feel confident when I think that I can go back to my electorate and tell the people that I did not ask them to do what I was not prepared to do myself, but I feel some trepidation when I remember how much my good friend, the honorable member for Barker, has done for the electorate in [sic] my behalf. As I resume my seat, Mr Speaker, permit me to say “Thank you” to all my friends here.3
k Adair Blain (1894–1983), Independent, Member for the Northern Territory 1934–49.
k In a draft of a speech dated for 30 September 1945, Blain wrote: . . . I have been a prisoner for 31⁄ 2 years shut out from the world, and for eighteen months shut out even from sight of the stars, seeing the fine youngster who shared my noisome cell in Outram Road Gaol die before my eyes by inches. I have seen my comrades and my friends subjected to indignities such as I did not believe could be inflicted upon their fellow men by any members of the human race.4
After delivering his parliamentary speech, Blain was ordered to the 113th Military Hospital where he spent the next two months recovering. He subsequently returned to the parliament and served as the Member for the Northern Territory until 1949. He died in 1983.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 129
Bookhouse
C O L D WA R A N D C U LT U R E C H A N G E
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 130
Bookhouse
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 131
Bookhouse
‘. . . I find myself . . . looking for the Labor party . . .’
Battle within Labor ranks
J ACK L ANG , Member for Reid, 7 November 1946 In an extraordinary maiden speech, former Labor Premier of New South Wales, Jack Lang, launched a ‘merciless’ attack on Ben Chifley’s Labor Government.1 The Age reported that the speech was, ‘so transparently an attempt to split the Labor Party that the Opposition members did not attempt to conceal their delight’.2 Amid opposition uproar the House of Representatives adjourned after the Chifley Government failed to respond to the stinging criticism. The Leader of the Opposition, Robert Menzies, commented: We have heard of the atomic age but this must be the first occasion upon which one torpedo has sunk an entire fleet. The Government was obviously floundering and no Minister had enough wit even to apply for an adjournment of the debate. It was the most ludicrous spectacle that I have seen since I have been in this Parliament.3
Jack Lang had been Labor Premier of New South Wales from 1925–27 and again from 1930 until his government was dismissed by the Governor, Sir Philip Game, in 1932 for illegal financial instructions in a memo to state public servants. Lang’s financial policies ran counter to those of the Scullin federal Labor Government and the defection of his supporters brought down Scullin’s government in 1931. This put Lang at the centre of a tumultuous period for the Labor Party and he was expelled from it in 1943. He established his own grouping—the Australian Labor Party (Non-Communist) in 1944 and entered the federal parliament in 1946 as leader of a small group. Chifley had stated publicly that “Langism had ‘poisoned’ the labour movement” 4. Lang’s maiden speech was part of the continuing battle between the two men. 131
0885-main.qx5
132
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 132
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
There must be an evil influence that affects all Labor governments in Canberra. All the later Labor Prime Ministers seem to have been determined to prove that the Labor party’s platform will not function in a practical manner for the government of our country. During the depression, fifteen years ago, the Labor party’s policy was cast aside. It was claimed that the then unprecedented economic situation made it necessary for the Labor Government to ignore the planks of the party’s platform, and to implement legislation which no ordinary Labor administration would have dreamt of introducing. The next time we had a Labor government was during the war, and the war was made a pretext for not only ignoring the Labor party’s platform and policy, but also dispensing with democratic government altogether. Now, we are in a period of neither war nor depression, and surely it is a time when we should expect Labor men at least to make an attempt to implement the Labor party’s platform . . . According to Government leaders, we are standing with our backs to the wall, fighting the greatest demon of all—inflation. It is with great reluctance that the Government permits even a partial restoration of parliamentary government. So, the Labor platform must be put aside until the return of what the Government considers to be normal times. But it is not the time nor the conditions that make the Labor platform effective. These things do not affect it at all. The only things that count are the sincerity and determination of the Government and its leaders. Times, conditions—nonsense! The sincerity, earnestness and determination of the Government and its leaders are the only things that matter . . . A Labor government that really believed in Labor’s policy would have unshackled the Arbitration Court. It would have reconstructed the arbitration system on modern lines and removed the limitations now placed upon it. It would have made the arbitration system an effective, practical machine of justice which would inspire the confidence of the workers; but the Government has not any interest in the Labor party’s policy. It has a new idol called “financial policy”. This financial policy requires that, in every instance, the minimum wage shall remain the maximum wage, and as wages get further and further behind the cost of living, so the standard of living of the community falls. The present arbitration system is admirably suited to this financial policy. With its interminable delays it frustrates and defeats justice, because speed is an integral part of justice. Thus it serves the financial policy of the Government, and at the same time enables the Government to side-step its responsibilities . . . The second test of sincerity is in regard to the 40-hour working week . . . Never before have government workers been so discontented with their conditions. In practically every State-owned transport system throughout Australia strikes have occurred or are threatening. Week after week, Commonwealth public servants are holding meetings in all the principal towns throughout New South Wales to express dissatisfaction with their conditions. This discontent cannot be written off as due to Communist activity. It is too general, too widespread, and too unanimous. In the
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 133
B AT T L E
Bookhouse
WITHIN
LABOR
RANKS
133
past, there have been big industrial upheavals, but they were confined to one industry, or to one section of industry or to one State, and nearly always they were directed against private employers. But the feature of this new order is the universal discontent of government employees with the conditions of their employment, and it is directed against every State government, and the Commonwealth Government, also. The fact that six of the seven governments in Australia bear the name of Labor makes the matter of very great concern to the people who believe in the principles of the Labor party. They ask whether it is the fault of Labor principles. Is it the fault of Labor principles, or is it the fault of the governments that are using the name of Labor? As the principles of the Labor party and its platform are not being implemented, it cannot be said that the fault lies in the Labor platform. The fault, therefore, must lie entirely with the governments that are ignoring the principles which they claim to espouse. After 33 years as a member of the Labor party in the Parliament of New South Wales I find myself, on entering this chamber, looking for the Labor party in this Parliament. The Labor party has always been a party of high ideals. It stands for improved conditions of living. It stands for better conditions for the aged. But what do we find in this Parliament? We have a government that calls itself a Labor government. I look around and see an Opposition which, naturally, I would look upon as the conservative party. Yet what is the position? In order to reduce the purchasing power of the people—striking the poor the hardest blow—this Government has imposed the highest rates of taxation of any country in the world. With both direct and indirect taxes it reduces the standard of living. The Opposition says it stands for reduced taxes. The Government refuses to reduce taxes. Where is the Labor party then? In order to meet the rising costs of living a substantial rise of wage levels has become imperative . . . The Labor party has always been the party that stands for the raising of standards of real wages. What does it stand for to-day? The Labor party in New South Wales pioneered family endowment in Australia. It granted family endowment for the first child of a family as well as for succeeding children. The Opposition in this Parliament says that it believes in paying endowment for the first child, but this Government refuses to do so. Are we to believe that a Labor government would be opposed to implementing this vital plank of its party’s platform? Next we come to pensions. A cardinal principle of Labor policy has been that there should be a retiring pension, not based on the poverty of the recipient, but granted as a statutory right. That is in accordance with Labor thought throughout the world. Yet what do we find? The Opposition advocates the abolition of the means test, but this Government refuses to abolish it. Again I ask: Where is the Labor party in this Parliament? On its present record it has usurped the role of the conservative party. It is the right wing of the present opposition. If the Government moved for increased wages, for reduced income tax, for endowment for the first child of each family and for the abolition
0885-main.qx5
134
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 134
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
of the means test in order to help the aged, the poor and the afflicted, it would find that the Opposition, from what its members have said, is committed to those things. According to statements, there would be no opposition to these desirable acts. Such legislation, if introduced, should be passed unanimously . . . The Government is haunted by a bogy—the bogy of inflation—and in order to escape the shadow of the bogy it has retreated into the bog of deflation. The Labor party has always been a party of bold initiative and courage to face realities, but this is a Government of men afraid of the past . . . The vital spark that gave birth to the Australian Labor party is not dead. The present state of compromise and appeasement cannot last. When the inevitable clash of fundamentals takes place, as it must, members on the Government benches will have to decide whether they will continue to follow the line of right-wing conservatism or whether they will take the democratic trail and return to the Labor party platform and aspirations.5
k John (Jack) Lang (1876–1975), Lang Labor, Member for Reid 1946–49. Positions held: Creator and Leader of Lang Labor Party.
k During the 1949 election, Lang’s attacks on Chifley continued, with Lang alleging that Chifley had lent money at inflated interest rates during the 1930s. Lang made the details public just four days before polling day, giving Chifley little chance to refute the allegations. Chifley went on to lose the election. This was the beginning of twenty-three years in opposition for the Australian Labor Party. Lang lost his seat in the 1949 general election. Paul Keating, who later became prime minister, moved at the 1971 ALP Congress in Sydney that Lang be readmitted into the Labor Party, a motion which was carried. As a young man Keating had developed a close relationship with the former premier and upon Lang’s death in 1975, Keating said that his readmission was a recognition that ‘past hatreds and bigotry had been forgotten . . . the prodigal son had returned’.6
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 135
Bookhouse
‘Full public ownership . . . will ensure control of banking in the public interest.’
Nationalising the banks
B EN C HIFLEY , Prime Minister and Treasurer, 15 October 1947 The introduction of the Banking Bill by Labor Prime Minister Ben Chifley set off one of the great ideological battles in Australia’s history. Chifley galvanised his supporters around the socialist objective of nationalising the trading banks. The Leader of the Opposition, Robert Menzies, in turn, was able to rally free enterprise forces in a manner rarely seen in Australia. The Bill was described ‘as unquestionably the most far-reaching and momentous proposed in Australia since Federation’.1 Les Haylen, Labor Member for Parkes, outlined the euphoria felt by many in the Labor Party. He said it was: [a] dash into history in an effort to live up to its belief in socialism, which it earnestly advocated but never, as far as the records show, tried to implement. It was Chifley who took the holy ikon [sic] of Socialism off the walls of Caucus and marched with it into the House.2
The Canberra Times reported, ‘Unprecedented scenes of disorder and spoiling tactics by the opposition delayed the presentation of Mr Chifley’s second reading speech’.3 After 20 minutes, those in the crowded public galleries watched Chifley making his way to the dispatch boxes to applause from the government benches. . . . The Labor party has maintained for many years that, since the influence of money is so great, the entire monetary and banking system should be controlled by public authorities responsible through the Government and Parliament to the nation. On this principle the Labor party has held further that since private banks are conducted primarily for profit and therefore follow policies which in important 135
0885-main.qx5
136
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 136
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
respects run counter to the public interest, their business should be transferred to public ownership. For this view the strongest reasons can be stated. In the absence of control, private banks can expand or contract the volume of their lending and so vary within wide limits the supply of money available to the public. They can also determine when and where they will lend and upon what terms; and in these operations they are guided primarily by the interests of those who own and control them. Whatever regard they may claim to pay to the wider concerns of the nation, their policies are dictated in the last resort by the desire to make profits and to secure the value of their own assets. Experience of the past has been that private banks increased their lending in good times and contracted it in bad times, lent always where the profits seemed largest and most assured, and charged the highest rates they could obtain for their loans and general services. Since trading banks have handled practically all commercial lending within Australia, their influence on the state of business has been enormous—indeed dominating. Moreover, the number of banks has been progressively reduced through amalgamations, of which twelve have been carried through since 1917. Two more were announced this year and had they been completed the number of major private trading banks in Australia would have been reduced to seven. By this means the great power of private banking in Australia has become concentrated in the hands of boards of directors comprising a relatively few men who are responsible for the exercise of their powers not to the nation but only to a limited number of people, some here and some abroad, who have invested money in bank shares. Time and again the policies of the private banks have run counter to national needs for steady growth and high levels of employment. To go some years back it is correct to say that the banks fed the boom and promoted unsound development in the ’twenties. When the depression came the banks as a whole restricted new lending and called in advances. Between December, 1929, and March, 1932, their advances fell by approximately £45,000,000. The effect of this was to accentuate the contraction of business and the unemployment of those years. They helped but little in recovery during the ’thirties, waiting rather for improvement to come from other sources instead of taking the initiative and helping to promote recovery. They followed these courses because it seemed best and safest from the stand-point of their own interests. Labor policy on banking has envisaged that, together with the elimination of private banking, the Commonwealth Bank would be strengthened to give it adequate control of monetary and credit conditions within Australia and its services would be extended to meet the needs of all sections of the people. The Labor party has in particular advocated the reduction of interest rates which, in the absence of control, were maintained at excessively high levels . . . As a preliminary step to the acquisition of the business of a private bank, provision is made for the Treasurer, by due notice, to invite the private bank to make an
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 137
Bookhouse
N AT I O N A L I S I N G
THE BANKS
137
agreement with the Commonwealth Bank for the transfer of its business on a specified date, which must be not more than two months later than the date on which the notice is given. If an agreement for the transfer of the business of a private bank, which is willing to negotiate, is not completed by the specified date, the Treasurer may extend the currency of the notice until agreement is reached. Agreement must, however, be reached—if there is to be agreement at all—before the notice expires. Once the notice expires, the assets of the bank concerned forthwith becomes vested in, and its liabilities are assumed by, the Commonwealth Bank . . . If shares are acquired by voluntary purchase, the price paid by the Commonwealth Bank must not be less than the market value in Australia of those shares at the 15th August, 1947. These prices have been carefully ascertained and are specified in the Second Schedule to the bill . . . The bill provides for the establishment of a Federal Court of Claims consisting of a Chief Judge and such other judges as are appointed. The court may, if it thinks fit, appoint two assessors to assist it. The court will have jurisdiction to hear and determine claims for compensation arising under this bill. Regulations may be made under other acts also to confer jurisdiction on the court to determine claims arising out of the operation of those acts. The jurisdiction of the court in respect of compensation under this bill must be exercised by not less than three judges. Jurisdiction may, however, be exercised by less than three judges by agreement between the parties concerned. A determination of the court will be final and conclusive and not subject to appeal to the High Court . . . The Government is convinced that under public ownership the banking system will have immense opportunities for serving Australia. It will have the backing of the entire credit resources of the nation. It will be free from the cramping limitations of sectional private ownership which bid the private banks to serve this interest but not that interest, and to judge all business from the narrow standpoint of maximum profits for the smallest outlay. It will be able to take longer-term views of projects requiring finance and, since the whole Australian economy will be its field, it will have the widest scope for initiative and for the spread of its investments. Essentially the task of the new organization will be to provide a financial mechanism appropriate to the needs of our rapidly growing economy. Australia is destined to see great developments in the coming years and this process, which is already under way, must be promoted by every means possible. There will be a great increase in our population. Industries will expand in all fields and we must extend our markets abroad. The basic services of transport and communications, water supply, power, housing, health and education must be enlarged to meet the needs of a larger economy working at higher levels of technique and productivity. The stress everywhere will be upon new forms of enterprise, new methods of production, and new uses for the resources of this country.
0885-main.qx5
138
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 138
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Finance must co-operate and take the initiative in this progress. As new types of industry are developed, new types of finance will be required and the banking system should anticipate these needs and be in the field with the right kind of facilities to assist and encourage such developments . . . Fears are being spread by opponents of this measure that the people will lose an advantage by reason of having only one bank to deal with instead of a choice between several banks. This brings up the question of competition between the private banks—how far it exists and what it has been worth to the community and to customers of the banks. The Royal Commission on the Monetary and Banking Systems went into this question of competition at great length. It found that the private banks did not compete in any serious way as regards interest rates and other charges but sought rather to attract customers by offering various other inducements. In general, they behaved in the manner of semi-monopolistic institutions which stood in fear of ruining their own market. There was certainly nothing like the allout rivalry to give the public the widest and cheapest services which we are asked to suppose exists between them . . . In view of these considerations, therefore, it appears to me that the advantages of having a choice between several private banks as compared with a single national bank are largely illusory . . . The proposal to take over the banks is being condemned in some quarters in recklessly extravagant terms; all kinds of hidden purposes are being wrongly ascribed to it from the same sources. The simple truth is this—the reasons and motives for this measure and the uses to which it can and will be applied are no more and no less than I have stated . . . Full public ownership of the banks will ensure control of banking in the public interest. It will enable effective steps to be taken against the dangers of secondary inflation. It will assist us to stave off depression and to avoid a repetition of the miseries of 1930. Beyond this, it will open a long-locked doorway to the development of a monetary and banking system truly adequate to our national requirements and wholly devoted to the service of Australia.4
k Joseph (Ben) Chifley (1885–1951), Australian Labor Party, Member for Macquarie 1928–31, 1940–51. Positions held: Minister for Defence 1931–32, Treasurer 1941–49, Minister for Postwar Reconstruction 1942–45, Prime Minister 1945–49, Leader of the Opposition 1950–51.
k Chifley’s speech lasted 65 minutes and when he finished Labor members and ministers clustered around him to offer their congratulations. ‘Labour members were jubilant over the
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 139
Bookhouse
N AT I O N A L I S I N G
THE BANKS
139
contents of the bill and Mr Chifley’s speech which they claimed was the crowning point in his career.’ 5 The speech was criticised by major newspapers. The Sydney Morning Herald editorialised, ‘the Federal Parliament has never before been invited to pass so momentous a measure on such slender grounds’.6 Chifley’s proposal to attempt to prevent appeals to the High Court from the tribunal set up to determine claims for compensation was also savagely criticised.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 140
Bookhouse
‘. . . the most far-reaching, revolutionary, . . . unAustralian measure . . .’
Opposing bank nationalisation R OBERT M ENZIES , Leader of the Opposition, 23 October 1947 When Opposition Leader Robert Menzies rose to make his reply to Chifley’s proposal to nationalise the trading banks, ‘hundreds were turned away when the doors of the public gallery were opened, and the press and diplomatic galleries were unprecedentedly full’.1 Menzies spoke ‘for an hour and twenty-three minutes to a silent and tense House’.2 Douglas Copland, then ambassador to China and a future Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, wrote to Menzies about the speech: . . . I thought it was one of your best—clear, cogent and convincing to those who were prepared to bring an impartial mind to the problem . . . It is the sort of speech which one can read and re-read, and I suppose that is the ultimate test.3
Former Prime Minister Billy Hughes, hitherto a long-standing rival and acid critic, declared that he had not heard more impressive speeches than those of Menzies on the Banking Bill. Hughes said, ‘I have heard the giants of the past, but Mr Menzies has out-topped them all.’ 4 I rise to speak to-night with a very heavy sense of responsibility. It is my duty, and, I do not mind saying, my pride, to open the debate against the most far-reaching, revolutionary, unwarranted and un-Australian measure introduced in the history of this Parliament. Beyond question, the Banking Bill is the most important measure of a domestic kind ever to come before us, or before our predecessors, in this House. On the face of it, the bill will merely transfer to the public ownership, something like £100,000,000 worth of business assets and trading enterprise, and that is all; 140
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 141
OPPOSING
Bookhouse
B A N K N AT I O N A L I S AT I O N
141
but in truth and in substance it will do several things. It will wantonly destroy the system of trading banking which has been intimately associated with the whole of the economic development of Australian business and production. It will create in the hands of the ruling political party a financial monopoly, with unchecked power to grant or withhold banking facilities or bank accommodation in the case of every individual citizen. Because no productive or business enterprise, great or small, can be carried on without money, the proposed political money monopoly will be able to exercise dictatorial controls over all production and business. These controls can be exercised irrespective of normal constitutional limitations, for no constitutional doctrine can prevent a government monopoly bank from applying to customers, or proposing customers, discriminations based upon their politics, based, if you like, upon their religion, based upon the nature of their business or occupation, or based upon any consideration in the wide world. I want to say a variety of things about this bill, but, first, I shall undertake the easy task of demonstrating that the proposal in it is an attack on democracy itself. This bill goes far beyond banking. It will have an operation and effect far beyond the business of money changing. This bill will be a tremendous step towards the servile State, because it will set aside normal liberty of choice, and that is what competition means, and will forward the idea of the special supremacy of government. That is the antithesis of democracy. Democracy rests upon the view that the people are the rulers as well as the ruled; that the government has no authority and no privilege beyond that granted by the people themselves; that while sovereignty attaches to the acts of the parliament, that sovereignty is derived from the people and has no other source. Fascism and nazi-ism, against which the free peoples of the world have just waged a bloody war in which millions suffered bitterly, both rejected the democratic idea as I have just defined it . . . With those preliminary remarks, I turn to the right honorable gentleman’s second-reading speech. I do not desire to read it all again, but I wish to deal with it fairly and, I hope, effectively. I shall select key passages in the speech and will quote them, and then proceed with my argument . . . The first quotation I make reads— Since the influence of money is so great, the entire monetary and banking system should be controlled by public authorities responsible through it, the Government, and the Parliament, to the nation.
I hear Government members say “Hear, hear”! I ask them to read the sentence again. Now let me put it this way: Substitute for the word “money”, the words “primary production”. The sentence would then read— Since the influence of primary production is so great, the entire system of primary production should be controlled by public authorities responsible through the Government and Parliament to the nation.
0885-main.qx5
142
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 142
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Honorable gentlemen opposite may laugh, but that will not get rid of the argument, and let me remind honorable gentlemen that it is the argument of the Prime Minister and that it was made in a speech which was carefully prepared—a speech in which words were not loosely used. The speech was prepared with such loving care, in fact, that it was printed and placed in the hands of honorable members while the Prime Minister was reading it. “Since the influence of transport is so great”, “since the influence of leisure is so great”, “since the influence of opinion is so great”, they, too, should be similarly controlled. There we have the entire totalitarian concept. Totalitarians in Europe proceeded by exactly the same logic. They said, “Here is something which has a great influence on the community life; therefore, the Government must control it”, and they went step by step, so that, in the long run, they controlled everything, right down to opinion, that could be found in the four corners of their lands. But of course the sentence ends with a pious reference to “responsibility to the nation”. That pious reference comes cynically from one who, as I have shown, is resolutely determined that the nation shall not be consulted, until, as he hopes, it will be too late. I take another passage from the right honorable gentleman’s second-reading speech. In it he said— Since private banks are conducted primarily for profit and therefore follow policies which in important respects run counter to the public interest, their business should be transferred to public ownership.
There is the whole argument, naked and unashamed. If it is a true argument, then all private business ought to be “transferred to public ownership”. The basis of it is that private profit must run counter to the public interests. If that is right, then there is no room left in this country for private business of any description, great or small, and the government monopoly must be complete. It is nonsense, it is pernicious nonsense, to talk about private profit being an excuse for public ownership. The assumption, of course, is that profit-making is either improper or anti-social. Yet I remind the House that, without the chance of profit and the search for profit— the search for a better payment and a better reward, because that is what the search for profit is—the whole of the industrial expansion of the English-speaking world since the beginning of the nineteenth century would never have been accomplished; and that expansion was accompanied by an amazing increase of population and a great rise of living standards. Nor, sir, without that search, would Australian land settlement have occurred, or Australian manufacturing; or, for that matter—and I remind the House of it—the Australian trades union movement. All of those things have been intimately associated with the search—the proper, the decent search— for a better payment and a better reward . . . There is, in brief, no case for this bill at all. The trading banks are sentenced to death, but for no crime and after no trial. They have asked for a jury verdict,
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 143
OPPOSING
Bookhouse
B A N K N AT I O N A L I S AT I O N
143
and their requests have been swept aside. The jury is not to be allowed to speak. The attitude of the Government is: “We are the rulers of the land. We know better than the people what is good for them”. That is the fascist mind. Success at the last two federal elections has given to Ministers in this place delusions of grandeur. Not for the first time in history, small men have been corrupted by great power. Let nobody suppose that these aspiring dictators will rest content with the destruction of the banks. That is merely the first giant stride towards complete socialization, which is to come partly by the ruthless exercise of such powers as the Commonwealth possesses and partly by close collaboration with socialist governments in the States, producing interlocking legislation and the establishment of government trading corporations with monopolistic powers . . . The truly representative character of the Parliament as the great forum of the nation and the effective maker and controller of the nation’s laws and administration is vital to British democracy. Men have died for it before now. We shall lose our living faith in it at our peril. It is the one precious element which dignifies the office of the private citizen, which ensures his ordered freedom, and which guarantees him protection against unscrupulous careerists and ambitious tyrants. This element is now under attack, conscious or unconscious, inspired by malice or assisted by negligence and indifference. When the law for the citizen is clearly set out in legislation that legislation, while it is a bill, comes under the scrutiny of parliamentary discussion, with its attendant publicity, and public opinion at least has some voice and outlet. When the law for the citizen is made by regulation under parliamentary authority, that regulation must be tabled and may be disallowed by either House of the Parliament. But when the law for the citizen consists of unfettered administrative decisions made in a host of individual cases by officials, not recorded in statutory form, not reviewable by the Parliament, not challengeable in the courts of law, liberty has ended and dictatorship has begun. It is for this profoundly important reason, beyond all others, that my colleagues and I have pledged ourselves to carry on an unceasing battle against a bill which is designed to put the lives and affairs of ordinary citizens into bondage. This debate, we passionately believe, begins a second battle for Australia, a battle in which victory will go to those who are not only brave, but alert and vigilant.5
k Robert Menzies (1894–1978), United Australia Party 1934–44, Liberal Party 1944–66, Member for Kooyong 1934–66. Positions held: Attorney-General and Minister for Industry 1934–39, Prime Minister 1939–41, 1949–66, Treasurer 1939–40, Minister for Defence Co-ordination 1939–41, Minister for Trade and Customs and Minister for Munitions 1940, Minister for Information 1940–41, Leader of the Opposition 1943–49, Vice President of the
0885-main.qx5
144
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 144
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Executive Council 1951, Minister for External Affairs 1960–61, Minister in Charge of Commonwealth and Scientific and Industrial Research 1961–62.
k The Bill passed through Parliament on 26 November 1947. It was immediately challenged in the High Court by the private banks and the three non-Labor state governments. In August 1948 the High Court found the Bill to be unconstitutional. In October the Privy Council rejected a government appeal against the High Court’s decision. Despite this defeat, bank nationalisation remained in the Labor Party’s policy platform. In the 1949 election, Menzies consequently mobilised employer groups and bank staff against the Chifley Government. A.W. Martin, biographer of Menzies, said that Chifley’s ‘precipitate decision on bank nationalization provided the issue which finally clinched Menzies’ leadership of [the Liberal] Party and opposition’.6 Almost forty years later, the Labor Party under Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Keating totally abandoned the Chifley legacy and privatised the Commonwealth Bank.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 145
Bookhouse
‘. . . a law relating to the safety and defence of Australia.’
Outlawing the Communist Party Outlawing the Communist Party
R OBERT M ENZIES , Prime Minister, 27 April 1950 The debate on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill was one of the most bitter in parliamentary history. During the 1949 election campaign, the Liberal Party had promised to outlaw the Communist Party of Australia. In March 1950, there were large rallies held by the Peace Congress, which was accused of being organised by the communists. Threats had also been made by communist leaders to undermine the new Menzies Government by industrial action. On the day the Bill was to be introduced, the atmosphere in Canberra was strained: All police leave was cancelled, and extra police were brought in from New South Wales. Police and security officers maintained a close watch on Parliament House. All doors of the building, except the front entrance, were kept locked . . .1
The public galleries of the House of Representatives were crowded as Menzies introduced the Bill to outlaw the Communist Party. Press reports noted ‘international interest in the speech was reflected in the large attendance of diplomatic representatives’.2 This is a bill to outlaw and dissolve the Australian Communist party, to pursue it into any new or associated forms, and to deal with the employment of Communists in certain offices and under certain circumstances. The bill is admittedly novel, and it is far-reaching . . . This proposed law is, in a most special and important sense, a law relating to the safety and defence of Australia. It is designed to deal with, and, in certain cases, to give the Government power to deal with, the King’s enemies in this country. If it touches certain Communists in their industrial office, as it certainly 145
0885-main.qx5
146
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 146
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
does, that is merely an inevitable consequence of a self-defending attack upon treason and fifth-columnism wherever they may be found. Let me say at the outset that it will be without avail for any honorable member to point out, as can be done quite readily, that for some years I and other persons resisted the idea of a Communist ban on the ground that, in time of peace, doubts ought to be resolved in favour of free speech. True, that was my view after the war, and it was the view of many others. But events have moved. We are not at peace to-day, except in a technical sense. The Soviet Union—and I say this with profound regret—has made perfect the technique of the “cold-war”. It has accompanied it by the organisation of peace demonstrations—peace demonstrations, save the mark!—designed, not to promote true peace, but to prevent or impair defence preparations in the democracies. We in this House and in this country, and people all over the British world, have witnessed the most threatening events in eastern Europe, in Germany, in East Asia and in South-East Asia. If we have learned nothing from all these things then, in the famous phrase, there is no health in us. The real and active Communists in Australia present us with our immediate problem—not the woolly-headed dupes, not the people who are pushed to the front in order to present a respectable appearance, but the real and active Communists. We have a clear choice, and we must make it clearly. We can attack these Communists frontally, or we can adopt inaction and justify it by accepting one or all of the arguments that are used currently to justify inaction. Let me examine one or two of them before I go any further. I have selected merely those that have the greatest currency. The first argument that is put is, “Well, the Communists are wrong, but we must not impair liberty, because liberty is democracy’s cause”. Why, then, did we fight the Germans? Because they sought to overthrow liberty! Can we recognise and deal with the enemies of liberty only when they actually take up arms? Are we to treat deliberate frustration of national recovery, of economic stability and of proper defence preparations as a mere exercise of normal civil rights? In any event, what is liberty? Liberty is not an abstraction. It must be related in this world and in these days to the recognition of the State and, in a democracy, to the recognition of self-governing institutions. Unless that is true there can be no such thing as treason, no such thing as subversive activity. After all, what liberty should there be for the enemies of liberty under the law? It is a curious and dangerous error of thought to be prepared to deal with individual sedition but to give immunity to sedition in the mass. The second argument that is advanced is, “You cannot suppress ideas”. That is quite true. Ideas may be the most powerful things in the world. But if ideas give rise to overt action, and that action is against the safety and defence of the realm, we are not only entitled but also bound to suppress it. Nothing nauseates me more than to discover the skill with which these Communists can put into their vanguard some deluded Minister of the Christian religion. I should like to say to all of them that I have no hostility to minority movements. Christianity itself is the greatest
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 147
O U T L AW I N G
Bookhouse
THE
C O M M U N I S T P A RT Y
147
minority movement of history, but they should remember the words of its Founder. Christianity from the beginning was never the enemy of law or order. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” The third argument is, “You must not touch a Communist if he is a union official”. That is an arrogant claim, because it seeks to put the trade unions above the law, and most unionists, as good democrats, will reject it . . . For, once you establish that the Communist is our enemy, the fact that he occupies a key industrial position with power to hold up work, so far from being a ground of immunity, is the best reason in the world for removing him from that position . . . I turn now to the fourth. That argument is that by banning the Communists we shall merely drive them underground. In the light of what we now know of the international and domestic activities of communism, that argument is not to be taken seriously. Some of the deeds of the Communists see the daylight, but their planning is done by stealth and in secrecy. In short, they are underground already. One thing that we can be certain about, and that I am grateful for, is that once the taint of illegality is placed on this organisation of conspiracy its capacity to delude well-meaning people into providing it with a respectable “front” will be sensibly diminished . . . It will be recalled—indeed, I hope that it has not been forgotten—that until Russia was brought into the recent war by Hitler’s invasion, the Australian Communist party was opposed to the war, that it did its best to sabotage the war effort and that it denounced the war as “an imperialist, capitalist struggle for supremacy”. I hope that we shall not forget that right through the vital stages of the Battle for Britain, and at a time when our own troops were performing immortal exploits of courage and endurance in the Middle East, the Australian Communists were our mortal enemies, and that it was only when Russia came in, after being invaded, that they decided that patriotism was to be their new line. When the war was over, they reverted to type. The Communists in Australia may get a few dupes of both sexes to sit on their platform, to attend their bogus peace conferences and demonstrations and to put out stupid and pernicious propaganda to the effect that the Soviet Union is the only friend of peace and that its territorial aggressions in the last six years which, perhaps, are unequalled in history, ought to be regarded as friendly gestures. But the truth is that once more the Australian Communists are, in the words of the Australian Labor party Declaration, creating “economic chaos, social disorder and weakening of democratic institutions as a prerequisite to the revolutionary seizure of State power”. I turn now to the operative provisions of the bill. I shall sum them up sufficiently to convey them to the House by saying that the bill does six main things. First, it declares the Australian Communist party unlawful, dissolves it, and appoints a receiver of its property. If there is any surplus over liabilities, that surplus will be paid into the Commonwealth. Secondly, the bill deals with affiliated associations or bodies controlled by the Communists, though from these bodies are excluded trade unions. We are
0885-main.qx5
148
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 148
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
not going to suggest that a trade union should be dissolved because its management committee happens to have a majority of Communists on it. A trade union of itself is a legitimate organisation and, therefore is excluded from these provisions . . . Thirdly, the bill provides that officers and members of unlawful associations— that is to say, any of those associations with which I have been dealing—are under penalty of imprisonment to cease their activities as such. They are not to seek any direct or indirect support for any unlawful association, or carry on any activity in which that association was engaged. Fourthly, the bill provides that where the Governor-General is satisfied that after the 10th May, 1948, and before the dissolution of an association a person was a member or officer of it, and any activities of that person are likely to be prejudicial to defence or to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution or laws of the Commonwealth, His Excellency may make and publish a declaration accordingly . . . What happens to him when he is declared? That is covered by the fifth principle provision in the bill. A declared person who answers to those two descriptions— first, that he is a Communist; and, secondly, that his activities are prejudicial to the defence of this country—shall be disqualified from employment by the Commonwealth
Prime Minister Robert Menzies addressing the House of Representatives in 1957. NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA, AI200, L23717.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 149
O U T L AW I N G
Bookhouse
THE
C O M M U N I S T P A RT Y
149
or by a Commonwealth authority. As far as the Commonwealth services are concerned he will be “gone” . . . I now turn momentarily to the position of organizations. If the GovernorGeneral . . . is satisfied that a substantial number of the members of an industrial organization are engaged in what I shall call key industries—one of those industries to which I have referred such as coal-mining, iron and steel, building, engineering and so on—or in some other industry which in the opinion of the Governor-General is vital to the security and defence of Australia, His Excellency may declare that organization accordingly . . . To sum up, such a declared person cannot hold office in a declared organization associated with a key industry. In effect, a Communist whose activities are likely to prejudice the defence or the orderly government of Australia is to be debarred from holding office under the Crown or in an organization which is concerned with activities that are vital to the security of the country. In other words, the enemies of the peace of the country are not to be allowed to occupy positions in which they can give the greatest effect to their evil designs . . .3
k Robert Menzies (1894–1978), United Australia Party 1934–44, Liberal Party 1944–66, Member for Kooyong 1934–66. Positions held: Attorney-General and Minister for Industry 1934–39, Prime Minister 1939–41, 1949–66, Treasurer 1939–40, Minister for Defence Co-ordination 1940–41, Minister for Trade and Customs 1939–40, Minister for Munitions 1940, Minister for Information 1940–41, Leader of the Opposition 1943–49, Vice President of the Executive Council 1951, Minister for External Affairs 1960–61, Minister in Charge of Commonwealth and Scientific and Industrial Research 1961–62.
k Opinion polls suggested that the Bill had up to 80 per cent support among Australians.4 It received strong support from the media but attracted criticism from academia, some of the churches and the Australian Council of Civil Liberties. An exchange between Menzies and his ‘most venomous opponent’ 5 in the parliament, Eddie Ward, further inflamed tensions in the parliament before Chifley outlined the Labor response to the Bill. Ward baited Menzies by suggesting Menzies could ‘declare’ a couple of Labor senators. Menzies retorted: Menzies: I am obliged to the honourable member for the suggestion. I can think of at least one Labor Senator whom it would be easy to declare. Ward: The Fuhrer has spoken. Menzies: I can think of one member of this House who might escape only by the skin of his teeth. Chifley: The right honorable member is on dangerous ground.
0885-main.qx5
150
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 150
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Menzies: I agree—on dangerous ground. I suggest to the right honourable gentleman that he might restrain his interjectors but, of course, the problem does not arise because— Chifley: I suggest that the right honorable gentleman should not make threats. Menzies: I never make a threat that I do not carry out. Ward: The right honorable Gentleman is drunk with power.6
Chifley was ‘greatly upset’ by this incident and later Menzies clarified its operation by adding to the legislation a statement to the effect that ‘nothing in this Act shall derogate from any power or privilege of either House of the Parliament’.7
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 151
Bookhouse
‘Nothing can be more hateful than witch hunting . . .’
Communist Party Dissolution Bill B EN C HIFLEY , Leader of the Opposition, 9 May 1950 In light of internal conflicts over communism, the Labor Party was, not surprisingly, divided over the approach it should take to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Labor Party member for Grayndler Fred Daly recalled, ‘no bill has caused more furore or more upheaval in the Labor Party . . . every caucus meeting was a riot over this issue’.1 Chifley’s biographer, David Day, recorded that ‘Caucus was almost evenly divided on the issue, as was the party’s federal executive. Even to propose amendments was hazardous in those hysterical times’.2 In view of the fact that Menzies had won the recent general election partly on the strength of his promise to outlaw the Communist Party, Chifley decided not to reject the Bill outright but sought to limit some of its harsher provisions. There is one thing, Mr Speaker, that the Labor party, the people of this country and honorable members of this Parliament have always held very dear, and that is the right of free expression of opinion. The legislation that we have before us tonight abandons that principle. It proposes to introduce provisions into the legislation of this country which are foreign to all provisions which other countries, including our allies during the last war, have thought advisable to introduce into their legislation. The great countries of America and the United Kingdom have had precisely the same problem to deal with as we have had in Australia but have thought it unwise and unjustifiable to introduce any legislation of the character that is before us at the moment . . . Not only does the legislation before the House provide for the banning of communism and, in effect, curtail the free expression of opinion in this country, 151
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
152
9:49 AM
Page 152
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
but it also strikes at the very heart of justice. It opens the door for the liar, the perjurer and the pimp to make charges and damn men’s reputations and to do so in secret without having either to substantiate or prove any charges they might make . . . This type of legislation has brought about one of two things. Either it has paved the road to totalitarian government or it has sown the seeds of destruction for the political party that introduced it. Honorable members of the Opposition have expressed the opinion, which I shall amplify, that communism, although pernicious and dangerous, as many believe—and correctly believe—cannot be driven underground but can only be defeated by a democracy proving that it is a democracy . . . I have never believed and never will be convinced that movements can be suppressed in the way that is proposed. I have always believed that if movements are to be fought, they should be fought in the open. This bill does not propose to do that. The most dangerous part of the measure is not the direct action against communism but the provisions of the bill which, as I have said, open the way for liars, perjurers and pimps to damn the reputations of individuals. Without having an accusation made against them in direct terms, such individuals might have their reputations as well as their livelihood destroyed. The Government parties made this question of communism and their proposal to ban it part of their policy at the last election and immediately prior to it. There is no question about that, nor is there any question that some of the most slanderous political lies against members of this party were associated with that general election campaign . . . I also want to emphasize the fact that there is no kind of subversive action or utterance that cannot be dealt with already under the Crimes Act or under other laws of the Commonwealth or the States. Any suggestion to the contrary is completely false. A Labor government proved that when it took action against certain persons for what it deemed to be subversive statements. This bill goes far beyond the issue of subversive statements. I am trying to apply the correct designation to such offences. I am not referring to what somebody may say in secret about somebody else. I am speaking of offences in respect of which charges can be made before a judge or a magistrate in a properly constituted court and substantiated by evidence. Subversive activities of any kind can be dealt with under the Crimes Act or under other existing laws of the Commonwealth and the States. This bill goes a great deal further than those laws, and I believe that people who support it will be completely disillusioned because the processes for which it provides have never succeeded anywhere in the world. Communism cannot be destroyed by legislation of this character. The Opposition does not propose to oppose the second reading of the bill. MR GULLETT : MR CHIFLEY :
Is the right honorable gentleman in favour of the bill then?
I thought that I had given a very clear and sincere expression of my views. I do not want any honorable member to think that I believe there is any
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 153
Bookhouse
C O M M U N I S T P A RT Y D I S S O L U T I O N B I L L
153
virtue in repressive legislation. I have stated my views on this subject many times. I have declared them from every platform in the country. The belief that I hold has never been disproved in history, and until it is disproved I shall continue to hold it. Having spoken about communism generally, I wish to cut a clean line as far as subversive activities are concerned . . . We propose to leave to the Government the task of proving that legislation of this kind can be made to work, and can produce the results that honorable members opposite claim it will produce. Therefore, we do not propose to contest that portion of the bill which deals with known Communists. However, we do intend to amend, if possible, provisions that we regard as a complete negation of the principles of human justice and liberty . . . We do not intend to oppose clause 4 which relates to the dissolution of the Communist party. However, in the course of this debate we shall give our reasons for believing that legislation of this type cannot succeed. Clause 5 applies to “any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, not being an industrial organization”. This clause does not seem to provide any right of redress against accusations. An accused organization will have no right of appeal to a court, and by that I mean not only the High Court, but also a Supreme Court of a State, or whatever may be the appropriate judicial authority. This injustice could be rectified simply if an obligation were placed upon the Government to lay a specific charge against an organization, and thus give it a chance to defend itself before a judicial authority . . . Nothing could be more hateful than witch hunting, which gives to liars, perjurers, and informers, opportunities to make statements without being called upon to substantiate them in a court of law. Under this measure, an organization which is the subject of a secret accusation will not have the right of appeal, because no specific charges will be made against it. Clause 9 is an even more serious abrogation of the principles of justice because it deals with individuals. Here again, no specific charges will be made, and except for a very limited right, an individual will not have an opportunity to disprove an allegation that is made against him. The onus of proof will be on him. He will have to prove to a court or to the world that he is not guilty . . . Clause 9 deals with “declared” persons, and I regard that particular provision as one of the most monstrous that has ever been introduced to the Parliament of this or any other country. Sub-clause (3.) contains an extraordinary provision for a so-called right of appeal to the High Court. A man in Darwin or Alice Springs might be “declared”, and he would have to come all the way from there to one of the capital cities, drag his witnesses down and pay his own expenses. Furthermore, the onus of proof of his innocence would rest completely upon him. That provision could ruin a completely innocent individual. We therefore propose to ask the Government to amend the provision to include a right of appeal to State supreme courts as well as to the High Court, and also to provide that if a charge against a person is not proven costs shall be awarded against the Government . . .
0885-main.qx5
154
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 154
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have attempted to lead the people to believe that this bill will bring industrial peace. I point out to this House and to the people that industrial peace is not achieved by measures such as this, and that industrial disturbances are not always caused by Communists. The greatest strikes in the world occur in the United States of America, and the men who are in charge of them are Mr John Lewis and other outstanding persons who have no Communist associations . . . The Prime Minister has referred to the report of Mr Justice Lowe in which it was stated that there are only 12,000 or 14,000 Communists in Australia. Evidently the Government considers that it requires a new steam hammer, in the form of this bill, to crack the Communist nut. The right honorable gentleman also pointed out that only 89,000 persons voted for Communist candidates at the last general election and stated that the Communists’ power was due, not to their numerical strength, but to the positions that they occupy in the trade unions. Has the Prime Minister ever considered why the Communist leaders, of whom he has spoken, have become officers in the trade unions in Australia and in other countries? According to Mr Justice Lowe, there are only 12,000 or 14,000 Communists in the Commonwealth, and as they are dispersed throughout the States, their numerical strength cannot be responsible for their election to positions in trade unions. The fact of the matter is that, in many instances, they have proved to the members of the organizations to which they belong that they are efficient, and that they have been able to get benefits for workers when others have failed to do so. I know that to be true in regard to the miners in my own electorate during the last 30 years. I shall not attempt to examine the ways in which the Communists have achieved that reputation, whether by strikes or through arbitration, but I should like to know whether the Prime Minister considers that 12,000 or 14,000 Communists throughout Australia can, by their own efforts, elect some of their number to high positions in trade unions, where they become so powerful. Of course, the whole idea is complete nonsense. The right honorable gentleman indulged in a great deal of showmanship, and, incidentally, he treated the House to some excellent rhetoric in his second-reading speech, but that does not get away from the fact that those men have been able to gain positions in the unions by one or two ways. The first is through the apathy of members of the organization who should be opposed to communism and who should take active steps to oppose it, because I believe that that is the only way in which the unions can rid themselves of their Communist leaders. The second is the ability and energy of those particular men, who take advantage of the apathy to which I have referred . . . We propose to press a number of amendments to this bill. I remind those people who believe that this bill will suppress communism that no other country has been able to do so by legislation of this kind, and I have no doubt that many Australians will be completely disillusioned about it. We are prepared to concede that the
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 155
Bookhouse
C O M M U N I S T P A RT Y D I S S O L U T I O N B I L L
155
Government has complete legislative authority to implement its promise in regard to communism, but we are not prepared to allow it, without opposition, to imperil the liberties of persons in this country who are not Communists and have no association with Communists. To do that would be completely to abrogate the principles of justice.3
k Joseph (Ben) Chifley (1885–1951), Australian Labor Party, Member for Macquarie 1928–31, 1940–51. Positions held: Minister for Defence 1931–32, Treasurer 1941–49, Minister for Postwar Reconstruction 1942–45, Prime Minister 1945–49, Leader of the Opposition 1950–51.
k The Bill passed the House of Representatives on 23 May and was passed by the Senate with extensive amendments on 15 June. Menzies then reintroduced the Bill and threatened Labor with a double dissolution if it failed to pass. Following instructions from the Labor Party’s Federal Executive, Chifley announced that the Labor senators would ‘allow the detested bill to pass.’ 4 But the Bill was challenged in the High Court by the Shadow Attorney-General, Dr Evatt, and in a sensational outcome was declared unconstitutional. Menzies then sought to amend the Constitution at a referendum in September 1951. The referendum was defeated by a very narrow margin (50.56 per cent against).5 Communism flared as a significant public issue during the Vietnam War in the 1960s. However support for the Communist Party continued to erode in the 1970s and 1980s and the Communist Party of Australia was dissolved by its members in 1991.6 Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States and the 12 October 2002 Bali bombings, the issue of banning subversive political organisations arose again. The Howard Government introduced amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Act 1979 in 2003 and they were passed with Labor Party support. Daryl Williams, Attorney-General (1996–2003) said: The lessons learned from the Communist Party case were not forgotten. Central to the ASIO Act amendments is respect for the doctrine of separation of powers. The power it grants to detain a person for questioning is exercised in accordance with its implied consitutional power to protect national security. The ASIO Act does not seek to empower the executive arm of Government to detain for a punitive and therefore judicial purpose.7
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 156
Bookhouse
‘. . . under God, I shall not only rule, but serve.’
Opening of Parliament
E LIZABETH II, Her Majesty the Queen, 15 February 1954 There has never been a visit to Australia to match the mass public enthusiasm which greeted Queen Elizabeth II and her husband the Duke of Edinburgh in 1954. The Canberra visit was described as the high point of the Royal Tour.1 It was the first time in Australia’s history the parliament was to be addressed by a Sovereign. The Queen opened parliament in her coronation robes and jewels, after entering Parliament House along the traditional red carpet, escorted by [Prime Minister] Menzies . . . Massed bands played the national anthem as the Queen stepped out of her car and 4000 servicemen snapped rifles with glittering bayonets to arms as the royal standard broke on the flagpole above the newly-painted white Parliament House. After a moment’s hush, the crowd burst into wild cheering.2
The Age reported that during her speech to the assembled Houses, ‘hardly one of the crowd of more than 420 people packed on the floor and in the galleries of the Senate Chamber took their eyes from her’.3 The first section of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia provides that the legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in “a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives”. It is therefore a joy for me, to-day, to address you not as a Queen from far away, but as your Queen and a part of your Parliament. In a real sense, you are here as my colleagues, friends, and advisers. 156
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 157
OPENING
Bookhouse
OF
PA R L I A M E N T
157
When I add to this consideration the fact that I am the first ruling Sovereign to visit Australia, it is clear that the events of to-day make a piece of history which fills me with deep pride and the most heartfelt pleasure, and which I am confident will serve to strengthen in your own hearts and minds a feeling of comradeship with the Crown and that sense of duty shared which we must all have as we confront our common tasks. I am proud also, speaking as the grand-daughter of King George V. and the daughter of King George VI., to recall two earlier events in the history, the short history, of the Commonwealth of Australia. The first was the opening of the First Parliament of the new Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 by my grandfather, then the Duke of Cornwall and York. The second was the opening of this building in 1927 by my father, then the Duke of York. Thus the history of Australia as a nation has a special family significance for me. It is, I think, fitting that I should, speaking to you to-day, recall to mind those elements of unity which combine in the fabric of the British Commonwealth. The great institutions of parliamentary sovereignty, a democratically controlled executive, the just and impartial administration of the law; these exist and flourish in each of the great realms which call me Queen. They have, in this century, survived great trials of war and economic hardship. And they have done so, I am proud to say, because of the great qualities of my peoples, qualities which have shown themselves through labours manfully performed, duties courageously done by men and women, sorrows sustained, and happiness earned. In the result, as I acknowledge the wonderful welcome of my Australian people, I do so in a country whose growth and progress are manifest, a country of freedom, eloquent of that true democracy which dignifies and expresses the individual human being. Already, in my journeys through the Commonwealth, I have been made even more vividly conscious of the true brotherhood of my peoples, even prouder of their services to civilization, and more richly confident of their future destiny. I would like also to take this opportunity to say to my Australian people, through you ladies and gentlemen of the Australian Parliament, how grateful I was, and am, for their loyal support and encouragement on the occasion of my Coronation. My husband and I can never forget your affection on that great day, an affection which you have expressed with such marvellous warmth in your own land since our arrival. Moved by these feelings, it is my resolve that, under God, I shall not only rule, but serve. This is not only the tradition of my family; it describes, I believe, the modern character of the British Crown. In this uneasy world of conflicts open or hidden, my peoples in Australia and throughout the British Commonwealth want peace in its fullest and richest sense; that peace, based upon freedom and justice, which must some day be the unquestioned inheritance of all mankind. To play their part in the achievement and preservation of peace, my Australian
0885-main.qx5
158
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 158
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Queen Elizabeth II in the Senate Chamber to open the Federal Parliament, 1954. REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE SENATE.
Ministers will continue the closest co-operation with my Governments in the other Commonwealth nations. Only last month my Finance Ministers conferred in Sydney with the frankness and friendliness which always mark discussions between the Commonwealth countries. This was one of a long and continuing series of such conferences. Their immediate objective is to strengthen the British Commonwealth; but their ultimate benefit will flow to other nations and to the great world community of people everywhere. Pursuant to the terms of the Constitution, a general election for the House of Representatives must be held at the end of this Session of Parliament. My Ministers will submit to Parliament the financial and other measures which must precede that election. Mr President, and Members of the Senate. Mr Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives. In the earnest hope that Divine Providence may guide your deliberations and further the welfare of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia, I now leave you to the discharge of your high and important duties.4
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 159
OPENING
Bookhouse
OF
PA R L I A M E N T
159
Queen Elizabeth II (1926– ), Queen of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories and Head of Commonwealth 1952– .
k The leaders of the Liberal and Labor parties were effusive in their praise for the new Queen. Prime Minister Menzies said: . . . we of the great British family are privileged to live in unity under a young and lovely Queen, a great Queen today but one who is bound to be greater and greater as the years move on.5
Menzies famous welcome to the Queen ‘I did but see her passing by / and yet I’ll love her till I die’ occurred during the 1963 visit. Dr Evatt, the leader of the ALP opposition was equally fervent. He pointed to the spontaneous welcome the Queen and the Duke were receiving everywhere: That rapturous welcome would never be given to a stranger . . . It goes to the Queen from the hearts of all and transcends all local differences and disputes.6
Evatt ended his speech by reading the third verse of ‘God Save the Queen’. The leader of the ALP in the Senate, Senator McKenna, was even more passionate: The Queen, beautiful, youthful, gracious, noble and good . . . The very existence of Her Majesty restores our faith and strengthens our hope for civilisation and the world. It refreshes our longing for beauty, goodness and truth. The Queen has come to the throne with the acclaim of all her people in Australia regardless of distinction in status, religion and politics.7
Since 1954 the Queen has made a further twelve visits to Australia.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 160
Bookhouse
‘. . . law-makers . . . above the law . . .’
In defence of democracy
F RANK B ROWNE , Journalist, 10 June 1955 Frank Browne, editor of the newspaper The Bankstown Observer, was called before the Bar of the House (the barrier across which only members, official staff and invited distinguished guests can pass when the house is sitting and outside which no member may address the house) to defend a charge that he had breached parliamentary privilege. Together with newspaper owner, Raymond Fitzpatrick, he was accused of attempting to ‘influence and intimidate’ 1 a member of parliament by publishing an article accusing the then Member for Reid, Charles Morgan, of involvement in an ‘Immigration Racket.’ 2 Fred Daly, the Member for Grayndler, recalled that: . . . it was a dramatic scene: galleries crowded with diplomats, the press and the public, and Speaker Cameron, severe and bewigged, a living picture of the famous Hanging Judge Jeffreys.3
It was no secret that Browne had many enemies in parliament, including Prime Minister Menzies and Opposition Leader Evatt, not the least because of his commentary in a ‘scandal sheet’ called ‘Things I Hear’. It is widely reported that Cabinet had decided both the verdict and the sentence before either man appeared. Daly notes that Browne therefore,‘gave the proceedings the works. He tellingly shattered the confidence of many people in the supposed democratic procedures of parliament’.4 It is considered the right of every Australian citizen charged with an offence that he, first, must be charged; and secondly, he must have legal representation. That is denied to me even here. He must have the case against him proved, and he need 160
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 161
IN
Bookhouse
DEFENCE OF DEMOCRACY
161
not answer incriminating questions. Then there is the fact that he must have the right to cross-examine his accuser. And lastly, he must have the right to appeal. There is also another inherent right which is always observed in every court in this Commonwealth, and every court where there is any reasonable conception of justice—that he shall present his case in an atmosphere which shall not have had the effect of prejudging him . . . Now, Mr Speaker, let me ask you how what has happened to me this week squares up with that. First, I have been convicted and never charged. Secondly, at no time have I had legal representation. Thirdly, the case against me has not been properly proved. Fourthly, I have never had the right to cross-examine my accuser. And fifthly, I have no right to appeal. As far as the last is concerned, it is the inherent right for a man to have his case taken in an atmosphere that does not allow him to enter the court-room with the hatred, not only of spectators but of practically every one in the court-room, including the jury, stirred up against him to a point where, if this was a community of another type, I doubt very much whether he would get into the court at all; he would be lynched on the way in. I come to that last point. Last night, the right honorable the Prime Minister, the greatest orator in the history of this country—and you can put Alfred Deakin in, too—and, I suggest, one of the most vindictive men in the history of this country, rose and, in the way that only he can do, poured scorn on me. It has been done before, I know that, but never quite under these circumstances. In effect, last night he acted as a stage manager, and the purpose of his stage management was one thing and one thing only—“Bring Browne in here to grovel for mercy, and if he does not grovel for mercy, put him in for life”. Sir, I am not asking for any rights for myself. I know very well that I have made personal enemies of members on both sides of this House in the course of doing what I believe to be right, no matter what other people think about it. There is no question about the attitude of the right honorable the Prime Minister, sir, towards me—none whatever. There is no question about the attitude of my erstwhile great and good friend, the right honorable the Treasurer, towards me. There is no question, sir, about the attitude of some of the members on the Opposition side of the House. I have been facetious at least about some of them; I have been more than facetious about some of them. But that is by the by. I am not asking merely for myself. I am not standing here as Frank Browne. What happens to Frank Browne in this assembly does not matter very much. He is an obscure and inconspicuous figure in the community—not a newspaper baron, sir, not a man who can command a mighty organ with which really to intimidate a member if he tried. No, I cannot do that. I produce an obscure suburban newspaper of four sheets of foolscap a week, so I am not a very big figure. You might say that I am a worker—a phrase that is frequently bandied about—which I think I can claim to be classed as. So that I am asking not for myself, sir, but for those who may follow me, that this House does not seek to impose very strict punishment, but that
0885-main.qx5
162
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 162
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
it will delegate my trial to a body, a legal tribunal, in which I will have my rights, and if I am then shown to be guilty—well, the hardest gaol in the land is too good for me. And there would be no appeal. I would not plead mitigation. I am prepared to take my chance under those circumstances. All I ask for is that the general public be shown, sir, that you do not bring people here to Canberra to deprive them of their rights, that the law-makers do not set themselves above the law, and do not place their good name better than that of the constituents they represent. Surely that is not too much to ask, sir. I say that, if this Parliament establishes a precedent and takes the right of punishment into its own hands, the rights that have been fought for since 1215, and even before, are seriously endangered. The right of free speech is endangered. You talk about intimidation, sir. You visit exemplary punishment—or, for that matter, the degree of punishment does not matter to me—and what happens? There will not be a journalist in the land, not a newspaper proprietor in the land, who will feel free, because once you establish a precedent you might say, “Oh, yes, Browne did an awful thing”. But you will not wait for some one else to do an awful thing. You will get a borderline case and inevitably in a borderline case you get somebody who says, “Throw him to the lions; crucify him”, and they crucify him. That has been the lesson of tyranny in every country. There is not a thing that Hitler did that he could not justify—not a thing. Read Mein Kampf and you will wonder how he ever went to war and, when he did go to war, how we could ever reconcile it with our consciences to fight. The law of this country has ample provision for any punishment that I have earned. I ask that this House will not take a final step of inflicting punishment, because with any move in that direction, however tempered—if it consists of an apology—the principle has gone. Sir, it establishes the fact that here is not only a court, but a court which absolves itself of every idea that we have had inculcated into us on the score of natural justice when a person is charged with an offence— in fact, a court that is prepared to convict him without charging him. Even the Star Chamber, that body which is bandied around every time somebody wants to justify himself as a true blue democrat, did not go that far. I say this, and I say it quite sincerely: That what you do to me is of no moment, perhaps, in a physical sense to anybody but me no moment whatever. But you are exporting locomotives and other things to those countries that are struggling towards democracy in South-East Asia. If you export the locomotives and you neglect to export some of the elemental principles of justice which they know nothing about, well, it will all be in vain. Your Colombo Plan will be nullified. Everything you give them they will misuse, including the rights of legislative bodies. Now, sir, I do appeal to you. It is not a question of the merits of the case, and it is not a question of the rights of the case. I know that you have unlimited rights. If I were tried for murder and convicted after due trial, I suppose I could look forward to being out in about fifteen years, if I were good. But, sir, I do not know
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 163
IN
Bookhouse
DEFENCE OF DEMOCRACY
163
what I can look forward to here. You may say, in effect, “Put him away and shut him up”, and what welcome news that would be to some of the members present! Sir, if you fall back on your rights—and your rights are 300-year old rights—to deal with me here, you will have forfeited any right—not you personally, but every member here—to stand at next election time on the stump and sing hymns about liberty, equality and fraternity.5
k Frank Browne (1915–1981), Journalist. Publisher of ‘Things I Hear’, he had a column ‘Quite Frankly’ in the Daily Mirror in the late 1960s. Late in his life he lived in Rhodesia and, amongst other things, he worked as a speechwriter for Prime Minister Ian Smith.
k The parliament voted overwhelmingly to send Browne and Fitzpatrick to prison and they each served three months at Goulburn gaol. It was the first and, to date, only time that the parliament has tried and gaoled anyone for breaching privilege. Major newspapers editorialised in strong terms against the action of the parliament. Frank Green, the Clerk of the House, recounts that Browne’s ‘speech “from the dock” was most impressive’ 6 and he recorded his dismay at the proceedings: The day on which the House of Representatives sent two men to gaol for an alleged breach of parliamentary privilege was my last day in the House . . . I had been dedicated to upholding parliamentary democracy against the interests controlling the Executive; now I saw myself as a failure and Parliament as something meaningless, just a ‘front’ for the dead democracy. As for Parliament House, I saw it as Frank Anstey had finally seen it—‘the House of dead hopes; the habitation of Dead Souls.7
Gaol did not, however, deter Frank Browne. Years later, he was still publishing ‘Things I Hear’, which had so antagonised politicians in the 1950s. He again came to public notice in 1969 when he published allegations of ‘an improper relationship’ between Prime Minister John Gorton and American singer Liza Minnelli.8
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 164
Bookhouse
‘I duly received the reply, sent on behalf of . . . Mr Molotov’
Petrov Royal Commission
D R H.V. E VATT , Leader of the Opposition, 19 October 1955 In a two-hour speech which aimed to discredit the report of the Petrov Royal Commission into Soviet espionage activities in Australia, the Leader or the Labor Party, Dr Evatt, made ‘one of the most extraordinary statements ever made in an Australian parliament.’ 1 The defection of the Soviet diplomat Vladimir Petrov and his wife in April 1954 and the calling of the Royal Commission by the Menzies Government was seen by Evatt as part of a conspiracy to damage the ALP. In this speech, on the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission, Evatt indicated that he had written to the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, Mr Molotov, to ask whether documents Petrov had handed to the Australian authorities were genuine. Silent in disbelief, Evatt’s followers had to listen to Government supporters collapsing into equally unbelieving laughter and hooting.2 Menzies wrote that: Evatt had ruined himself as a real political force. His crowning calamity was his strange invocation of Molotov. The laughter in the House when he made his disclosure was sardonic and sustained, and really disposed of Evatt as a potential Prime Minister.3
The report of the Royal Commission on Espionage requires forthright analysis and plain speaking. What is the upshot of this Petrov affair? Two foreigners, the Petrovs, and one foreign-born Australian spy, Bialoguski, have made a lot of money. The forum in which they appeared cost the taxpayers £140,000, plus unlimited security service expenses. The nation has suffered heavy loss in trade, and the breaking of diplomatic relations with a great power. There has been the attempted smearing 164
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 165
Bookhouse
PETROV ROYAL COMMISSION
165
of many innocent Australians, grave inroads have been made into Australian freedoms by attacks on political non-conformity. Honorable members interjecting. MR DEPUTY SPEAKER (MR C.F. ADERMANN) :
Order! I ask honorable members to maintain silence. These interjections must not continue.
DR EVATT :
But after eighteen months of inquiry, at this great cost to the nation, no spies have been discovered. Not a single prosecution is recommended. It is now clear that the Prime Minister (Mr Menzies) must have known, when appointing the commission, that there would be no legal evidence fit to warrant the prosecution of any person, that there was in fact no security ground for the inquiry itself. Indeed the inquiry has in many ways been destructive of the national security of Australia. Furthermore, it is now abundantly clear that the Prime Minister knew many months before the 13th April, 1954, when he made his melodramatic and coldly calculated announcement to the House, that Petrov’s defection was being deliberately organized by security agents under his ministerial control. He waited, and sprang the announcment on the House on the very last sitting night of the Parliament prior to the May general elections. He completely deceived the House into rushing through legislation to appoint a commission. In the apparent emergency, there was no opportunity of examining any of the basic facts. His statements should be re-read in the cold light of the facts which have since been established during the last eighteen months since the 13th April, 1954. Let it all be read. In some circumstances, a debate on a report of a royal commission can be confined to a short discussion of its recommendations. But in this case the surrounding circumstances, the way in which the commission itself was established and conducted, and, above all, the proved evidence, make it essential to have a close examination of the whole affair, not merely of the report, but also so far as possible, of the evidence before the commissioners. The report itself is a very long document of some 450 pages. It is absolutely essential to pay regard to the whole of the transcript of evidence. The length and complexity of the case will prevent us from dealing with the vast number of details, and inconsistencies in evidence, all of which are important to a complete study and a fair judgment on the Petrov affair. On this occasion, I propose to concentrate on some of the major issues arising out of the evidence and of the report. One outstanding question is, of course, the genuineness of documents A to F—that is, the Moscow letters of 1952—and the G documents, the alleged Sadovnikov letters. Determined to ascertain the truth of these grave matters, I took two steps, as follows:— First of all, I communicated with His Excellency the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. I pointed out that most of the Russian language documents in the Petrov case were said to be communications from the M.V.D. [Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs], Moscow to Petrov, M.V.D. resident in Australia. I pointed out that the Soviet Government or its officers were undoubtedly in a position to reveal
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 166
SPEAKING
166
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
the truth as to the genuineness of the Petrov documents. I duly received a reply, sent on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr. Molotov. Honorable members interjecting, DR EVATT :
Honorable members may laugh, but they have to face some facts tonight. They will not put me off by their organized opposition. They have to listen to this because this is the truth of the affair. The letter to which I have referred informed me that the documents given to the Australian authorities by Petrov— Can only be, as it had been made clear at that time and as it was confirmed later, falsifications fabricated on the instructions of persons interested in the deterioration of the Soviet-Australian relations and in discrediting their political opponents.
I attach grave importance to this letter which shows clearly that the Soviet Government denies the authenticity of the Petrov documents. It seems to me that in these circumstances the matter cannot be left where it is, and that, if possible, some form of international commission should be established by agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to settle the dispute once and for all. The Soviet Union was not represented at the hearing. It will be in a position to prove clearly, definitely and unequivocally, that the letters are fabricated . . . It is clear now, and I submit it to the judgment of the House and the people, that the Petrov affair was saved up for the 1954 elections. The wire recordings show that Richards and Bialoguski were using his [Bialoguski’s] chicken farm as bait for Petrov. That is the very phrase that Bialoguski used in his Saturday Evening Post articles. It was bait to catch Petrov. In their conversations the date was fixed on which Petrov, who was then in the position that he had to do what he was told, should defect. The date was fixed as the 5th April. It was two days out, because the date of his actual defection was the 3rd April. Her Majesty was due to leave Australia a couple of days before, and that was the date which was fixed, when the election date had been practically fixed for May. Once that conclusion is reached—and it is inescapable—the Petrov case, as I said in August of last year, will rank in history as far worse than that of the notorious Zinovieff [sic] letter which was produced from anti-Labour sources on the eve of the 1924 elections for the purpose of defeating the British Labour Government. The only difference is that the Petrov case was on a bigger scale . . . 4 I say that the whole matter involves a threat to freedom, and I believe that we can resist the attacks on freedom. There must be a unity of the people not to be deterred from pursuing peaceful relationships with other countries. That is the spirit of to-day. The Government does not know it yet, but it will get to know it. That does not exclude Russia; it includes Russia and China. Secondly, and equally important, we must beware of setting up a security organization which has political views, and which regards the left-wing man at the union meeting, who says something,
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 167
Bookhouse
PETROV ROYAL COMMISSION
167
Portrait of H.V. Evatt by Max Dupain, 1951. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA, AN25060678, AND WITH THE KIND PERMISSION OF THE MAX DUPAIN EXHIBITION NEGATIVE ARCHIVE.
perhaps boisterously and perhaps wrongly, and who goes too far to the left, as being a criminal. An example of that was seen at the University of Sydney recently, when security officers went there to ask a lecturer to inform against his fellow lecturers and students. The same thing occurs in relation to trade unions, broadcasting stations and the press. We must prevent any attempt to set up an espionage system for spying on our own people. In the long run the country is more secure and safer for free people if we have a properly functioning security system. The security service was never intended to be a secret police organization. It was supposed to advise Commonwealth departments, but now it wants to run the police of Canberra and everything else, and it is only kept from doing so by public opinion. I thank the House for its great patience in listening to me. This is a complicated matter, and if I had been in a court of justice or before a commission it would probably have taken me twelve days to finish my remarks.5
0885-main.qx5
168
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 168
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
k Herbert Vere (Doc) Evatt (1894–1965), Australian Labor Party, Member for Barton 1940–58, Member for Hunter 1958–60. Positions held: Attorney-General 1941–49, Leader of the Opposition 1951–60.
k A week later, Menzies delivered a scathing reply to Evatt’s charges. If there is a charge to be made, it is this: the Leader of the Opposition has, from first to last in this matter, for his own purposes, in his own interests and with the enthusiastic support of every Communist in Australia, sought to discredit the judiciary, to subvert the authority of the security organization, to cry down decent and patriotic Australians and to build up the Communist fifth column. I am, therefore, compelled to say that, in the name of all these good and honourable men, in the name of public decency, in the name of safety of Australia, the man on trial in this debate is the right honourable gentleman himself.6
Robert Manne in his book The Petrov Affair argues that: It was the Petrov Affair which precipitated a split in the Australian Labor Party which in turn kept it from Government for the best part of a generation.7
This split, which ultimately led to the formation of the Democratic Labor Party, occured some six months before Evatt’s speech. In contrast to Evatt’s claims, the Royal Commission established, among other things, that the Soviet Embassy had been used for espionage. The fact that no prosecutions had been launched was in part because of the absence of any Australian law dealing with espionage on behalf of a foreign power during peace time and that much of the evidence they had heard would be technically inadmissable in a court of law.8 Shortly after the tabling of the Royal Commission report, Menzies announced that there would be an early election. Manne indicates that “The cry of ‘Molotov’ pursued him [Evatt] from one election rally to the next.” 9 The Menzies Government won a landslide victory in the 1955 election.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 169
Bookhouse
‘I oppose this bill, Sir, but I will not vote against it.’
Attacking protection
B ERT K ELLY , Member for Wakefield, 3 April 1962 When George Reid championed the policy of free trade in 1902 (see pages 23–27), he could not have imagined that Liberal backbencher, Bert Kelly, would still be campaigning against high tariffs in the 1960s. Kelly’s virtually lone crusade, conducted partly through a widelyread series of newspaper articles published under the pseudonym ‘A Modest Member of Parliament’, came to a head during the Tariff Board Bill debate, when he accused the Menzies Government of proposing to undermine the independence of the Tariff Board. The Age described Kelly’s attack on the Government as, ‘one of the strongest made by a Government member since the Menzies Government took office. His speech stunned many Federal Members and Ministers who listened to him in silence’.1 With the government majority of only one vote, Kelly’s rebellion could have brought down the government. Opposition members jeered when Kelly said that he would not vote against the legislation, because the Labor Party’s policies on protection were even worse than the government’s.2 . . . I would imagine that the main justification that the Government would use for bringing in this legislation would be that it would ease the unemployment situation. The imposition of a tariff is usually justified by saying that employment is created when a factory is operating. But if the protection that leads to the establishment of the factory is unwise, the economy is harmed and the unemployment thus created will outweigh the employment created by the protection. A more subtle form of unemployment is created. A man is put off in this agency, a waterside worker is 169
0885-main.qx5
170
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 170
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
dismissed and a railway worker loses his job. This is hard to measure, but it is not unimportant. If honorable members want historical confirmation of this, they should look at the records of the early ’thirties when the Scullin Government imposed an emergency tariff on almost every item in order to cure unemployment. But employment did not pick up until the economy picked up. Good employment figures cannot be obtained in a sick economy and the surest way to get a sick economy is to try to force the growth of one section at the expense of others, particularly at the expense of the exporting sections. In our present employment situation we make a serious error if we think that only secondary industry, and particularly protected secondary industry, can take up the slack in employment. Manufacturing industry does not employ one-third of our work force now. Another two-thirds are employed in primary industry and in providing the services that a developing economy demands in the way of roads, houses, electricity generating plants and so on. We should realize that as a country becomes more industrialized a smaller and not a greater proportion of its people is engaged in factories. In 1922 the United States of America employed 35 per cent. of its nonrural work force in factories. In 1960 the figure had fallen to 30 per cent. Australia’s comparative figure for the non-rural work force employed in factories is 38 per cent.—and this in a country which depends on primary producers for its exports! Indeed, many of us have questioned whether we have gone too far already and have too great a proportion of our people in factories and too few providing the badlyneeded services . . . My main objection to this portion of the legislation is that it strikes at the morale and efficiency of the Tariff Board. Anything that does that weakens public confidence in what is a tremendously important piece of fiscal machinery. Any action that gives the board less power and the Department of Trade more power should be regarded with grave suspicion. There is another great danger in the legislation. It opens the way for the use of quantitative restrictions or selective import licensing—call it what you will. Both terms mean the same. The Government makes it clear that it does not expect the special adviser to recommend quantitative restrictions unless tariff protection is unsuited to the particular case; but they can be used if necessary. Let us look at these quantitative restrictions more closely. The classical case for their use runs somewhat like this: Let us suppose that the Australian market for stationary engines is 1,000 engines a year. Of course, the market is many more than that, but let us assume that figure. Let us imagine that the Australian industry has the capacity to make 600 engines and if that number is made and sold the factory machinery is fully employed. So the Australian engines are made at their most economical price. But engines are being imported cheaply and are under-selling the local product. Therefore, the Australian share of the market falls from 600 to 400, production becomes comparatively uneconomic, the price of locally manufactured engines rises, their competitive position becomes worse and even more engines are imported.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 171
Bookhouse
A T TA C K I N G
PROTECTION
171
This position may be remedied in two ways. One is to impose a higher tariff which makes the imported engines dearer and so improves the competitive position of the Australian engines. That, of course, is the usual method under the present tariff system. “But”, says the advocate of quantitative restrictions, “it does not have to be done by tariffs. There is another way. It can be done by quantitative restrictions.” His argument runs like this: Australian production is geared to produce 600 engines, but we are selling only 400. Let us allow 400 engines to be imported under licence and leave the Australian producers with a market for 600 engines. Then there will be no need for an increased tariff and therefore the imported engines will not be dearer. You can get the most economic use of factory space and machines with no increase in price. That is what he says. I think the Minister for Repatriation will agree that I have put the classical case for the use of quantitative restrictions fairly. Unfortunately, that argument is quite fallacious. The reason why imported engines were eating into the local market was probably that they were cheaper than the Australian engines. What happens if quantitative restrictions are imposed? The importer of the 400 engines that are allowed in under licence looks around and realizes that there is no sense in reducing the price of his engines. He cannot increase his sales because he is allowed to import only 400 engines. So his price automatically rises to the price of the local product. The local manufacturer looks around and sees that the price of the imported product will follow increases in his price, so his price is increased also. The effect of competition in keeping prices down disappears as soon as quantitative restrictions are used and the crude, clumsy hand of the administrator is left to adjust the supply and demand position . . . So far I have dealt only with the internal economic effects of quantitative restrictions. What about their international repercussions? I must assume that the Government intends to use them, as we have been told it will, as a permanent device. The Minister for Trade (Mr McEwen) with all his splendid eloquence, is now in Europe thundering against the wicked Europeans who do exactly what he and the Government intended to do. What happens to our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? What happens to the Japanese Trade Agreement, in respect of which the present negotiations are so delicately poised? Are we to expect that Great Britain will fight our battle with much conviction in the European Common Market if this legislation is aimed against imports from that country? Or is it aimed against the United States of America where President Kennedy is now looking as if he really means what he says about the liberalization of world trade and the possibility that the United States will lift the import duty on wool and, we hope, not impose duty on meat? Of all times, this is surely the most disastrous time to embark on such a mad adventure! . . . When discussing these questions with my colleagues I am often taunted with the protection given to primary industries. I admit that much of the protection so given is sloppily conceived and untidily executed. But it is worth remembering that in almost every case in which primary industry is protected there is a limit placed
0885-main.qx5
172
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 172
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
on the price that can be charged for the particular commodities in Australia. In this regard, butter and sugar are clear examples. The Minister for Trade seemed conveniently to forget this when he made his attack on Mr Havard, the president of the National Farmers Union of Australia. If the Government were to impose price and output controls in the case of those products of secondary industry in respect of which it grants quotas, my guns would be silenced. But I have heard nothing of this. There is one particular group which stood by us in 1960 when the Government took what was obviously unpopular action for the sake of the economy. The farmer organisations felt that this action, though unpopular, had to be taken in order to keep inflation in control. Is this to be their reward? They having stood by us in our most difficult time, will we now enact legislation which rightly fills them with apprehension, and which is certain to add to their costs? I oppose this bill, Sir, but I will not vote against it. What is the use? If I did so and the Government were to fall, we would have a Labor Government, committed to selective import licensing as a matter of course, not as an exception, as is the Government’s stated intention here. But I appeal to the Government to have a careful look at this matter during the time that must elapse before the bill is again brought before the House, and to weigh carefully the criticisms that I have made against the legislation. I can see no reason for the proposed alterations, and I see great danger in them. It seems to me that the Government has bowed to a wellmounted, unprincipled attack by the chambers of manufactures. I admit that our political majority is precarious, but to seek popularity at this price will erode the morale of our parties and rightly alienate the support of the exporting section of the community.3
k Charles (Bert) Kelly (1912–1997), Liberal Party, Member for Wakefield 1958–77. Positions held: Minister for Works 1967–68, Minister for Navy 1968–69.
k The Labor Party opposed the Bill by arguing that it did not go far enough to protect Australian industry. Labor member Fred Daly argued: Australian industries are entitled to full protection because they are the basis of our employment, our development and our security in peace and in war.4
Kelly’s campaign against high tariffs continued during his time in parliament (1958–77). It finally had an effect when the Whitlam Government, elected in 1972, reduced tariffs dramatically by 25 per cent. Subsequently, the Hawke, Keating and Howard Governments continued to reduce tariffs so that Australia now has arguably one of the most open economies in the world. Labor prime minister Gough Whitlam said of Kelly that ‘no private member has had as much influence on changing a major policy of the major parties [as Bert Kelly].’ 5
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 173
Bookhouse
‘Pre-occupied with the fear of a military Munich, we have suffered a score of moral Dunkirks.’
Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War A RTHUR C ALWELL , Leader of the Opposition, 4 May 1965 By 1962 the Vietnamese Communist Party supported by the government of North Vietnam threatened to overturn the South Vietnamese government. The United States government was determined to hold the line against communist expansion and it sought support from its allies. The fear of communist expansion led to Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict and the Menzies Government decided to provide some limited military assistance to the government of South Vietnam. While the issue of conscription for overseas service had torn the country apart during World War I (see speeches at pages 50–53 and 54–57), it had been less contentious when introduced during World War II when Australian territory was at greater risk. During the Cold War and conflicts in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s, a variety of national service schemes were conducted. In 1965, amendments were made to the National Service Act 1964, again making conscripts liable for overseas service. Prime Minister Robert Menzies announced in April 1965 that an infantry battalion would be sent to the Vietnam conflict. In his statement to the parliament, Menzies said: The takeover of South Vietnam would be a direct military threat to Australia and all the countries of South and South East Asia. It must be seen as part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The task of holding the situation in South Vietnam and restraining the North Vietnamese is formidable.1
The Labor Party strongly opposed the commitment. Calwell delivered ‘what has been described as the best speech of his whole career.’ 2 173
0885-main.qx5
174
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 174
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
. . . The over-riding issue which this Parliament has to deal with at all times is the nation’s security. All our words, all our policies, all our actions, must be judged ultimately by this one crucial test: What best promotes our national security, what best guarantees our national survival? It is this test which the Labor Party has applied to the Government’s decision. We have, of course, asked ourselves other related questions, but basically the issue remains one of Australia’s security. Therefore, on behalf of all my colleagues of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I say that we oppose the Government’s decision to send 800 men to fight in Vietnam. We oppose it firmly and completely. We regret the necessity that has come about. We regret that as a result of the Government’s action it has come about. It is not our desire, when servicemen are about to be sent to distant battlefields, and when war, cruel, costly and interminable, stares us in the face, that the nation should be divided. But it is the Government which has brought this tragic situation about and we will not shirk our responsibilities in stating the views we think serve Australia best. Our responsibility, like that of the Government, is great but, come what may, we will do our duty as we see it and know it to be towards the people of Australia and our children’s children. Therefore, I say, we oppose this decision firmly and completely. We do not think it is a wise decision. We do not think it is a timely decision. We do not think it is a right decision. We do not think it will help the fight against Communism. On the contrary, we believe it will harm that fight in the long term. We do not believe it will promote the welfare of the people of Vietnam. On the contrary, we believe it will prolong and deepen the suffering of that unhappy people so that Australia’s very name may become a term of reproach among them. We do not believe that it represents a wise or even intelligent response to the challenge of Chinese power. On the contrary, we believe it mistakes entirely the nature of that power, and that it materially assists China in her subversive aims. Indeed, we cannot conceive a decision by this Government more likely to promote the long term interests of China in Asia and the Pacific. We of the Labor Party do not believe that this decision serves, or is consistent with, the immediate strategic interests of Australia. On the contrary, we believe that, by sending one quarter of our pitifully small effective military strength to distant Vietnam, this Government dangerously denudes Australia and its immediate strategic environs of effective defence power. Thus, for all these and other reasons, we believe we have no choice but to oppose this decision in the name of Australia and of Australia’s security . . . Pre-occupied with the fear of a military Munich, we have suffered a score of moral Dunkirks. Pre-occupied with the military threat of Chinese Communism, we have channelled the great bulk of our aid to Asia towards military expenditure. Preoccupied with the idea of monolithic, imperialistic Communism, we have channelled our support to those military regimes which were loudest in their professions of anti-Communism, no matter how reactionary, unpopular or corrupt they may have been. Pre-occupied with fear of Communist revolution, we have supported and
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 175
A U S T R A L I A’ S
Bookhouse
I N V O LV E M E N T I N T H E
V I E T N A M WA R
175
sought to support those who would prevent any sort of revolution, even when inevitable; and even when most needful. Pre-occupied with so-called Western interests, we have never successfully supported nationalism as the mighty force it is against Communism. We have supported nationalism only when it supported the West, and we have thereby pushed nationalism towards Communism. Pre-occupied with the universality of our own Christian beliefs, we have never tried to understand the power of the other great world religions against Communism . . . Humiliation for America could come in one of two ways—either by outright defeat, which is unlikely, or by her becoming interminably bogged down in the awful morass of this war, as France was for ten years. That situation would in turn lead to one of two things—withdrawal through despair, or all out war, through despair. Both these would be equally disastrous. What would be the objective of an all out war? It could only be the destruction of the North Vietnamese regime. And what would that create? It would create a vacuum. America can destroy the regime, but it cannot conquer and hold North Vietnam, and into that vacuum China would undoubtedly move. Thus, if that happened, we would have replaced a nationalistic communist regime—in a country with a thousand years history of hostility towards China—with actual Chinese occupation, and either we would have to accept this disaster or face the even greater disaster of all out war with China . . . It is only a few weeks since both the Prime Minister and the Minister for External Affairs spoke of the need for priorities, and they both made it plain that our first priority was the defence of Malaysia. A short time ago, the Government informed the United Kingdom and the Malaysian Governments that it was not possible to spare another battalion from our already strained resources. Now they have found a battalion for service in Vietnam. Thus, our troops are involved on several fronts. We are the only country in the world fighting on two fronts in South East Asia. America is committed to Vietnam. Britain is committed to Malaysia. Australia, with its limited resources, with its meagre defences, has obligations in Vietnam, Malaya, Borneo and New Guinea. The commitments are apparently without end, in size and in number. How long will it be before we are drawing upon our conscript youth to service these growing and endless requirements? Does the Government now say that conscripts will not be sent? If so, has it completely forgotten what it said about conscription last year? The basis of that decision was that the new conscripts would be completely integrated in the Regular Army. The voluntary system was brought abruptly to an end. If the Government now says that conscripts will not be sent, this means that the 1st Battalion is never to be reinforced, replaced or replenished. If this is not so, then the Government must have a new policy on the use of conscripts—a policy not yet announced. Or, if it has not changed its policy, the Government means that the 1st Battalion is not to be reinforced, replaced or replenished from the resources of the existing Regular Army. Which is it to be? There is now a commitment of 800. As the war drags on, who is to say that this will
0885-main.qx5
176
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 176
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
not rise to 8,000, and that these will not be drawn from our voteless, conscripted 20 year olds? . . . I cannot close without addressing a word directly to our fighting men who are now by this decision, committed to the chances of war: Our hearts and prayers are with you. Our minds and reason cannot support those who have made the decision to send you to this war, and we shall do our best to have that decision reversed. But we shall do our duty to the utmost in supporting you to do your duty. In terms of everything that an army in the field requires, we shall never deny you the aid and support that it is your right to expect in the service of your country . . . And may I, through you, Mr Speaker, address this message to the members of my own Party—my colleagues here in this Parliament, and that vast band of Labor men and women outside: The course we have agreed to take today is fraught with difficulty. I cannot promise you that easy popularity can be bought in times like these; nor are we looking for it. We are doing our duty as we see it. When the drums beat and the trumpets sound, the voice of reason and right can be heard in the land only with difficulty. But if we are to have the courage of our convictions, then we must do our best to make that voice heard. I offer you the probability that you will be traduced, that your motives will be misrepresented, that your patriotism will be impugned, that your courage will be called into question. But I also offer you the sure and certain knowledge that we will be vindicated; that generations to come will record with gratitude that when a reckless Government wilfully endangered the security of this nation, the voice of the Australian Labor Party was heard, strong and clear, on the side of sanity and in the cause of humanity, and in the interests of Australia’s security . . . 3
k Arthur Calwell (1896–1973), Australian Labor Party, Member for Melbourne 1940–72. Positions held: Minister for Information 1943–49, Minister for Immigration 1945–49, Leader of the Opposition 1960–67.
k Calwell’s speech bore the hallmark of a professional speechwriter. Graham Freudenberg, who later assisted other Labor luminaries including Gough Whitlam and Simon Crean (see speech at pages 304–6), made an important contribution to the speech. Menzies replied immediately to Calwell’s statement, saying that it had caused him to feel ‘acute depression’ in that it articulated the Labor Party’s view that ‘America should be required to go it alone with no assistance from us.’ 4 During the mid 1960s the government’s stance on Vietnam was strongly supported by public opinion. Calwell wrote, ‘We had taken a strong line against Vietnam and conscription, but some people reported that our decisions were not popular and were not acceptable, even to certain branch members’.5 The internal party divisions over Vietnam helped explain Labor’s disastrous defeat at the 1966 election.6
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 177
A U S T R A L I A’ S
Bookhouse
I N V O LV E M E N T I N T H E
V I E T N A M WA R
177
The Australian force in Vietnam grew to a peak of over 8,500 by 1968.7 By late 1969 public sentiment had changed particularly with the growing moratorium campaign.8 United States President Nixon had assumed office in 1969 and the Americans were seeking ways to wind back their commitment. In April 1970 the Gorton Government signalled that it would begin withdrawing Australian troops from Vietnam.9 Australian forces were progressively withdrawn and by the time the Whitlam Government was elected in December 1972 only 179 soldiers remained in Vietnam.10 Australia was directly involved for ten years during the Vietnam conflict; during this time some 50,000 Australians served in Vietnam—520 died as a result of war and 2400 were wounded.11 In the end, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong triumphed. However, Lee Kuan Yew, the former senior Minister of the Republic of Singapore, believes that the American intervention helped stabilise the wider South East Asian region. ‘The South Vietnamese did not succeed, but that extra time [US President] Nixon bought, enabled South-East Asia to get its act together, and to lay the foundations for ASEAN’s growth.’ 12
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 178
Bookhouse
‘No Government can abdicate its responsibility for national policy . . .’
Rejection of economic planning R OBERT M ENZIES , Prime Minister, 21 September 1965 In 1963 Prime Minister Menzies set up an expert committee headed by Dr James Vernon, Managing Director of Colonial Sugar Refining Company, to ‘examine, in unprecedented detail the State of the Nation’s economy’.1 Some two years later the 400 page report with 600 pages of appendices, was tabled. The report effectively advocated economic planning and the creation of independent expert bodies to advise the government on policy. While some courtesies were extended to the committee, Menzies rejected the report’s recommendations arguing that the committee had exceeded its brief. . . . the Committee has . . . offered its opinions or suggestions on matters of policy. We have no feeling of resentment about this. Indeed, we should perhaps have realised from the beginning that a group of talented men charged with this task would wish, having made their statistical and other investigations, to examine the bearing of the results upon the general economy and thus to offer opinions or suggestions. But it will at once be seen, Sir, that the report, because of the facts concerning the terms of reference which I have just related, must be read and evaluated subject to two reservations. The first is that, in a free and self governing country, policies will be political. Under the party system, opposing political parties will, not infrequently, have opposing policies. In no case is a political policy the product of purely expert opinion on technical matters. It must cover a wide area of localities and circumstances. It must be flexible enough to meet the problems of international and domestic change. 178
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 179
REJECTION
Bookhouse
OF ECONOMIC PLANNING
179
It is commonly pursued and applied in the light of much accumulated experience and political judgment. Secondly, it follows that, when it deals with statistical or technical or objectively economic matters, this report is entitled to and will be studied with profound respect. My own Government will derive great value and assistance from it. But where the report makes what will doubtless be regarded as advices on political policies, such advices must be regarded, in the well-known legal phrase, as obiter dicta, and not as possessing some binding authority. No government, from whatever side of the House it may come, and indeed no parliament, can abdicate its own authority and responsibility for national policy. It will welcome the assistance of experts, but its tasks will take it far beyond the limits of economic expertise. Political policy in a democratic community does not depend upon purely economic consideration . . . I do not, of course, propose on behalf of the Government to make any dogmatic remarks. But I will take two examples which will serve to illustrate the differences which exist between a purely economic approach and the necessarily wider and more complicated approach of the political policy maker. One is migration. On this, the Committee has suggested that the net immigration target should not be raised above 100,000 a year, at least until the late 1960’s. We, while respecting the reasons submitted by the Committee, are bound to take into account a variety of factors. The contribution made by migrants to the development of Australian resources depends upon more than overall numbers. The higher the percentage of wageearners—and particularly of the types or skills that we need—the less important will it be to restrict overall numbers. Migrants of the type we want are not equally available from year to year. Circumstances in what I will call the “supplying” nations will vary from year to year, and so will the emigration attitudes of the Governments of those nations. Add to this that the building up of our population by migration has enormous significance for the growth and security of Australia and for that business confidence which promotes investment and expansion, and it will be clear that the Government cannot accept an artificial ceiling on migration for a term of years. We will therefore continue our present policy of securing as large a flow of migrants as Australia can usefully absorb, and of deciding the target number each year. My second example has to do with the problem of economic growth. I had something to say on this in my policy speech before our last election. I said— We will press on with growth in no timid or fainthearted way. We believe, and confidently expect that over the next five years, given good government, growth should at least equal a total increase of 25 per cent. in the gross national product, in terms of constant prices.
What I stated there was a belief that, given certain fundamental conditions, our economy, drawing upon its known resources, energies and capabilities and obeying
0885-main.qx5
180
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 180
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
its ordinary initiatives, was equal to adding a full quarter to the “real” national product over a five year period. The Committee, however, goes a good deal further than this. Its approach in fact is basically different. It appears to set up a certain rate of growth, measured statistically, as something very like a ruling purpose for economic policy—although, to be sure, it recognises that the achievement of this growth rate should not be pursued to the detriment of all other objectives. It suggests that a growth rate of 5 per cent. per year is possible but difficult; a good part of the report thereafter is devoted to the question of how the difficulties might be overcome. In the process, a thesis appears to be developed that this 5 per cent. growth rate will be achieved only if there is a conscious diversion of resources from some areas of activity to others. Amongst these preferred areas of activity, manufacturing industry is given high place. But this view of things leads on to some considerations of the very first consequence. By what means is this diversion of resources to be accomplished? Indeed, as a matter of basic policy and interest, are we disposed to engage in a large scale diversion of resources—in defiance, as it were, of the distribution that would occur if the normal demands of the community and the corresponding initiatives of producers were to be given free play? After all, we are a private enterprise economy. In such an economy, the demands set up by the people who are the buyers are the normal stimulant for increased industrial investment and activity. What the Committee appears to have had in mind is that those demands should, where necessary, be redirected. Now, in individual cases we would not care to deny this. We have ourselves, in pursuance of our own economic policies, taken action now and then to reduce the demand for some particular commodities in order to meet some inflationary position; and no doubt any government would continue to do so. But to essay a widespread re-direction of resources within the economy to achieve some preordained statistical result is a very different matter. It seems to us that the Committee has . . . predicated a degree of planning and direction of the economy which in our opinion would not be either appropriate or acceptable in Australia . . . The Special Projects Commission suggested by the Committee . . . to investigate projects at the request of the Commonwealth or State Governments or on its own initiative . . . is to report to the Commonwealth Parliament so that its views will be publicly known and may come to achieve a degree of authority. To the extent that this result came about, both Commonwealth and State Governments, whatever their party complexions, would find themselves subject to pressure, and even coercion into the adoption of policies or projects which, between them, they might not select at all. Add to this that all projects involve the expenditure of public funds, some of them on the grand scale. I do not believe that any government, responsible for its own budget and conscious of the impact of its own budget upon economic policy generally, would be content to transfer authority in these fields to an independent
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 181
REJECTION
Bookhouse
OF ECONOMIC PLANNING
181
body acting on its own initiative and with no responsibilities to the government of the day . . . The Committee has also suggested the formation of an “Advisory Council on Economic Growth”, with a wide charter and powers, which “would be of material assistance to the government and to the community in general in the making of economic decisions”. These words clearly contemplate—as indeed does the nature of the suggested Advisory Council—that the views of the Council would be published from time to time and that those views would be designed to advise the Government in relation to the making of what must be, though of course related to economics, high decisions of political policy. We unhesitatingly reject this idea. MR REYNOLDS :
Is the Prime Minister accepting any of this report?
SIR ROBERT MENZIES : When the honorable member has read the report he will be able to answer that question. He is all right. He is a great education authority. He should get busy reading the report. MR L.R. JOHNSON :
The Prime Minister is politely rubbishing this report.
S I R R O B E RT M E N Z I E S :
My politeness might well be imitated by the honorable member. In the Australian democratic system of government based upon the consent of a free community, no government can hand over to bodies outside the government the choice of objectives and the means of attaining them in important fields of policy, particularly when such bodies would, through the power of publication, come to exercise what I have described, I hope not extravagantly, as a coercive influence upon governments . . . Political policies cannot be based upon pure economics and, for the sake of the adequate handling of international problems, of defence, and of social and industrial justice and progress, we hope they never will . . .2
k Robert Menzies (1894–1978), United Australia Party 1934–44, Liberal Party 1944–66, Member for Kooyong 1934–66. Positions held: Attorney-General and Minister for Industry 1934–39, Prime Minister 1939–41, 1949–66, Treasurer 1939–40, Minister for Defence Co-ordination 1940–41, Minister for Trade and Customs 1939–40, Minister for Munitions 1940, Minister for Information 1940–41, Leader of the Opposition 1943–49, Vice President of the Executive Council 1951, Minister for External Affairs 1960–61, Minister in Charge of Commonwealth and Scientific and Industrial Research 1961–62.
k The rejection of the Vernon Report also represented a major victory for the Commonwealth Treasury. Menzies’ biographer, A.W. Martin, wrote ‘it was suspected at the time, and is now widely known to be the case, that Menzies’ main criticisms were originally formulated by Treasury.
0885-main.qx5
182
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 182
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The key submissions came to cabinet via the Treasurer, Harold Holt . . . [and] they set out to discredit [the economic projections], and the proposal to create ‘advisory’ bodies’.3 Writing some 37 years after the speech, the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, nominated Menzies’ rejection of economic planning as one of the key policy decisions Australia had got right. Australia is richer because of that decision . . . if we had gone the way of planning in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 70’s we might have ended up like Argentina.4
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 183
Bookhouse
‘. . . non-Europeans capable of becoming Australians . . .’
Dismantling the White Australia Policy H UBERT O PPERMAN , Minister for Immigration, 9 March 1966 The White Australia Policy had been the formal basis for immigration to Australia since the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 had been passed (see speech at pages 7–10). It made it extremely difficult for non-Europeans to take up permanent residence in Australia. This long-standing and fundamental policy was effectively ended with a speech delivered by the Immigration Minister, Hubert Opperman, two months into the term of Harold Holt’s Liberal Country Party government. While it was one of the most dramatic policy changes ever to take place in Australia, ‘There was, in fact, both in the cabinet documents and in public remarks effort to minimise the extent of the change and to offer an assurance that social homogeneity would be unaffected. It was a reform that pretended to be no reform’.1 Listeners to the speech may well have missed its profound significance. . . . the Government has reviewed the operation of immigration policy affecting non-European people, taking into account the experience and changing circumstances of recent years. I wish to give the House details of the decisions and to discuss their significance. When in 1956 the Government reviewed the policy, which had been followed since Federation, of not admitting persons of non-European origin for permanent residence, it introduced several significant reforms. Those people already settled here became eligible to be naturalised; the admission for permanent residence of immediate relatives of Australian citizens was authorised; and it was made possible for highly qualified people to come here for indefinite stay, though under temporary permits. Then in 1957 it was decided that non-Europeans who had been admitted 183
0885-main.qx5
184
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 184
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
on temporary permits could be naturalised after 15 years’ stay. In 1964, the rules governing the entry of persons of mixed descent were eased. The Government has now decided upon two further measures which the House will recognise as important but as not departing from the fundamental principles of our immigration policy. First, it has been decided that non-European people who are already here under temporary permits but are likely to be here indefinitely, should not have to wait 15 years before applying for resident status and for Australian citizenship, but should be able to apply after five years’ residence, so ending a situation often criticised for its effect on individuals and families. This does not of course mean that everyone admitted to Australia for limited temporary residence is entitled to stay here indefinitely. Every country makes separate provision for temporary entry as distinct from the entry of settlers. For example, I must emphasise it would be quite wrong and most unfair to the development of countries whence they came to offer to the 12,000 Asian students in Australia the right to settle here after five years’ study. The objective of admitting these young people, to use educational facilities which are both expensive to the Australian Government and in great demand, is to help the students’ homelands by increasing their numbers of qualified people. The Government’s decision, therefore, does not relate to people expected to leave Australia after limited temporary residence but does apply to those who have been here for long periods or who are likely to be allowed to stay indefinitely. The two main examples of people affected by the elimination of the fifteen-year rule are the highly qualified Asians admitted in recent years for “indefinite stay” but on temporary entry permits; and Chinese admitted before 1956 who, if they left Australia, could go back only to Communist China. By a decision of the Government in 1956, they were allowed to stay on but, lacking the status of settlers and citizens, have been unable to bring their wives and children here. I am very glad to say that one important benefit of the Government’s decision to abolish the so-called fifteen-year rule will be to enable many families who have been separated for some years to be reunited much sooner than would have been possible under the previous rule. The second decision is that applications for entry by well qualified people wishing to settle in Australia will be considered on the basis of their suitability as settlers, their ability to integrate readily, and their possession of qualifications which are in fact positively useful to Australia. They will be able after five years’ stay on temporary permits to apply for resident status and citizenship. They will be able to bring their immediate families with them on first arrival. No annual quota is contemplated. The number of people entering—though limited relative to our total population—will be somewhat greater than previously, but will be controlled by the careful assessment of the individual’s qualifications, and the basic aim of preserving a homogeneous population will be maintained. The changes are of course not intended to meet general labour shortages or to
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 185
DISMANTLING
THE
Bookhouse
WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY
185
permit the large scale admission of workers from Asia; but the widening of eligibility will help to fill some of Australia’s special needs. Examples of those who, under the new decision, will be admitted in numbers greater than previously are persons with specialised technical skills for appointments for which local residents are not available; persons of high attainment in the arts and sciences, or of prominent achievement in other ways; persons nominated by responsible authorities or institutions for specific important professional appointments, which otherwise would remain unfilled; executives, technicians, and other specialists who have spent substantial periods in Australia—for example, with the branches here of large Asian companies—and who have qualifications or experience in positive demand here; businessmen who in their own countries have been engaged in substantial international trading and would be able to carry on such trade from Australia; persons who have been of particular and lasting help to Australia’s interest abroad in trade, or in other ways; and persons who by former residence in Australia or by association with us have demonstrated an interest in or identification with Australia that should make their future residence here feasible . . . Honorable members on both sides of the House have frequently and generously stressed that humanity and discretion have marked the handling of individual cases in the immigration field generally. This, I can assure the House, will be continued, always with Australia’s interests in view, always in the hope of showing sympathy and consideration to men and women in difficulty . . . Every country has not only a right to its own immigration policy but a heavy duty and a vital responsibility to administer it in the interests of its own people. Our neighbours and friends all have immigration policies that are based on their own interests and are intended to benefit their own people and future. All include elements of control of entry and residence, some with strict numerical and national limitations. No government is to be reproached for aspects of its immigration system developed for its needs and derived from its social history, political traditions and constitutional arrangements. No responsible government condones illegality or deceit, which are poor gateways indeed for the entry of new settlers. Our programmes and policies have likewise emerged from our history, our respect for law and order and our response to our special needs. Our primary aim in immigration is a generally integrated and predominantly homogeneous population. A positive element in the latest changes is that which will admit selected nonEuropeans capable of becoming Australians and joining in our national development. Both the policy and the rules and procedures by which it is effected cannot remain static and must be constantly reviewed. Though redefined from time to time, they must be administered in accordance with the law, on principals [sic] decided by the Government, with justice to individuals and for the future welfare of the Australian people as a whole. These will continue to be the main elements in Australia’s immigration policy.2
0885-main.qx5
186
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 186
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
k Hubert Opperman (1904–1996), Liberal Party, Member for Corio 1949–67. Positions held: Minister for Shipping and Transport 1960–63, Minister for Immigration 1963–66.
k The Labor Party supported the government statement on the ‘assurance given by the Minister that there is to be no departure from the accepted and established principles of our immigration policy and that this policy will be administered with understanding and tolerance’.3 Speaking on behalf of the ALP Fred Daly (Member for Grayndler) said: At the same time we, like other nations, must always maintain the right to decide the composition of our population. Our immigration policy, which has meant so much to Australia, should not be basically disturbed, although from time to time in order to meet changing conditions modifications may be necessary, as in the present case.4
However, some of the press did sense the significance of the change. The following day, The Australian newspaper carried the headline, ‘More Asians Will Be Let In’.5 Non-European immigration started to increase almost immediately. Only five years later, the yearly nonEuropean intake had increased by almost 2,000, with 2,696 arrivals.6 In the year to June 2002, almost 89,000 migrants arrived in Australia—just over 34,300 from Asia and 15,300 from the Middle East and Africa.7
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 187
Bookhouse
‘. . . the widest measure of agreement with respect to Aboriginal advancement.’
Aborigines: removing discrimination H AROLD H OLT , Prime Minister, 1 March 1967 In 1962, the Menzies Government had granted all Aborigines the right to vote in federal elections—a right that had been explicitly denied when the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 had been passed (see speech by Richard O’Connor, pages 19–22). One of the first actions of the Holt Government was to propose amendments to the clauses in the Constitution which discriminated against Aboriginal people. The proposed amendments were that Aborigines be included in the census and that the commonwealth be allowed to pass laws in relation to Aboriginal people. This brief speech by the prime minister received strong support from both the Liberal and Labor parties. Holt’s proposal clearly reflected community sentiment that far more had to be done for Aboriginal advancement. It led to the most spectacular referendum result in Australian history. The purpose of this Bill is to make alterations to the two provisions of the Constitution which make explicit reference to people of the Aboriginal race. One alteration— that proposed by clause 3 of the Bill—is designed to repeal section 127. An identical proposal was passed unanimously by both Houses of the Parliament in November 1965. Section 127 provides that, in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, Aboriginal natives shall not be counted. The Government continues to believe that this section should be repealed. The principal reason for including section 127 in the Constitution was the practical difficulty of enumerating the Aboriginal population at that time. No doubt 187
0885-main.qx5
188
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 188
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
in 1900 this was a very substantial problem. It is, however, no longer a serious difficulty, and the basis for the existence of the section consequently does not now exist. I should emphasise that section 127 does not affect the qualifications of Aboriginals to vote at Commonwealth elections. Section 41 has always guaranteed an Aboriginal the right to vote at elections if he has a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State in which he is a voter, and this Parliament itself has removed all disabilities in respect of voting at Commonwealth elections so far as Aboriginals are concerned. They are now entitled to enrol and to vote and should, in the view of the Government, be counted as part of the population of the Commonwealth, or their State or Territory, for any purpose. The simple truth is that section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and modern thinking. It has no place in our Constitution in this age. The second alteration, which is contained in clause 2 of the Bill, is the deletion of the words ‘other than the Aboriginal race in any State’ from paragraph (xxvi) of section 51. Section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution reads: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to— (xxvi) The people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.
Since the Government’s earlier proposals for constitutional alterations were put before the Parliament, a great deal of thought has been given, both inside and outside the Parliament, to the constitutional provisions relating to the Aboriginal people and there has been much activity by Government private members and organisations concerned with the welfare of the Aboriginals. In the light of this activity and the many representations made, the Government has reviewed the position and has decided that an amendment of section 51 (xxvi), as provided for in the Bill, should be put to the people, in addition to the proposal for the repeal of section 127. In coming to this conclusion, the Government has been influenced by the popular impression that the words now proposed to be omitted from section 51 (xxvi) are discriminatory—a view which the Government believes to be erroneous but which, nevertheless, seems to be deep rooted. An effect of omitting these words will be the removal of the existing restriction on the power of the Commonwealth to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race in any State if the Parliament considers it necessary. As the Constitution stands at present, the Commonwealth has no power, except in the Territories, to legislate with respect to people of the Aboriginal race as such. If the words ‘other than the Aboriginal race in any State’ were deleted from section 51 (xxvi), the result would be that the Commonwealth Parliament would have vested in it a concurrent
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 189
ABORIGINES:
Bookhouse
R E M O V I N G D I S C R I M I N AT I O N
189
legislative power with respect to Aboriginals as such, they being the people of a race, provided the Parliament deemed it necessary to make special laws for them. It is the view of the Government that the National Parliament should have this power. If the proposals relating to Aboriginals are approved by the people, the Government would regard it as desirable to hold discussions with the States to secure the widest measure of agreement with respect to Aboriginal advancement. I think I should say a few words about the suggestion that has been made that we should include a constitutional guarantee against discrimination on the ground of race. Such a proposal was put forward, in particular, by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in a private member’s Bill. The recommendation to include such a guarantee in our Constitution has the obvious attraction of providing evidence of the Australian people’s desire to outlaw discriminatory practices of every kind, but the disadvantages of the inclusion of such a guarantee are so substantial that the Government does not believe that it should be pursued. Such a guarantee could provide a fertile source of attack on the Constitutional validity of legislation which we, at this point of time, would not consider discriminatory. The extent of litigation that has arisen from section 92 provides a serious warning of the ramifications of an apparently straightforward constitutional guarantee. Moreover, such a guarantee would operate only to limit government action. It would not affect actions by individuals. Racial discrimination, if it exists in a community, is the outward manifestation of beliefs rooted in the hearts and minds of some men and women. I do not believe that such beliefs are to be found on any significant scale in this country; but even if it were otherwise, I do not think the position could be remedied in practice by a constitutional guarantee. Accordingly, the Government believes that the best course, the most effective course, for the Commonwealth to adopt is to seek the amendments proposed in the Bill. It proposes to submit them at the same time as the referendum on the nexus provision—section 24 of the Constitution . . .1
k Harold Holt (1908–1967), United Australia Party 1935–44, Liberal Party 1944–67, Member for Fawkner 1935–49, Member for Higgins 1949–67. Positions held: Minister for Labor and National Service 1940–41, 1949–58, Minister for Immigration 1949–56, Treasurer 1958–66, Prime Minister 1966–67.
k The Bill had a speedy passage through the parliament. Leader of the Opposition Gough Whitlam said it would allow the Commonwealth for the first time to do something for Aborigines who represented the greatest pockets of poverty and disease in the country.2 The referendum held in May 1967 aimed, ‘to remove any ground for the belief that the Constitution discriminated against people of the Aboriginal race, and, at the same time, to
0885-main.qx5
190
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 190
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
make it possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to enact special laws for these people’.3 It recorded a ninety per cent yes vote, a figure never attained for any other referendum.4 The referendum raised expectations amongst Aboriginal leaders for significant commonwealth action and provided the basis for commonwealth initiatives to assist Aboriginal Australians. Only four years later, Neville Bonner was selected by the Liberal Party to fill a casual Senate vacancy and so became the first Aborigine to serve in the Australian parliament (see speech at pages 208–12).
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 191
Bookhouse
‘This man was a chronic drunkard.’
TheVoyager disaster
E DWARD S T J OHN , Member for Warringah, 16 May 1967 On 10 February 1964, in the worst peacetime naval disaster Australia had seen, 82 men were killed when the warship HMAS Voyager was torn in half in a collision with the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne.1 A Royal Commission was established by Prime Minister Menzies and its report was tabled in parliament on the 25 August 1964. Two weeks later, Menzies made a statement on the findings of the Royal Commission. Primary responsibility for the collision was placed upon the Voyager; however, the report made critical comments about three of those on the bridge of the Melbourne, including her captain John Robertson. Consequently, Robertson was transferred from the Melbourne to a shore training establishment. Robertson viewed the transfer as a demotion, called a press conference and resigned his commission. With this action he ended a distinguished naval career and his entitlement to most of his pension.2 A Liberal member of parliament, John Jess, who was related to Captain Robertson by marriage, became convinced that the findings were unfair and in May 1967 called on the Holt Government to establish a new enquiry.3 Edward St John, newly elected to the Sydney seat of Warringah, used his maiden speech to support Mr Jess and to launch ‘a lacerating attack on the dead Captain of Voyager,4 Duncan Stevens; the quality of the evidence considered by the Royal Commission; and the role of the Holt Government in accepting the original findings. St John’s use of his maiden speech to attack the Government of his own party was virtually unprecedented. Contemporary newspapers reported that: 191
0885-main.qx5
192
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 192
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
. . . At one stage, the Minister for the Navy, Mr D.L. Chipp, had to be restrained in his seat on the Ministerial bench when he interjected angrily . . . The Prime Minister, Mr Holt, was so incensed that he broke parliamentary tradition by interjecting during Mr St John’s speech, his maiden address in the House.’ 5
. . . I rise to make my maiden speech conscious of my loyalty to the party of which I am proud to be a member and of my duty to the electors of Warringah who have done me the honour to elect me to represent them in this House, but conscious above all of my sovereign obligation to speak the truth . . . This is not a party matter, nor was I, as some people may have thought after reading a certain Press report, warned by any member of the Government that I should be putting my head on the block and jeopardising my political career if I rose to speak in support of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess). No sir. On the contrary I had received the assurance that we all had received—that every member of this party was free to speak his mind in this House. That is exactly the right I propose to exercise . . . At page 17 of his report the Commissioner referred to Captain Robertson of ‘Melbourne’ as having been faced with an almost incredible situation. I take this as my starting point. This ship—one may well infer this ship’s captain—behaved in what has been described as an almost incredible fashion. Naturally one looks to see what the cause may have been . . . . . . the simplest thing is sometimes hardest to see. Amongst the mass of technicality, the crowd of learned counsel at the bar table, the 3,500-odd pages of transcript, and the fifty-five days of hearing, the simple truth may have been obscured or lost . . . I fear that this may have happened in relation to the ‘Voyager’ inquiry. I shall not, and I cannot, in the circumstances, mince my words: I suggest that the simple cause of this disaster may well have been something which is not novel at sea or on the land, but fortunately almost unknown in the air, thanks to regulations of which I shall speak in due course—over-indulgence in alcoholic liquor. I do not speak as a wowser. I speak as one who does enjoy a drink. But drink and night manoeuvres at sea do not mix very well . . . A salient fact with which we begin is that of the only bodies recovered from the sea—three dead bodies—all contained their due proportion of alcohol. We know that under the law of Victoria and the law of some other States, 50 milligrammes per cent of alcohol is sufficient in itself to constitute a criminal offence if the person concerned is at the wheel of a motor vehicle. Very well; 50 milligrammes were found in the blood of Able Seaman Parker, a fact which, although referred to in a document tendered before the inquiry, was never read out in open court and was never understood by the Press or the public. In the body of the Navigating Officer, the officer who, I am told on expert advice, even above the captain, above all people,
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 193
Bookhouse
T H E V O YA G E R
DISASTER
193
is expected to be most responsible and most observant, 15 milligrammes of alcohol were found. In the body of the Captain there were 25 milligrammes of alcohol . . . Lieutenant-Commander Cabban, who is, I believe, at this moment in the public gallery with his wife, is a man I have come to know and respect. He is one of those rare individuals who insist on saying what they believe to be right. He insists on following rules which he believes should be followed. Whether or not they are popular, whether or not they are comfortable, he insists upon them. When he became second in command of the ‘Voyager’ he said that no officer should drink while at sea. A couple of officers protested. They were paraded before Captain Stevens and Captain Stevens said that he did not see any harm in their having a beer or two if they were off duty . . . Some weeks before this disaster Cabban left the ship. When we see the whole matter in perspective we may begin to wonder whether the moment that Cabban left the ship was not the moment of doom for the ‘Voyager’ because we understand that a new regime was instituted from that moment. The salutary orders which had been insisted upon by Cabban were, we are told, suspended. A new complement of officers was added to the ship. The man who, as I shall show, took the burden of responsibility from Captain Stevens when he was unable and unfit to continue because of his consumption of alcoholic liquor, left the ship and a new complement of officers took over. Captain Stevens was faced with an entirely new situation in which he had to put to sea without the helping hand of Lieutenant-Commander Cabban . . . I made a careful study of this matter as best I could. I was fortunate, perhaps, in that I have as constituents both Captain Robertson and Lieutenant-Commander Cabban . . . I believe that important evidence—and I speak particularly about the consumption of liquor aboard the ‘Voyager’, especially by the Captain—was available but was not called. The Attorney-General says that it is not new evidence. So much the worse, because this evidence was available and counsel assisting the Commissioner had a session of no less than one hour with the witness whose evidence we are now told he referred to as being unreliable, uncorroborated and irrelevant. I doubt it. I doubt whether that kind of judgment can properly be made. When evidence as serious as that is presented to counsel, can he properly judge this man and this evidence—in one hour in which he never challenged the witness? He never brought him back and said: ‘You are uncorroborated. Can you give me the name of someone who will support you?’ He never said: ‘So-and-so contradicts you’. He never attempted to test him in any way. Yet now, forsooth, we are told that his evidence is unreliable, uncorroborated and irrelevant. Irrelevant indeed! Is it irrelevant that the captain of a destroyer in port is perpetually drunk, comes back every morning at 8 o’clock under the influence of liquor, sleeps all day and then starts drinking again? This went on day after day after day. When they came back from the Far Eastern cruise—before it had finished— from August to January, when the ship went in for its refit, he was perpetually
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 194
SPEAKING
194
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
drunk—if not asleep or sick, attempting to recuperate. Is this irrelevant? Is not this one of the facts and circumstances leading up to the ‘Voyager’ disaster? Or have I lost the meaning of the word ‘irrelevant’? Are we playing a battle of semantics? What is the meaning of the word ‘irrelevant’? MR HAROLD HOLT :
What is the meaning of the word ‘evidence’?
MR ST JOHN :
I did not expect to be interrupted by the Prime Minister. We all have been invited to debate what comes to us second hand. The Prime Minister’s interruption demonstrates better than anything else that this kind of matter can be sifted only by a proper judicial inquiry, by a select committee or otherwise. How ridiculous it is that I should have to cite at second hand what Cabban says, and that the Minister for the Navy should have to recite at second hand what is said in what he calls a refutation. This is no way in which to deal with disputed questions of fact. These matters should be dealt with by proper judicial inquiry . . . This man [Captain Stevens] was a chronic drunkard. As the Attorney-General put it in a masterpiece of understatement: ‘Captain Stevens frequently drank to excess’. He had a triple brandy an hour and a half before the accident. Indeed he must have been thirsty to call for a triple brandy just before he took part in what the Attorney-General called an intrinsically dangerous operation—night manoeuvres. The alcohol in the bloodstream, despite the almost incredible conduct of ‘Voyager’, is said to be irrelevant. The fact that the three bodies of Captain, Navigating Officer and seaman contained alcohol was irrelevant. No, Sir, it is not good enough. I cannot say who is telling the truth. Neither the Attorney-General nor the Minister for the Navy can say who is telling the truth. Only the people who actually see and hear the witnesses can say it . . . Let a select committee or a proper judicial inquiry decide whether there is a fragment of truth in what Lieutenant-Commander Cabban has to say in his long and detailed statement. It indicates, amongst other things, that this Captain had to give up command of his vessel to him on three separate occasions after leaving port for periods ranging from one to seven days. These statements can be verified. Are they a figment of his imagination? Does he suffer from delusions?
MR CHIPP :
Who verifies them?
MR ST JOHN :
Let a proper tribunal determine it—not the Minister for the Navy, not the Prime Minister, not the Attorney-General, but a Select Committee or a proper judicial committee. It should not be determined by counsel assisting the Commission after an interview of one hour with the witness. Let someone determine it after seeing and hearing the witnesses . . . 6
k Edward St John (1916–1994), Liberal Party 1966–69, Independent Liberal April–October 1969, Member for Warringah 1966–69.
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 195
Bookhouse
T H E V O YA G E R
DISASTER
195
Three days later the prime minister took the unprecedented action of establishing a second Royal Commission. The second inquiry significantly modified the findings of the first, finding Captain Stevens to have been unfit to command, and clearing Captain Robertson of any blame.7 Captain Robertson was given an act of grace payment of $60,000 as compensation for the loss of pension following his resignation. Edward St John resigned from the Liberal Party in April 1969 and stood as an Independent Liberal at the next election, losing his seat of Warringah to the Liberal candidate, Michael MacKellar. Five years later the HMAS Melbourne was conducting exercises in the Philippines with the US Navy when, by extraordinary coincidence, a very similar disaster occurred. This time Melbourne collided with the US Destroyer, Frank E Evans and 74 US sailors perished.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 196
Bookhouse
‘I do not believe that [John Gorton] is fit to hold the great office of Prime Minister . . .’
Resignation from Gorton ministry M ALCOLM F RASER , Member for Wannon, 9 March 1971 The resignation of Malcolm Fraser from the Defence portfolio ended the prime ministership of John Gorton. An article accusing Fraser of disloyalty to the Army and to the Minister for the Army, Andrew Peacock, had appeared in The Australian. The author of the article, Alan Ramsey, had spoken to Gorton before the publication, but Gorton had chosen not to deny the accusation. Fraser consequently delivered a letter to the prime minister, stating that he would resign because of Gorton’s failure to support him. Gorton’s biographer, Ian Hancock, wrote: When Parliament assembled on the afternoon of 9 March [opposition leader Gough] Whitlam moved the suspension of standing orders to allow Fraser to speak forthwith. The opposition wanted Fraser on his feet as soon as possible . . . Fraser delivered from the backbench a devastating attack on the Prime Minister.1
. . . I take it from what has been said by the mover of this motion that there is no need for me to ask for the leave of the House to make a statement concerning recent Press reports and concerning the office I held as Minister of State for Defence. I was surprised to learn on the morning of Tuesday, 2nd March, that a story had appeared in the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ alleging principally that the Joint Intelligence Organisation had been ordered to report to me on Australian Army activities in Vietnam because I did not trust Army reports. Immediately I reached Canberra, on my own initiative and not at the direction of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), I drafted a reply denying the report and pointing out the function of the Joint 196
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 197
R E S I G N AT I O N
Bookhouse
FROM
G O RT O N
MINISTRY
197
Intelligence Organisation. I emphasised that JIO is not an intelligence gathering organisation. It assesses information given to it by the Services in Vietnam, principally by the Army, by the Department of Foreign Affairs and by South Vietnamese Government agencies. It has no officer or office in Vietnam. In the article there was to me a strong implication that the Joint Intelligence Organisation had been asked to spy on the Army. A report in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 3rd March and an editorial in the ‘Canberra News’ of 4th March had also assumed that the ‘Telegraph’ article implied spying on the Army. So I was not alone in my interpretation. I repeat: This is utterly false. Anyone should be able to see the difference between a broadly based assessment of the overseas political and defence matters of interest and importance to Australia, including Vietnam and Phuoc Tuy province and an operation alleged to be checking on the Army itself. The function of the Joint Intelligence Organisation—its role in support of defence planning— has been stated previously. The 1970 Defence Report stated: The Joint Intelligence Organisation began operating on February 2, 1970, and is now giving active support to defence planning by the preparation of intelligence analyses and assessments on military, economic, scientific and technical matters affecting Australia’s defence.
One odd thing about the ‘Telegraph’ report is that the journalist who wrote it at no time sought to check its accuracy with me although a copy was shown to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) who told me that in its original form General Daly’s name had featured. I would have thought that the journalist should have referred such a matter to the Minister primarily concerned. The Joint Intelligence Organisation is, of course, housed in the Department of Defence. It has civilian members from the Department of Defence, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and there is a significant number of servicemen from the three Services in this joint organisation . . . I see no reason, Mr Speaker, to comment on Press matters which have largely involved journalists quoting journalists. I come now to other matters I believe of greater importance. A report in the ‘Australian’ on Thursday, 4th March, alleged that General Daly had told the Prime Minister that I was disloyal to the Army and to Mr Peacock. It has since been confirmed by the Prime Minister and General Daly that that meeting took place on Monday afternoon, 1st March. General Daly has denied that charge—and I know that the Prime Minister has—but I wish to say something about loyalty. My responsibility through the Government is to this Parliament and through it to the people of Australia. My ultimate loyalty must be to Australia. What is meant by ‘loyalty to the Army’? Does anyone mean that that requires a Minister to defend every act of commission or omission of the Army or does it mean that it ought to be defended when it is unjustly accused? If there is anyone in this House who believes that loyalty to a Service requires uncritical and universal support of its
0885-main.qx5
198
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 198
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
activities, that is not a concept that I can embrace for it would be a denial of parliamentary authority. I do not deny that there have been differences of opinion— the Press has labelled it ‘abrasion’—with some Service relationships in Canberra. But I assert that any Minister for Defence who seeks to do his duty will have to seek to move people from old views and from views that may not embrace the total defence concept . . . On Monday afternoon when the Prime Minister heard reports of the impending ‘Telegraph’ article that appeared on 2nd March he in his own words sent for General Daly and assured him of support, thus violating the chains of command, chains of authority. There was no reference to me and no attempt to contact me until it would have been too late to prevent the false allegation appearing. In fact I did not speak to the Prime Minister until 10.45 a.m. on Tuesday, 2nd March. From the nature of his statement of 4th March, the Prime Minister apparently knew the precise nature of the allegations. He assured General Daly of unequivocal and absolute support—I believe an impetuous and a characteristic action. I should have been contacted, even called back to Canberra if necessary. On Wednesday, 3rd March, journalist Alan Ramsey saw the Prime Minister. He told him he had a story that General Daly had accused me of disloyalty to the Army and to Mr Peacock. In his own words, the Prime Minister did not comment on this report, on this essential part of it. He refused to comment. The Prime Minister claims he does not comment on reports of private conversations even though he knew it would lead to a report damaging both to its target—myself—and to its alleged spokesman, General Daly. In plain words, the Prime Minister would prefer to allow a false and damaging report to be published about a senior Minister. Later, both he and General Daly denied the report. Which principle is more important— silence about a conversation, or loyalty to a senior colleague? One sentence would have killed the report. The Prime Minister, by his inaction, made sure it would cover the front page. As I have indicated in my letter of resignation, I found that disloyalty intolerable and not to be endured. It should not be thought that this act alone has brought me to this point. Since his election to office, the Prime Minister has seriously damaged the Liberal Party and cast aside the stability and sense of direction of earlier times. He has a dangerous reluctance to consult Cabinet, and an obstinate determination to get his own way. He ridicules the advice of a great Public Service unless it supports his view . . . The Prime Minister, because of his unreasoned drive to get his own way, his obstinacy, impetuous and emotional reactions, has imposed strains upon the Liberal Party, the Government and the Public Service. I do not believe he is fit to hold the great office of Prime Minister, and I cannot serve in his Government.2
k John (Malcolm) Fraser (1930–), Liberal Party, Member for Wannon 1955–83.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 199
R E S I G N AT I O N
Bookhouse
FROM
G O RT O N
MINISTRY
199
Positions held: Minister for the Army 1966–68, Minister for Education and Science 1968–69, 1971–72, Minister for Defence 1969–71, Leader or the Opposition Mar–Nov 1975, Caretaker Prime Minister Nov–Dec 1975, Prime Minister 1977–83.
k Ian Hancock described the prime minister’s response to Fraser’s speech as calm and methodical. Gorton recalled that ‘everything had been blown out of proportion and . . . Fraser’s resignation had caught him completely by surprise’.3 The Gorton response is also remembered for an interjection from the press gallery. Alan Ramsey called out, ‘You liar’, when Gorton commented on his discussions with Ramsey.4 Arthur Calwell, the Leader of the Opposition, interjected ‘Why don’t you deal with the animal [Ramsey]’.5 Later Ramsey apologised to Gorton, saying the word ‘unfair’ was more appropriate than ‘liar’.6 The following day at a Liberal Party meeting Gorton was asked to stand aside. Gorton refused. A confidence motion was moved after a lengthy debate. The ballot was declared 33 all. Gorton decided the matter by casting a vote against himself. William McMahon was elected leader by a comfortable majority, and became prime minister.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 200
Bookhouse
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 201
Bookhouse
TURMOIL AND REFORM
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 202
Bookhouse
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 203
Bookhouse
‘. . . a matter to be decided on justice.’
Rights for homosexuals
J OHN G ORTON , Member for Higgins, 18 October 1973 In 1973, former Liberal Prime Minister John Gorton, moved a motion that, ‘homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should not be subject to the criminal law’.1 The motion was seconded by the Labor Government’s Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Moss Cass. While Tom Hughes (then Liberal Attorney-General) had suggested homosexual law reform in 1970 and a Private Member’s Bill had led to the relaxation of sanctions for homosexual acts in South Australia in 1972, Gorton’s motion led to the first discussion of the matter in the federal parliament. Ian Hancock, Gorton’s biographer, observed that, ‘John Gorton’s liberalism, in its small ‘l’ form, was no better demonstrated during 1973 than in his stand on the issues of abortion and homosexuality’.2 . . . This is one of those rare occasions—those all too rare occasions—when the Parliament can act as it was originally theoretically intended to act; that is, to act as a collection of men, representing sections of the community, able to listen to a case and to make up their minds as to what is right without the constraints of party or of faction. The proposition which is before you, Mr Speaker, is that we should say that homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should not be punishable by the criminal law. The operative words which we all should have clearly in mind are ‘consenting’, ‘adults’ and ‘in private’. The motion says nothing about homosexual acts committed with minors. It says nothing about homosexual acts which are the result of constraint. It says nothing 203
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 204
SPEAKING
204
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
about public soliciting in the streets or creating a public nuisance. It having said nothing about that, those acts which are offences will, if this motion is carried, not be affected; they will continue to be offences. Therefore, agreement with the motion leaves the offences as they are. We are concerned with one question and one question only. That question is, I repeat: Should homosexual individuals who are adults, who both wish a homosexual relationship with each other, who do not flaunt it but who act in private, withdrawn from the public gaze, be dubbed criminals and be subject to punishment by the criminal law? I suggest to the House that they should not be treated in that way. If the House agrees with such a suggestion, it is in no way approving homosexual acts; it is in now [sic] way condoning homosexual acts. It is merely asserting that such acts under such conditions ought not to be subject to prosecution and long terms of imprisonment . . . . . . I have been informed that in moving such a motion or in suggesting such a course of action I am acting contrary to God’s law. I do not know that I am qualified to interpret God’s law. I have no hot line to the Almighty but I do know what those who are spokesmen for the relevant churches and the major churches in England and Australia—who presumably are interpreters of God’s law—have to say on this matter. The original Wolfenden Committee in the United Kingdom—the United Kingdom Parliament passed a resolution such as I want this House to pass—was advised from the Roman Catholic Church, by a body set up under Cardinal Griffin, in full agreement with the Wolfenden Committee’s report, that what I suggest this House should do should be done. MR FULTON :
The Wolfenden report stunned Britain.
MR GORTON :
At the moment I am dealing with whether it is against God’s law, not against your ideas. The point I make is that Cardinal Griffin did set up this committee. I do not know the situation in Australia. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church has take [sic] a position on it. I think it is neutral. However I do know that in the Catholic Weekly of 4 October this year there is a strong and compelling argument printed as to why what I am suggesting to the House should be done should be done . . . The Presbyterian Church has considered this matter and I should like to quote what Douglas Cole, the Convener, had to say about that debate. He said: The Assembly declared—
That is, the Presbyterian Assembly— that, while it believes that homosexuality is contrary to man’s ethical development, that homosexuality is productive of personal moral disintegration rather than any true personal well being and happiness, it nonetheless supports the Wolfenden report that homosexual behaviour between 2 consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence and that the appropriate authorities should be advised accordingly . . .
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 205
RIGHTS
Bookhouse
FOR HOMOSEXUALS
205
The Church of England in its report on homosexuality in 1971 reached the same conclusion. It said: We recommend that the special offences, sodomy and attempts to commit sodomy, which presently carry higher penalties, be repealed and that the present provisions of the Victorian Crimes Act which renders criminal those homosexual acts committed in private between consulting [sic] males of 18 years or over should be repealed.
I suggest to the House that if the argument is advanced that considering this matter is against God’s law, those speaking for the major churches in Australia do not agree with that contention but rather, I would think, agree with me. I cannot imagine it to have been a function of God’s law to commit people who are built differently in some way from ourselves to live a twilight life of guilt and fear . . . There is one other argument that has been advanced and that is: Why change the law? It is not usually applied. It is only infrequently applied. Therefore, leave it as it is. I would regard that argument as immoral and indeed as a completely wrong argument from the point of view of any member of Parliament. It is immoral because it seeks to shelve the question and to say: A man is subject to this sort of threat but the threat is rarely carried out so I can salve my conscience by just letting it go because rarely is the threat carried out. But it is wrong from the point of view of a Parliament or anybody with a vestige of interest in the legal position because it is clear that a bad law is a law which is not applied, which has fallen into desuetude. A bad law is a law which is not applied. It must be bad, and a law which is applied in a discriminatory way—sometimes applied and sometimes not—must be a worse law. A law which is sometimes applied and sometimes not and which gives an opportunity for blackmail must be the worst law of the lot . . . Having dealt with the reasons that have been advanced against this proposition I now want to deal with the reasons for it. First, I believe that it is unjust and wrong to dub as criminals people who in some way are built differently from ourselves, who may not be able to help themselves, who in many cases I believe live lives of desperation and pain because of the way in which they were constructed. MR JAMES :
Committing suicide.
MR GORTON :
And sometimes committing suicide because of it. It is wrong and unjust in my opinion to impose on top of that the threat of gaol, the threat of being dubbed a criminal. Do not forget that every person sitting in this House is not just going to cross the floor or sit in his seat and that will be the end of the matter. What happens here will affect not thousands or tens of thousands but quite possibly hundreds of thousands of individuals. It will leave them, of course, with the social condemnation which this country has for them. It will leave them with that desperation of which I spoke and on which the honourable member for Hunter agreed with me.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
Page 206
SPEAKING
206 MR JAMES :
9:49 AM
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
I agree with all you have said, which is surprising.
MR GORTON :
Good. It will remove from them one overriding fear of state laws applied against them. That fear should not be allowed to remain . . . Basically, this is a matter for each individual. It is not a matter to be decided on emotion; it is a matter to be decided on justice. It is a matter which, in the ultimate, is what this Parliament is all about because every action we take, however important in the national field, has one ultimate justification—the welfare of the individual citizen of Australia. That is what we all want and this is an occasion on which we can make up our minds and cast our judgments as to whether, because something has continued for a long time, it should continue still; as to whether unfortunate people should have their lot made yet more unfortunate; as to who would be hurt or harmed by private actions. Let us put out of our minds what sometimes is in mine—the thought of people walking hand in hand down the street or with their arms around each other or in other ways acting in ways which we find objectionable. Let us think instead of the thousands of men who are not like that, who could not be discovered in an ordinary glance at the population, who hurt no one, harm no one and yet have this hanging over them.3
k John Gorton (1911–2002), Liberal Party 1950–75, Independent May–Nov 1975, Senator for Victoria 1950–68, Member for Higgins 1968–75. Positions held: Minister for the Navy 1958–63, Minister in Charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 1962–63, Minister for Interior 1963–64, Minister for Works 1963–67, Minister for Education and Science 1966–68, Prime Minister 1968–71, Minister for Defence 1971.
k A function to honour a visit by the Queen cut short the debate. There were only two speakers other than Gorton and Cass. Sir John Cramer (Liberal) opposed the motion, stating that he did, ‘not know of any subject that tends more to moral pollution than homosexuality’.4 Bert James (Labor), who had interjected during Gorton’s speech, supported the motion, concluding with the warning that those who opposed the motion may one day, ‘have a son, a brother . . . afflicted with homosexual tendencies . . . steel bars and grey walls are no place for those unfortunate people who are so afflicted.’ 5 Both the Liberal and Labor parties had a free vote and the motion was passed by 64 votes to 40. Many prominent Liberal and Country Party members (including Doug Anthony, Don Chipp, Ian Sinclair, Tony Staley, Bert Kelly and Phillip Ruddock) voted in favour of the motion. Labor supporters included Gough Whitlam, Ralph Willis, Tom Uren, Frank Crean and Barry Cohen.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 207
RIGHTS
Bookhouse
FOR HOMOSEXUALS
207
Liberal opponents of the Bill included Sir John Cramer, Phillip Lynch, James Killen, W.C. Wentworth and Billy Snedden. Labor opponents included Paul Keating, Kim Beazley Snr, Lionel Bowen, Rex Connor and Fred Daly. As a consequence of the motion being passed, the Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, ‘announced his intention to change Commonwealth law in the Territories to give effect to the resolution’ 6 and homosexual acts were ultimately decriminalised in the Australian Capital Territory in 1976.7
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 208
Bookhouse
‘. . . true and due entitlement for dispossession.’
Aboriginal rights
S ENATOR N EVILLE B ONNER , Senator for Queensland, 19 September 1974 Neville Bonner, selected by the Liberal Party to fill a casual Senate vacancy in 1971 and popularly elected on two subsequent occasions, was the first, and for many years only, Aborigine to serve in the federal parliament. Many of his speeches advocated the rights of the Aboriginal people and he was often controversial. The following, ‘often emotional speech to the Senate,’ 1 called for recognition of Aboriginal ownership of Australia prior to 1788 and for legislation to be introduced to enable direct monetary compensation for dispossession to be administered by a statutory body made up of indigenous people. While Aboriginal activists had argued for some years along similar lines, this speech was hailed by Aboriginal public servant Charles Perkins as creating an ‘historic day for Aborigines’.2 It was a significant and early step in legitimising the call for dispossession to be formally recognised and specifically compensated. . . . During my lifetime I have always tried to follow the rule of law and I have counselled many of my young Aboriginal fellows that it is within the walls of this Parliament that the laws are made that govern the people of this nation. So I am very proud today to realise that there are people here who are prepared to allow me to speak to this motion . . . It is within the walls of this Parliament that we can bring to the notice of the nation the problems with which we are faced. Perhaps between us all we can find a solution . . . I do not decry the vast sums of money that have been spent by previous 208
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 209
Bookhouse
ABORIGINAL
RIGHTS
209
governments—and, I might add, increased by the present Government—on indigenous affairs. I do not deny that the present Government, in many areas of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, has instigated superbly beneficial schemes to improve my fellow Aborigines’ and Torres Strait Islanders’ way of life within our broader Australian community. But it is truly to no avail, dignity wise, when it is but an allocating of money for a disadvantaged people because it is but a form of charity. We, the indigenous people, for far too long have been the recipients of charity—the charity of the government of the day; charity, with its modern day connotations implying a handout mentality. What I am seeking is true and due entitlement for dispossession. Surely no one can deny that the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were dispossessed of what was theirs by right of inheritance. Does any honourable senator in this chamber dispute the findings of eminent anthropologists that the indigenous people . . . were in possession of this entire nation for thousands of years prior to 1788? I suggest that there are among honourable senators here those who will cry out in dismay and disbelief at the wording of this motion because just who among us but me, one of the remnants of the noble tribes who once walked with pride in the fact that this glorious and wonderful land was theirs, will be able to look at this through the eyes of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders? On 24 May 1971 the Liberal Party of Australia, Queensland Division, selected me to fill a casual vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. On 11 June 1971 the Queensland State Parliament accepted the judgment of my Party by appointing me to fill that casual vacancy. On 2 December 1972 the people of Queensland endorsed the action of both my Party and the State Parliament by electing me to complete the unexpired term of Dame Annabelle Rankin. On 18 May 1974 I was again elected by the people of Queensland including—I emphasise the word ‘including’—a special vote of confidence by some 20,000 citizens of my State. This was despite the fact, Mr President, that my contributions in this august chamber have been, in the main, on issues concerning the indigenous people . . . . . . wherever I go people come up to me and say: ‘Good on you, senator. It is about time an Aborigine made it.’ I suggest that these same people, these same good citizens, are really saying: ‘We trust you Nev. Bonner, and we expect you to act for your people’. There are some giggles, I notice, coming from honourable senators on the other side. Mr President, I am acting for my people, and responsibly, I hope. Am I asking Aborigines to throw off their chains and unite? Am I saying: ‘Aborigines, pack a gun and go out on the streets’? Am I saying: ‘Aborigines, down with the whiteys’? No, Mr President and honourable senators, I am attempting to put the horse back into the shafts, for it appears to me that in Aboriginal affairs to date the cart is very much before the horse. It has been said so many times by so many wise men that it takes a big man to admit a mistake. I ask: Are you then, Australia, composed of big men? Are you willing now to admit a mistake? Are you prepared to admit that your forefathers
0885-main.qx5
210
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 210
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
took this land? This shame, Australia, I say, is your inheritance. There were no treaties. There were no compensations as such . . . I see all Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders walking tall in the knowledge that their dignity has been restored by their learning that what was once ours has been recognised as ours but forcibly taken and now compensated for. And all this through Government legislation. I know that there are those among you, perhaps on both sides of the chamber, who are feverishly asking themselves: ‘What is he talking about? What does he mean by compensation? What kind of compensation should be given?’ . . . I am not asking for a set amount of money to be paid by the people of Australia for this entire nation, because how do you evaluate it? What was the value of Australia in 1788? That of course would be the argument that many would use. Does one expect to pay the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for Australia at the going rate at the time of the First Fleet landing? Of course not. Many of you on both sides of this chamber would instance that your forefathers settled shortly after 1788 and you, the descendants, built this nation to what it is today. You built the cities, the towns and the roads. You erected the wonderful buildings we see today. I admit that you did this. But for whom? How were you able to do it? You could do it because of the richness of the land which was taken from my forefathers. You took the wealth of the grazing land for your sheep and cattle, for farming, for the growing of grain, for the exploration for minerals and mineral wealth. So today, Mr President and honourable senators, this land is certainly of greater value than it was at the time of the First Fleet landing. But even in 1974 how does one set a just price? What of the indigenous people? What of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders? How do you value human suffering, the loss of human dignity, the loss of culture, the loss of a traditional way of life and the destruction of the Aboriginal society? . . . You can put no monetary value on enforced disintegration. I am asking for compensation for this loss of land—earth—our entire being. I do not ask you to understand this term. I am asking for compensation for our enforced disintegration. I am asking for an amount of money to be set aside from the annual national Budget which will become the true entitlement of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders so that we may recapture our dignity and our pride as human beings. As it is at the moment, Mr President, money is set aside. As I said earlier, I do not decry the amounts that have been set aside but, again as I have already stated, this charity from one government sets one amount aside and the next government tries to better or perhaps to lessen the amount, depending entirely on the feelings of the people sitting within this chamber and the other place. When this is done, what is the cry? . . . I suggest that it is the wail of the so-called white backlash. Why is this? It is because charity is being given to the Aborigines or to the Islanders or, as some people term it, to the boongs, the Abos or the blacks; but my God, forgetting that these very same boongs, Abos and blacks inherited this vast nation. Our forefathers indeed owned it.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 211
Bookhouse
ABORIGINAL
RIGHTS
211
Senator Neville Bonner in front of Old Parliament House in Canberra, 1971. NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA, A6180, 23/7/71/43.
Mr President and honourable senators, I say that the day is fast approaching when this compensation for dispossession of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders must—I say ‘must’—be channelled to an all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander statutory body empowered to administer such a compensation for dispossession fund, for the survival of fellow Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The statutory body must be empowered to call upon such non-Aboriginal expertise as is considered necessary by the body. I propose that the all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander statutory body should be answerable only to the Parliament . . . I urge the Senate to accept the fact that the indigenous people of Australia who are now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, and I urge the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people and to introduce legislation to compensate annually the people who are now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land—rather than conquerors’ charity. In the final analysis, Mr President and honourable senators, should I be deserted and sit here alone on one side of the chamber, one lone senator, one lone Aborigine,
0885-main.qx5
212
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 212
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
I will mind not at all, I will understand. But honourable senators, where, I ask, stand you in history? Mr President and honourable senators, today you will judge me. Australia, and particularly my State of Queensland, may judge me tomorrow. But history, I assure you, will judge us all. I pray that history will not render a verdict of guilty.3
k Neville Bonner (1922–1999), Liberal Party 1971–83, Independent Feb 1983, Senator for Queensland 1971–1983.
k Debate on the motion was adjourned and was never put to the vote. In November 1979, Senator Bonner introduced the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill. In doing so, he became the first Aborigine ever to introduce legislation in the parliament and realised at least part of the objective for which he had argued so passionately in 1974. From the time of Bonner’s selection as a senator, it was 28 years before another Aborigine, Senator Aden Ridgeway (Australian Democrats) was to sit in the federal parliament. He said of Bonner, “His ability to stay true to his personal and cultural views as an Indigenous person whilst being a representative of a mainstream political party makes him something of a role model for me.” 4
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 213
Bookhouse
‘Give me men to match my mountains’
The loans affair
R EX C ONNOR , Minister for Minerals and Energy, 9 July 1975 Towards the end of 1974 the Whitlam Government attempted to raise $US4 billion in overseas loans to undertake major minerals projects in Australia. The unorthodox measures taken to obtain these funds by the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, Jim Cairns, and the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, led ultimately to the downfall of the Whitlam Government. Surprisingly, the Labor ministers used such go-betweens as Tirath Khemlani, a Pakistani commodity broker, and George Harris, President of the Carlton Football Club. On 2 July 1975 Gough Whitlam sacked Cairns from the Treasury portfolio on the grounds that he had misled parliament over the existence of correspondence relating to loan raising. The prime minister then called a special sitting of parliament on 9 July to discuss all the issues relating to what had become known as the ‘loans affair’. The opposition called for a Royal Commission. Whitlam rejected this demand as he said there was no impropriety involved. Connor became the opposition’s target, and in this defiant speech he gave no ground to his opponents. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at the commencement of his speech challenged the Opposition to put up or shut up. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has not put up and has only shut up. No documents were produced by him. No documents were quoted from. No charges were made . . . No questions were asked which needed to be answered. I will nevertheless give the answers. I will give the answers and I will give the facts . . . 213
0885-main.qx5
214
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 214
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The same international forces and their Opposition puppets which frustrated the early birth of the Australian Industry Development Corporation and which destroyed Prime Minister Gorton now turn their malice, their spleen and their venom on an Australian Government which stands in their path as they seek to enlarge further their grip on Australia’s resources of minerals and energy. United States Ambassador Marshall Green has said that per capita Australia is the world’s most resources-rich nation. Australia’s proven recoverable reserves of minerals and energy are worth, on a present day calculation, $A5,700 billion—an astronomical figure. In the future they will be worth even more. They represent a security ratio of $A1,425 in assets for every $A1 of our proposed borrowing—the best security ever offered to overseas lenders. Last week in Tokyo I negotiated with the Japanese steel mills a 5-year coal export arrangement which is worth over US$10 billion. It is over 21⁄2 times the value of the proposed emergency loan, the subject of this debate. The whole of the Opposition case is based on the alleged enormity of the loan transaction. Our proposal for borrowing is the proverbial ‘peanuts’ compared with the depth and the range of Australia’s resources. The loan transaction was for the necessary infrastructure for the emergency development of those resources based on the energy crisis. The profit alone from the loan transaction would have been 11⁄2 times the value of the loan. When one speaks in billions it is difficult for people to understand the true measure of Australia’s real and potential minerals and energy wealth. Our offence in the eyes of certain international forces is borrowing through official Australian Government channels capital funds on the credit of Australia to cope with an energy crisis. Their alternative is for those funds to come into Australia as foreign investment and foreign ownership—the tragedy of Australia’s development hitherto . . . Sixty-five billion Middle East petro-dollars, generated by the energy crisis, is sought to be invested yearly. In addition to that are short term investments which need to be recycled. Between $20 billion and $25 billion of this goes annually to the United States—the merest trickle to Australia. The orthodox financial institutions are unable to cope with this unprecedented flood, just as the orthodox economic advisers of some of the world’s major governments were unable to anticipate the results of overdependence on cheap imported crude oil. Today they are bewildered and lack plans to correct the distortion in the world economy. Australia, although more fortunately situated than most, still imports nearly $A700 million worth of crude oil yearly. This will be further escalated by the decision of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to further increase crude oil prices in early October, to match the impact of world inflation on their oil incomes. A projected increase of up to 35 per cent could raise Australia’s payments to $1 billion annually. In this situation, which I forecast in April 1973, it was no less than my duty to present to the Prime Minister and my senior colleagues a plan for direct overseas borrowing of $A3 billion—equal to US$4 billion—to deal with this menace.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 215
THE
Bookhouse
L O A N S A F FA I R
215
I point out that $A450 million of our import bill can be replaced with the full availability of natural gas throughout Australia in substitution for imported crude. This economy alone would have aggregated in 7 years the total, projected loan . . . Apart from the completion of the natural gas pipeline from Cooper Basin— Palm Valley—Dampier—Perth, provision was made for the 84 miles of submarine pipeline from Dampier to the North Rankin production platform. Provision was made in my calculations for the necessary petrochemical plant at Dampier, to extract the natural gas liquids for conversion into motor spirit and other derivatives. The cost of 3 uranium mining and milling plants in the Northern Territory and assistance to the Cooper Basin natural gas consortium, in which the Australian Government is now a partner, was included, and also the cost of the plans to economise in diesel fuel consumption by electrification of the heavy freight rail areas in New South Wales and Victoria. Of current significance was a further provision for the upgrading of the 4 major coal exporting harbours of eastern Australia—Hay Point, Gladstone, Newcastle and Port Kembla. The need for over $200m for this purpose alone is proven by the recent contract with the Japanese steel mills to which I have referred. Despite the presence in Japan of the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony), doing his ineffective but unpatriotic best to discredit Australia’s Government last week, I was able to negotiate a very satisfactory agreement. To maintain and increase ownership by the people of Australia of our own resources calls for immense sums of money, to which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has already referred. In our probings for loan funds we are in such well known company as that of Sir William Gunn, a member of the Reserve Bank Board, who has been busy in Europe doing the rounds. Mr Lang Hancock has also announced his interest in such sources for borrowing for the development of his iron ore interests in Western Australia. The issue in short is: Who will own Australia? It is a major issue on which the next Federal election will be fought, ignoring the smears and the sneers of an Opposition which has, to its eternal discredit, the current majority foreign ownership or control of Australia’s mineral and energy resources . . .
[The Minister then tabled an extensive series of documents including correspondence with Mr Khemlani, the Union Bank of Switzerland and the Moscow Narodny Bank London.] . . . may I say that whatever has been done has been done at all times with the best advice that could be got from the Government of Australia. I am an honest man. I deal with honest people. Throughout my 21⁄2 years as a Minister of the Crown I have stood in the path of those who would have grabbed the mineral resources of Australia. I have no apologies whatever to make for what I have done. It has been done in good faith; it has been done in honesty. I fling in the face of the little men of the Opposition the words of an old Australian poem: Give me men to match my mountains, Give me men to match my plains,
0885-main.qx5
216
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 216
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Men with freedom in their vision, And creation in their brains.
Australia has been badly served by the Opposition. For the first time we have a truly national government in Australia. We have a government which will speak and think and act independently. I do not want to boast, but I have impressed upon the steel mills of Japan the fact that there is in Australia an honest, decent government—a government which is prepared to honour contracts, a government which is proud of its name, a government which is proud of its country. I give the lie to those on the Opposition benches who today seek to besmirch and to smear this Government. Their actions are a disgrace to Australia. I leave them to their own devices and to the judgment of the people of Australia. The whole of the proceedings today are based on humbug, on half truths, on lies. The men who have been publicised in the Australian Press are on the other side of the world. They are not available to an Australian jurisdiction. They could not be summoned to attend. I treat with contempt the allegations of the Opposition.1
k Reginald (Rex) Connor (1907–1977), Australian Labor Party, Member for Cunningham 1963–77. Positions held: Minister for Minerals and Energy 1972–75.
k On 9 October, the Shadow Treasurer, Phillip Lynch, asked Gough Whitlam in parliament if all communications on loan raising had been tabled by Connor on 9 July.2 Whitlam wrote back to Lynch that evening that, ‘all communications of substance between him [Connor] and Mr Khemlani were tabled by him on 9 July 1975’.3 On 13 October a new set of correspondence between Khemlani’s office in London and Connor’s office surfaced. Connor had not complied with Whitlam’s ‘repeated and insistent requests’ that all relevant information be tabled. Further he had failed to inform Khemlani that his authority to raise loans had been revoked.4 Whitlam had no choice but to sack his Minister for Minerals and Energy. Through this scenario the opposition had found the ‘extraordinary and reprehensible circumstance it needed to block the budget and force the government to an election.5
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 217
Bookhouse
‘. . . massive incompetence and destruction of the Australian economy . . .’
Constitutional crisis
M ALCOLM F RASER , Leader of the Opposition, 11 November 1975 Remembrance Day 1975 was, perhaps, the most dramatic day in Australia’s parliamentary history. The opposition parties in the Senate had declared they would block the annual bills which provided the necessary funds for government to function until the prime minister agreed to call an election. As a result of 27 days deferral the Whitlam Government was running out of money. On 11 November 1975 the Senate refused again to pass the Labor Government’s budget, creating a constitutional crisis. At 11.45 a.m. the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, rose and proposed a censure motion on the Whitlam Government. David Kemp, Fraser’s senior adviser and later a Cabinet Minister in the Howard Government, recalled, Although Malcolm Fraser had not built a reputation for rhetorical skill, his parliamentary speeches were always tightly argued in carefully chosen language. In this speech, anticipating the imminent resolution of the crisis on which he had staked his whole career and his party’s fate, he went to great lengths to marshall all the arguments he had developed over the preceding month.1
The evasion and contempt of Parliament and of the Constitution have become a critical issue in the attempt of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to hang onto power. He believes that he alone is the Constitution; that he alone is the Parliament. The Parliament is very clearly the Queen—in our case the Governor-General—the Senate and the House of Representatives. All have a proper part and proper powers under the Constitution. The Prime Minister cannot pre-empt their powers and their 217
0885-main.qx5
218
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 218
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
prerogatives. The Government is more and more characterised by efforts to throw off the constitutional restraints. This was symbolised by the loans affair but is part of a much larger pattern. We know quite well of the avoidance of the Loan Council by saying that $4,000m was to be borrowed for temporary purposes. How false; how shallow; how deceitful that was . . . There is a refusal to answer questions when the going gets tough. He is scared of being tangled in the web of deceit and deception. It is not a coincidence that the refusal to answer questions comes as the net tightens. It is not a coincidence that requests to put questions on the notice paper come as the net tightens. It is not a coincidence that the questions put on the notice paper are answered with no facts at all or a minimum of words or in the most contradictory manner. One paragraph in a particular answer said that there is no need to go to the Loan Council because the loan was for temporary purposes. The last sentence of the same paragraph said that the loan, if and when consummated, would be taken to the Loan Council. Both statements clearly could not have been correct. The words that the Prime Minister used in that answer about going to the Loan Council were a clear denial of the terms of the Executive Council Minute of 13 December last year . . . Have documents in relation to the loans affair been destroyed by the Prime Minister’s direction or by the direction of any other Minister? Did he have discussions with Mr Connor after 20 May? He answers: ‘I suppose I would have had some conversation with the Minister every day’. That is an equivocation; a half-truth; neither one thing nor the other. That is what will finish him in the end . . . On 21 October was he or were his Ministers aware of negotiations after 20 May? He has evaded answering that question. There has never been a straight answer, even though we know quite well that he directed that all the documents be placed over his desk so that he could keep personal charge of the loan letters. How many honourable members sitting behind the Prime Minister believe that he knew nothing, believe that he was telling the truth? Does the former Deputy Prime Minister believe that he was telling the truth? The honourable gentleman has said that he was in fact not telling the truth. He used the word, I think, ‘lie’, even though it was in relation to the Prime Minister. What about what the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr Stewart) said when he was asked a simple question the other day? Listen to this for an answer. He said: As the Vice-President of the Executive Council, I have no information that would put the blame on anybody who was associated with the loans affair; nor do I have information that would completely exonerate anybody, if there was any blame attached to anybody.
What does that mean? What he was saying was that as Vice-President of the Executive Council he did not know. He was not saying that he did not know as a man, as a person. He strictly qualified a highly equivocal statement, making it quite plain that
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 219
Bookhouse
CONSTITUTIONAL
CRISIS
219
he knew and could speak if he wished to. Will he take the opportunity to assure the House that he knows nothing? Now we have the refusal of the Prime Minister to answer further questions. There must be a presumption of guilt, contempt of Parliament, of a massive cover-up because he is frightened to face up to the whole truth . . . There is a great misinterpretation of the role of the Senate on the part of the Prime Minister. It is not only his own view. He ignores recent High Court judgments. Mr Justice Stephen said: In my view the concept underlying the Commonwealth’s submissions disclose a serious misconception of the place of the Senate as a legislative chamber. The Senate except as to money Bills possesses legislative power in no way inferior to the House. It has full power . . . in the case of money Bills . . . freely to request amendment or to reject outright . . .
He has not said that he would accept the Governor-General’s decision taken in accordance with his constitutional prerogative. There are circumstances, as I have said repeatedly, where a Governor-General may have to act as the ultimate protector of the Constitution. He ignores that prerogative . . . His contempt for procedures was symbolised by an attitude to a former Speaker and now his attitude to the Constitution and the powers of the Constitution and the place of this Parliament is culminated by his proposal to govern without parliamentary approval of funds. This is the last safeguard of democracy. As every Liberal and National Country Party Leader, State and Federal, from all over Australia said not so long ago: To try to govern without appropriation of money by Parliament is the first significant step on the path to an Australian dictatorship. That view is not overstated. It is an exact description of the events. It is an exact description of the attitudes which have been depicted by this present Prime Minister. Is this Parliament allowed to know what matters have been proposed to the banks? . . . There are some views that there could then be a process of criminal conspiracy between the banks and the Government to evade the processes of Parliament and the laws of the Constitution. This is the depth to which this person has sunk in his attempt to stay in power . . . An attempt to centralise all power in the Australian Labor Party in Canberra has led to a colossal explosion in government spending. How many people realise that in 72 years of Australian federation the Budget reached $10,000m but in the next 21⁄2 years it went to $22,000m. That is the principal source—the main source— of all the economic problems facing Australia at the present time. It is the fundamental failure to provide a decent and stable government for Australians. We have seen the results in massive inflation and the highest rate of unemployment since the depression. How many Ministers have said that they would resign if unemployment reached a certain level and now sit on the Treasury bench and say that it does not matter? One Minister said that only another 150,000 people were unemployed, and it is in the records of this Parliament for those who wish to look
0885-main.qx5
220
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 220
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
at it. We have the highest interest rates in our history and in spite of the closest of close relationships with that redoubtable President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, massive industrial unrest. There are now more than 300,000 people unemployed. We were told just shortly after the Budget was presented that 400,000 people would be unemployed as a result of the Budget. What kind of Budget, what kind of Government, is that? The Prime Minister is the destroyer not only of the future economic life for many thousands of people throughout Australia but also is the destroyer of the Australian Labor Party, as ultimately he will prove to be. This Government must face the people. It is no point to suggest that that can happen merely by holding a half Senate election. Are we to have a situation in which the loser gains control, in which there will be no Supply and in which the Prime Minister demonstrates his continual evasion of responsibility? What threatens democracy is the Prime Minister’s direct refusal to face the electors of Australia. But there is a pattern in his evasions. He evaded responsibility over a former Deputy Prime Minister by saying, ‘He is all to blame and I am innocent’, though the letter was in his hand for days or weeks. In respect of the former Minister for Minerals and Energy the Prime Minister said: ‘He is all to blame and I am innocent.’ If the
Cartoonist Larry Pickering captures the impasse that led to the 1975 Constitutional Crisis. CARTOON BY LARRY PICKERING 1975. REPRODUCED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE ARTIST.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 221
Bookhouse
CONSTITUTIONAL
CRISIS
221
Prime Minister were innocent of knowledge he has to be incompetent as a Prime Minister. If he wishes to be that incompetent, let him proclaim it, but if he is not incompetent he himself is party to the deceptions of this Parliament. The main charges against this Government are charges of massive incompetence and destruction of the Australian economy and doing harm to many people who have retired and who cannot rebuild their lives. The savings of these people have been destroyed and they are dependent until they die on the beneficence of this man, of this Prime Minister, of this Government. In the Australian tradition they would have wanted to be independent but they cannot because their savings have been destroyed. It is the incompetence, the massive economic mismanagement, which is the principal charge. But when added to that are the scandals, and the incapacity to set standards, this Government deserves the contempt of the Australian people and the contempt of this Parliament.2
k John (Malcolm) Fraser (1930– ), Liberal Party, Member for Wannon 1955–83. Positions held: Minister for the Army 1966–68, Minister for Education and Science 1968–69, 1971–72, Minister for Defence 1969–71, Leader or the Opposition Mar–Nov 1975, Caretaker Prime Minister Nov–Dec 1975, Prime Minister 1977–83.
k Just over two hours after delivering this speech Malcolm Fraser became Prime Minister of Australia.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 222
Bookhouse
‘[Malcolm Fraser is] . . . unfit to be Prime Minister.’
Constitutional crisis
G OUGH W HITLAM , Prime Minister, 11 November 1975 Gough Whitlam’s speech in response to that by Malcolm Fraser (see pages 217–21) was to be his last as prime minister. He defended his government and ‘moved an amendment to substitute a censure of him [Mr Fraser] for his censure of my Government’.1 Whitlam argued that the Senate was behaving unconstitutionally and that Malcolm Fraser was unfit to be prime minister. Doug Anthony, Leader of the Country Party, spoke after Mr Whitlam. During this speech Mr Whitlam left the parliament to drive to Government House where the Governor-General was waiting for him. The House of Representatives adjourned at 12.55 pm without a vote being taken on Fraser’s motion. . . . The issue at stake is the basic constitutional rights of this House. The whole tactic of the Leader of the Opposition has been to bypass this House, to undermine its established rights and authority—rights and authority which have never been challenged since Federation and would not be challenged in any other country with a comparable system of government. The people of Australia have already shown how clearly they grasp the basic principle at stake. I am not sure whether they, or indeed all members of this House, yet fully realise the inordinate and unprecedented pretensions now being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Senate. It is more than just a claim to equality in money matters with this House. The new preposterous claim is that the Senate—not even an elected majority but a mere accidental half of the Senate—can dictate to the House of 222
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 223
Bookhouse
CONSTITUTIONAL
CRISIS
223
Representatives our own dissolution. That is, the Senate claims the right to send this House to the people without itself facing the people . . . The Senate cannot be dissolved except at the times and in the terms strictly laid down by the Constitution. This House has no power to dissolve the Senate. Yet the Senate now purports to have such power over this House. The Senate is saying that every 6 months it has the power to require an election for this House, while its own term must remain inviolate under the Constitution. What member of this House could tolerate such a claim? What government worth its salt—what government, formed in this House and this House alone, responsible to the majority of this House and this House alone—could submit to such a claim? Yet it is the Leader of the Opposition in this House—an officer-bearer in this House, an aspirant for the Prime Ministership of Australia which can only be conferred by the majority in this House and this House alone—who is spearheading this attack upon this House and orchestrating the actions of the Senate. Not the least extraordinary and reprehensible aspect of his conduct is that he would sell out the rights of this House . . . Whoever commands a majority in this House forms a government, and has the right to govern for a normal 3-year term. The Senate, as a second chamber, plays no part in the determination of which political party, or group of parties, shall form the government. The Leader of the Opposition asserts that my Government is threatening the Constitution through an attempt to reduce the powers of the Senate. Of course, the exact reverse is true. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to reduce the powers of the House of Representatives in a way never attempted in Australia. I am not trying to reduce any legitimate legislative power of the Senate. I am determined to protect this House and to prevent usurpation by the Senate. Next let me turn to another element in the honourable gentleman’s motion— his complaint that we have concealed the ways in which we intend to help those adversely affected by the Senate’s unwillingness to pass the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he considers that it would be wrong for the Government to take any action which would ease the hardship which he threatens, and wrong for us to try to minimise the harm to the economy. We shall do all in our constitutional and legal power to do that—to prevent hardship, to protect the economy. This Labor Government will not take the same callous attitude to the welfare of the people of Australia which the Opposition has already demonstrated. The real issue at stake is the right of the majority in the House of Representatives to govern. There can be no abandonment of this principle—and certainly not in the face of blackmail. The only honourable, the only sensible way for the crisis to be brought to an end is for the Senate today to pass the Appropriation Bills. On the other hand, for as long as the Senate continues its strike, the Government will do all in its power—its legal and constitutional power—to ease the impact of the Opposition’s unprincipled, unprecedented and unconstitutional action. We have seen the spectacle this week of the Leader of the Opposition leaning on the banks;
0885-main.qx5
224
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 224
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
pressuring them against doing their duty; attempting to intimidate them against doing what is right and proper. The Leader of the Opposition only a fortnight ago said: I have already said that we would not want to see any individual government employee hurt or damaged as a result of what is happening.
Fine, but he has changed his tune in the last 48 hours, as soon as co-operation from the banks appeared likely. In the face of the reckless course taken by the Opposition, we must do our best to alleviate hardship, to make the best alternative arrangements. That is what we are talking to the banks about. There can be no objection to what we are doing. Throughout its consideration of the action that might be taken the Government has insisted that it must have opinions from the law officers—the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General—that there should be no conflict with the Constitution, the Audit Act, or any other law. Officials have had discussions with representatives of the banks about the steps that might be taken to facilitate access to credit for its employees and supplies for the amounts the Government will owe them but will not be able to pay them if the Budget Bills are not passed this month. But even the best arrangements we can make with the banks will still leave thousands of persons and businesses damaged by what the Opposition has done . . . By mid-November, the Government will not be able to meet its commitments in respect of certain works and construction. By the end of December, the Government will be completely unable to meet any of its commitments in the field of construction. Already the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) has delayed contracts worth over $8m. The building and construction industry has gone through a severe recession and if the $1000m that will directly flow to it as a result of the Budget is deferred or delayed it will not only have a direct and serious impact on the industry, it will also have a multiplier effect on associated industries—bricks, timber, steel and glass. Similar effects will also be felt in other industries throughout Australia as funds are exhausted for other contractual supplies and services. On Christmas Day last year, Darwin was subjected to the ravages of cyclone. This Christmas, Darwin and indeed the whole of the Northern Territory, will be subjected to the ravages of the effects of the action of the Liberal and Country parties if they continue with their obstruction. The Darwin Reconstruction Commission will run out of funds before the end of this month. Loans for private housing, reconstruction and the rehabilitation of small businesses will cease, as will funds for the whole range of public community services, including health, roads, power, water and sewerage. Darwin survived cyclone Tracy—it cannot afford Maelstrom Malcolm . . . We have now reached the position that 12 weeks after the introduction of annual Appropriation Bills, the non-government parties in the Senate, aided and abetted
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 225
Bookhouse
CONSTITUTIONAL
CRISIS
225
by the Leader of the Opposition, refuse to proceed with these Bills until this Government, this Government formed in the House of Representatives, submits to the will of the Senate—not its majority but its stacked and tainted half. Only 19 months ago, the people for the second time in less than 18 months elected the Australian Labor Party to govern for a further 3 years. Let me recall yet again the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the present, the new Leader: The basic principle which I adhere to strongly is that a government that continues to have a majority in the House of Representatives has a right to expect that it will be able to govern.
In a very real sense the Leader of the Opposition owes his present position to the assertion of that principle. He has betrayed the very people who supported him. All the difficulties created and the damage done by the action of the Senate— not just the potential damage but the damage already done, already set in train to thousands of our fellow Australians—must be laid firmly at the door of one man— the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition knows this. He sees the black abyss below. The more he realised the havoc he has unleashed, the more extravagant his language. We have had over the last few weeks an escalation of epithets; we have seen him grasping at anything to excuse the inexcusable, to justify the unjustifiable—the poring over boxes and boxes of documents to discredit Ministers and public servants; the charge of fraud against the Australian Statistician over the consumer price index figures; the pathetic attempt to distort a parliamentary courtesy by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Crean) into a charge of treachery against him; the charge of conspiracy by departmental heads that they collaborated to destroy documents; the paranoia revealed in baseless claims about activities by unnamed members of my office; the imputation of collusion of the part of the royal commissioner into the petroleum industry; the charge of illegality in the Government’s even discussing with the banks ways to lessen the hardship his actions are causing to their customers and potential customers; and of course his speech today . . . I said 3 weeks ago that it would be my duty to make the Australian people aware that the Leader of the Opposition was, in his own description of the right honourable member for Higgins [Mr Gorton] ‘unfit to be Prime Minister’. The people seem to be getting the message very quickly. But when one considers the lengths he is apparently prepared to go to damage Australia, to cause harm to innocent people, to delay or even destroy the chance of economic recovery and in particular, the role he is playing in attempting to undermine the rights and powers of this House—this House of Representatives, this people’s House—he is unfit to be Leader of the Opposition . . . 2
k Edward (Gough) Whitlam (1916–), Australian Labor Party, Member for Werriwa 1952–78.
0885-main.qx5
226
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 226
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Positions held: Leader of the Opposition 1967–72, 1975–77, Prime Minister 1972–75, Minister for Foreign Affairs 1972–73, thirteen portfolios held from 5–19 December 1972, Minister for the Environment 1975.
k The Prime Minister arrived at Government House at 1 p.m. where he was ushered into the office of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. When Whitlam informed the Governor-General he was not prepared to advise an election, Sir John Kerr handed him a dismissal letter.3 The political scientist Hugh Emy summarised the current thinking on the crisis in the Oxford Companion to Australian History 1998: . . . in hindsight it is apparent that the crisis confirmed the powers of the Senate and overturned Whitlam’s view of the Constitution . . . The crisis exposed several anomalies in the Constitution which also remain unresolved, such as the lack of an effective constitutional provision dealing with a prolonged dispute between the houses over supply, especially one arising from a Senate decision to defer supply indefinitely. The latter situation highlights the significance of the governor-general’s discretionary powers. The Dismissal showed that the constitutional powers vested in the office have more political significance than the reserve powers of the British monarch.4
The only relevant constitutional change that has occurred in the time since the Dismissal, has been the requirement for a retiring senator to be replaced by a member selected by the same party.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 227
Bookhouse
‘Maintain your rage . . .’
After the Dismissal
G OUGH W HITLAM , Leader of the Opposition, 11 November 1975 As news of Whitlam’s dismissal spread throughout Canberra, ‘a crowd started to gather in the roadway outside Parliament House and on the steps of Parliament’.1 At 4.40 p.m. the Governor-General’s official secretary, David Smith, arrived with a proclamation signed by the Governor-General for the double dissolution of Parliament to be read from the steps of Parliament House. A contemporary observer stated, ‘His voice could scarcely be heard by those standing near him above the hostile roar of the crowd.’ 2 Smith ended his reading with the words ‘God Save the Queen’. Whitlam then took the microphone and delivered what he later described as ‘unquestionably the most memorable speech ever delivered at the old Parliament house’.3 Well may we say ‘God Save the Queen’, because nothing will save the GovernorGeneral. The proclamation which you have just heard read by the Governor-General’s official secretary was countersigned ‘Malcolm Fraser’ who will undoubtedly go down in Australian history from Remembrance Day 1975 as Kerr’s cur. They won’t silence the outskirts of Parliament House, even if the inside has been silenced for the next few weeks. The Governor-General’s proclamation was signed after he had already made an appointment to meet the Speaker at a quarter to five. The House of Representatives had requested the Speaker to give the GovernorGeneral its decision that Mr Fraser did not have the confidence of the House and that the Governor-General should call me to form the Government. Maintain your rage and your enthusiasm through the campaign for the election now to be held and until polling day.4
k 227
0885-main.qx5
228
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 228
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The Governor-General’s official secretary, David Smith, reads a proclamation for the double dissolution of Parliament on 11 November 1975. Gough Whitlam watches closely before delivering a speech of his own. NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA, A6180, 13/11/75/45.
Edward (Gough) Whitlam (1916–), Australian Labor Party, Member for Werriwa 1952–78. Positions held: Leader of the Opposition 1967–72, 1975–77, Prime Minister 1972–75, Minister for Foreign Affairs 1972–73, thirteen portfolios held from 5–19 December 1972, Minister for the Environment 1975.
k Sir John Kerr criticised Mr Whitlam’s speech pointing out that, ‘rage’ was defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, as among other things, ‘madness, insanity, violent anger and furious passion.’ 5
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 229
AFTER
Bookhouse
THE
DISMISSAL
229
Whitlam responded that: Sir John makes much of this little speech. He emphasises the ‘rage’ and ignores the ‘enthusiasm’ . . . I must confess that before making my off-the-cuff remarks on the steps of Parliament House it did not occur to me to look up Oxford . . . given the mood that the crowd was in, I dare say I could have stirred them up a lot more than I did; it was a delightful Canberra late spring evening, just the night for a pleasant walk to Yarralumla. This was no exercise in demagoguery; in the astonishing circumstance in which my colleagues and I so suddenly and unceremoniously found ourselves, I am entitled to claim it as a remarkable exercise in restraint and moderation.6
While there was much sound and fury accompanying the ensuing election campaign, Whitlam’s plea for support was not reflected on polling day. The Liberal/National Country Party Coalition, led by Malcolm Fraser, was swept to power with the largest majority (55 seats) in Australian history. The Coalition also won a majority in the Senate.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 230
Bookhouse
‘. . . a dreadful legacy.’
Death of Mao
B ILLY W ENTWORTH , Member for Mackellar, 14 September 1976 One of the first initiatives of the Whitlam Labor Government had been the establishment of diplomatic relations with communist China, then under the leadership of Mao Tse Tung, in 1972. The Fraser Liberal Government continued to develop these relations after coming to office in 1975. Mao led the Chinese Communist Party for 41 years. He headed the Communist Revolution, which established the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Regarded by many as a hero, he was ultimately exposed as one of the most brutal totalitarian leaders of the twentieth century. On his death a condolence motion was moved by the Fraser Government, and supported by the Whitlam-led opposition. Billy Wentworth was the only speaker against the motion, storming out of the chamber with the words, ‘Mr Speaker, Mao was a murderer’.1 On Wentworth’s death 27 years later, this speech was praised. ‘We should be grateful that he was there and that he did speak, thereby reducing slightly the great shame brought on Australia’s Parliament that day.’ 2 This is a time for us to reaffirm our friendship for the Chinese people and to express the hope that the death of Mao will usher in a new and better era for them and for the world. Mao Tse-tung took charge of a China which was weak, divided and exhausted, and created a nation which was unified, formidable and dedicated to the destruction of freedom. It is perhaps pardonable that, as we tremble, we should also praise, but it would be unpardonable if that praise were unleavened. To subdue fratricidal factions, to bring order out of chaos, to organise the masses 230
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 231
Bookhouse
D E AT H
OF
MAO
231
for their own better living is always commended, even if it is not always entirely commendable. We rightly derided those who praised Mussolini for making the Italian trains run on time, and for sure the Chairman faced a far worse situation than did Il Duce. But Mao murdered a thousand times as many of his own countrymen as Mussolini ever did and destroyed ten times as many of their freedoms. He made a prison and called it peace. It is plausible to say that he had no alternative and that the Chinese masses could have been controlled by no gentler means. But against that conjecture there stands the hard fact of Taiwan. There on an island half the size of Tasmania Chiang Kai-shek, without resort to comparable violence, found the means to organise 17 million people and to give them a standard of living far higher than those on the rich mainland had ever attained. The island microcosm confutes the mainland colossus . . . Three men in this last half century have attained supreme power—Hitler, Stalin and Mao—and it is no accident that they had so much in common. Hitler failed and was unmasked before he fell, so that no one praised him in his death. Many praised the dead Stalin before they realised the true nature of the monster. And most now praise Mao. For him, the verdict of history may well depend upon who writes it. It is the fashion now to speak well of Mao because Chinese communism provides some counterpoise to Russian communism. It may indeed continue to do so, though those who recall the Nazi–Soviet Pact of 1939 may well doubt the permanence of totalitarian tensions, however they may be protested and especially when they are protested too much. Even if you lick one boot, you cannot rely on the feet fighting each other. We may choose to ignore the basic Marxist militancy, but at least we should not forget that the primary split between the 2 communist giants occurred because Moscow would not accept Mao’s urging to risk nuclear war and face a world holocaust. That occurred nearly 20 years ago when China, having then no nuclear weapons, could only urge and could not herself act. Maoism has subjected the Chinese people to an alien ideology and has denied them all their traditional life and culture. It has demanded the rejection of all family ties and accepted decencies, culminating in its assault of Confucianism. For religion it has substituted the ritual nonsense of the Little Red Book, the analogue of the ridiculous ‘Heil Hitler’ of the Nazi discipline. Will the Chinese people now have the wisdom and courage to abandon these moronic aspects of Maoism and reassert their historic values? The question is not academic because Mao has tried to cut off all their roots and 800 million rootless people would be a menace to the whole world. People who have cast out their cultural values need something to fill the empty house, and the communist ideology has plenty of its own self-proclaimed devils. If Maoism persists eventually there will
0885-main.qx5
232
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 232
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
be another Genghis Khan and the new golden horde will have nuclear weapons strapped to its saddles. And so, as we hope that the Chinese people will be partners in a peaceful world, we must realise that this will depend largely upon their replacement of Maoism by something better—something which retains at least part of the Chinese values and culture in which for so long they have taken such proper pride. Mao has indeed given them material power, but with that power he has left them a dreadful legacy. De Mortuis nil nisi bonum, they say. But this is no private death, and may no word be spoken in rebuttal of misleading adulation. Mine is a small voice and in the larger tumult of the world even the strongest voice from this Parliament would be little heard. But if no man may speak, what hope is there for any man?3
k William (Billy) Wentworth (1907–2003), Liberal Party 1949–77, Independent Liberal Oct–Nov 1977, Member for Mackellar 1949–77. Positions held: Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs under the Prime Minister 1968–71, Minister for Social Services 1968–72.
k When moving the motion, Prime Minister Fraser had praised Mao, stating that he, ‘devoted his life to the vision of a rigorously egalitarian society . . . and secured the basic necessities of life to China’s people.’ 4 Leader of the opposition, Gough Whitlam, declared, ‘Mao was the inspiration to the Chinese people’.5 The condolence motion to Mao was carried without dissent as Wentworth had already left the Chamber. After Wentworth’s death in 2003, Prime Minister John Howard said in parliament, ‘I do not think I have met in the federal parliament a person who was more passionate in his opposition to communism.’ 6
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 233
Bookhouse
‘. . . the emergence of a third political force . . .’
Resignation from the Liberal Party D ON C HIPP , Member for Hotham, 24 March 1977 Don Chipp’s resignation from the Liberal Party was to have a profound effect on Australian politics. Excluded from the Fraser Government ministry, and increasingly disenchanted with a number of government policies, Don Chipp decided to bring his sixteen-year association with the Liberal Party to an end. His action led to the creation of a new political party, the Australian Democrats. Through their numbers in the Senate the Democrats were able to exercise a significant influence on national policy. Chipp’s resignation speech in the parliament was made to ‘almost a full House, and an unusual total silence prevailed’.1 I wish to announce to the House that I have resigned from the Liberal Party of Australia as from today . . . I recognise that I am here by virtue of my former membership of the Liberal Party and therefore believe it is proper that I should generally give my vote in support of the Government in the business before the House and in the conduct of the business of the House. However, I will exercise the right—which is already held by all members of the Liberal Party—to vote against the Government on any issue which a member believes to be not in the best interests of the country or his constituents . . . I hope that my friends and colleagues in the Parliamentary Liberal Party will understand my reasons in taking this decision and that the personal friendships and relationships that I have made and enjoyed over the years will not be impaired 233
0885-main.qx5
234
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 234
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
by my action. I note in passing that notwithstanding the tag of ‘rebel’ that some people have chosen to put upon me, I have never exercised that right of voting against my Party in my 16 years in this place. In fact, I think it is fair to me to place on record that during the 15-month term of this Government, I have been publicly critical of its decisions on only 5 occasions. These were: 1 The 25 per cent cut in overseas aid; 2 The abolition of the Australian Assistance Plan which I, with the full authority of the joint Parties had previously commended in this House as being one of the most exciting and progressive social reforms ever undertaken; 3 The proposed abolition of the funeral benefits for pensioners; 4 The original breach of the promise to index pensions; and 5 The decision to devalue the currency and, once that decision was taken, the refusal to lower tariffs so as to contain the inflationary effects of that move. When these 5 public criticisms are put against the dozens of times I have publicly supported the Government, even on occasions when I did not agree with it, I believe the tag of ‘rebel’ is palpably unfair. There have in fact been a great number of issues with which I have strongly disagreed and on most which I have been invited by the media to criticise my Party. I have refrained from that criticism in the interests of Party unity and with a view to assisting the Government in overcoming the massive problems it faces, many of which were inherited from the results of the gross maladministration of the Labor Party’s terms in office. However, the number of significant Government actions which conflict with my own views are now so many that I feel that my continued membership of the Liberal Party, as it is now led, managed and structured, would be incompatible with my beliefs and would constitute an act of hypocrisy. Inevitably some people will impugn my action and ascribe to it the motive that I am taking this course because I am not in the Cabinet. To that I simply state without argument that under no circumstances could I, or would I, serve as a Minister under the present leadership. Members of the House would know that one reaches a decision such as this— after giving 16 years of one’s life to it—not without a great deal of deep thought and troubled deliberation; but as one who at least in latter years has tried to pursue a course of true liberalism, I find I can no longer do that within the confines of the Party. In these circumstances I believe the only honourable thing to do is to resign. For the record I simply state my areas of contention without debating them. I cannot agree with the Government’s current economic policy. Particularly, I am concerned with its failure to honour the promise to the private sector to give it stable and definite future guidelines to allow it to plan and invest for the future. I believe the private businessman, especially the small businessman who employs the bulk of the work force of this country, is more confused, more in the dark about
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 235
R E S I G N AT I O N
Bookhouse
FROM THE
L I B E R A L P A RT Y
235
the future, and less confident than he was 15 months ago. This seems to be strange behaviour for a Party that champions the cause of free enterprise. I am very critical of the lack of consultation between the Government and the trade union movement. It would be cruel and unfair to ask the worker to be the sole bearer of the cost of reducing inflation; but wages are too high and taxes are too high to provide incentive for increased productivity by both workers and management. Interest rates are devastating, especially to the young, and yet no attempt at real, sensible and sensitive discussions between the Prime Minister and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been made . . . I confess to a very deep concern about the intrasigence [sic] of the Prime Minister in bringing in the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation at this time—a time of remarkable industrial peace and at a time when it is being vigorously opposed by both employees and employers alike. I have been grossly disappointed with the attitude of the Government on uranium mining . . . The last straw on this issue was the action of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in launching a pro-uranium book simultaneously with a statement by the Ambassador of Japan advocating the mining of Australian uranium. The breach of our promises to continue the Australian Assistance Plan, wage indexation, the value of the currency, the Social Welfare Commission, increased research on solar energy, are matters which have disturbed me greatly. Further, our incredible attitude towards Timor; the overt and capricious provocation of Russia, an almost pathetic reliance on the non-proliferation treaty which the Fox report described as giving only ‘an illusion of protection’; the absence of strong Cabinet action to overcome the bureaucratic bungling and red tape affecting human beings seeking refuge from Indo-China are some other matters which have left me deeply concerned. On the other hand I draw no comfort from the current attitudes and policies of the Australian Labor Party. Although the state of the world economy contributed in some way to Australia’s economic problems during its 3 years of office, its mismanagement of the economy resulting in the unique situation of causing unemployment to increase simultaneously with inflation was near catastrophic. I would be a little encouraged if I believed that it has learned some lessons from its errors but that does not seem to be the case. It is still motivated by events of the past, still obsessed with its socialist ideas and a hatred of private enterprise, and dominated by the shadowy faces in the trade union movement. In opposition its performance has been little short of ludicrous in questioning and probing the Government on the real issues that affect the country. I draw no comfort at all from the public opinion polls which indicate a Labor Government is possible—if not probable—in the near future. I find it almost unbelievable that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E.G. Whitlam)—a man who led his Party to its most humiliating defeat in history just 15 months ago—now ranks
0885-main.qx5
236
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 236
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
about equally in popularity and respect with the Prime Minister. Does this mean that the people of Australia hold both men and both parties in relatively low esteem? In conclusion may I say that I have become disenchanted with party politics as they are practised in this country and with the pressure groups which have an undue influence on the major political parties. The National Country Party properly represents the interests of a small sectional group—some of the rural community— but improperly in my view, and unduly, influences national policies quite out of proportion to the small group it represents. The Labor Party is dominated by the vested interests of trade unions. The Liberal Party, although properly concerned with the vital role of private enterprise, seems too pre-occupied with the wants of what is euphemistically known as ‘big business’ to the sacrifice and detriment of medium and small-size businessmen who form the backbone of our industrial and commercial sectors. The parties seem to polarise on almost every issue, sometimes seemingly just for the sake of it, and I wonder whether the ordinary voter is not becoming sick and tired of the vested interests which unduly influence the present political parties and yearn for the emergence of a third political force, representing middle of the road policies which would owe allegiance to no outside pressure group. Perhaps it may be the right time to test that proposition. That move will have to come from those people in Australia who believe in the encouragement of free enterprise, who believe it has not had a ‘fair go’ from interfering Governments who regularly change, without warning, the conditions under which they operate. It must come from people who believe in true justice for the work force and compassion for those in need, but who believe that actions must be taken to prevent social problems from occurring rather than trying to cure them and hide them once they have arrived. But above all, it must come from those people who are disgusted with those politicians and political parties who indulge mainly in cheap political point scoring in the endless pursuit of votes at any price and from people who want their Parliament to identify the real and significant problems of the future and to take action now which will make the country a good, safe and sound place for future generations.2
k Donald (Don) Chipp (1925–), Liberal Party 1960–77, Independent March–May 1977, Australian Democrats May 1977–86, Member for Higginbotham 1960–69, Member for Hotham 1969–77, Senator for Victoria 1978–86. Positions held: Minister for the Navy 1966–68, Minister for Customs and Excise 1969–72, Creator and Leader of the Australian Democrats.
k The first state branch meeting of the new ‘third force’ was in May in Don Chipp’s home state of Victoria. By August, members had chosen the name Australian Democrats.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 237
R E S I G N AT I O N
Bookhouse
FROM THE
L I B E R A L P A RT Y
237
In the December 1977 election, the first Australian Democrats—Don Chipp (Victoria) and Colin Mason (NSW)—were elected to the Senate. Janine Haines (SA) was appointed to succeed Steele Hall, who had been elected as a member of the Liberal Movement (which had subsequenty merged with the Australian Democrats). Democrat numbers in the Senate reached a peak of nine in 1998. Their share of the national Senate vote averaged almost ten per cent during the 1990s. They have frequently held the balance of power in the Senate since 1981.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 238
Bookhouse
‘. . . national reconciliation, national reconstruction and national recovery . . .’
National Economic Summit B OB H AWKE , Prime Minister, 3 May 1983 Soon after the election of the Hawke Labor Government in March 1983 a National Economic Summit was convened to consider measures to address the significant slowdown in economic activity in Australia. Mr Hawke correctly claimed it was an event unique in Australia’s history: . . . representatives from Federal, State and Municipal governments, business and trade unions, farmers, social welfare organisations and the churches met in the House of Representatives chamber of Parliament House, Canberra.1
In all there were 98 delegates and 19 observers. To its critics the Summit, bringing corporate Australia to meet in the House of Representatives, was an affront to parliamentary government and symbolised the effort to establish a ‘corporate state’ approach to governing Australia. . . . The National Economic Summit Conference which assembled in this place on 11 April 1983 was, by any standards, a significant and historic event. No such conference of this scale or scope had been attempted before in Australia. It represented a new beginning, a first step towards our great national goals of national reconciliation, national reconstruction and national recovery . . . We called the Summit Conference because Australia is facing its gravest economic and social crisis in 50 years. In the words of the Summit communiqué: The Australian economy is in deep recession. Economic activity and employment are continuing to fall and unemployment is still rising. Profits are depressed, and wage
238
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 239
Bookhouse
N AT I O N A L E C O N O M I C S U M M I T
239
earners have had to accept deferral of improvements and maintenance of living standards. Inflation and interest rates remain high. There are signs of improvement in the world economy and of an end to the drought in the eastern States. There is wide agreement, however, that sustained economic recovery and significant inroads into the unacceptably high level of unemployment will require a steady improvement in business and consumer confidence and more effective processes of income determination. There is also wide recognition that Australia’s economic problems are deep-seated and not amenable to rapid solution.
The call for a National Economic Summit Conference came from many sections of the community and, most importantly, had the clear endorsement of the Australian people at the 1983 Federal elections . . . The 100 participants who accepted my invitation included representatives of all State governments and of the local government sector. The union movement was represented by the full Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive. Business was represented through two avenues: Through the representative business organisations the whole structure of business, large and small, was covered; and in addition, many individual businessmen from some of the largest individual enterprises were invited. The Australian Council of Social Services was invited as the major umbrella organisation in the social welfare sector. In addition, the Government recognised that community organisations had a valid role to play in the process and 18 such organisations were invited to send observers . . . We recognise and reaffirm that we, as the elected representatives of the people of Australia, have the primary and fundamental responsibility for the economic and social policies of this nation. But as I said in my closing address to the Conference, effective policy cannot be made in a vacuum. The Conference made a very substantial contribution to filling that vacuum, to bringing out clearly the economic and social realities which must form the context for government decisions. We are now all better equipped, and all have a clearer perception of the prospects, possibilities and plain hard work that lies ahead. In the deepest sense, the Conference was a key step in bringing Australia together. I deeply believe—and I am now doubly reassured that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people believe this also—that Australia can no longer afford to go down the path of confrontation which characterised much of the past decade. What we sought was genuine consensus on the path forward towards national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction, and the co-operation of all in setting the nation upon that forward path. Specifically, we set the following objectives for the Conference. They were: To secure broad agreement on the role of an incomes and prices policy, in our efforts to promote employment and to achieve recovery and growth; and to ensure that the benefits of recovery are not lost in another round of the wages–prices spiral; to devise machinery for achieving the necessary restraint, including methods of
0885-main.qx5
240
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 240
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
wage fixation, influencing non-wage incomes, and price surveillance; to secure a better and wider understanding of the broad economic framework, within which we have to operate; to seek broad agreement on the relationship between a successful prices and incomes policy and the implementation of policies on industrial relations, job creation and training, taxation, social security, health, education and the other major community services; to examine the competitiveness and efficiency of the Australian economy; and, finally, to reach agreement on arrangements and machinery to monitor and continue the work of this Conference . . . I turn now to the more specific achievements of the Conference. At the broad level, I think there were three of about equal importance: Firstly, the degree of common understanding reached on the nature and source of Australia’s economic problems . . . secondly, the degree of consensus reached . . . on the basic framework and approach required to begin to arrest the decline in our economy, to arrest the expansion in unemployment levels, and, in an ongoing sense, to put our economy on a path of sustained non-inflationary growth; and thirdly, the recognition on all sides that the consensus reached at the Conference is only the first step and commitments have been given, again on all sides, to translate that consensus into effective action . . . I believe that the Conference did more than establish the basis for confidence in the recovery of the economy. I believe it helped—as a first step—to restore confidence in ourselves as a people and as a nation, confidence that we can talk together and work together, that we can co-operate to seek solutions for our common problems, in the knowledge that what unites us is infinitely more important and enduring than the things that divide us. The revival of that sort of confidence in ourselves is essential if we are to overcome our present grave economic problems. But even beyond these problems, this new spirit of confidence and co-operation, if it can grow and strengthen, can be made an enduring basis for an even better and stronger future for all Australians.2
k Robert (Bob) Hawke (1929–), Australian Labor Party, Member for Wills 1980–92. Positions held: Leader of the Opposition February–March 1983, Prime Minister 1983–91.
k Paul Kelly in his book The End of Certainty summarised the impact of the Summit: The Summit communiqué, primarily drafted by [Sir Peter] Abeles [a leading businessman] and [Bill] Kelty [Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions], was a comprehensive victory for Hawke. The participants—with Joh Bjelke-Petersen [Premier of Queensland] the sole dissenter—approved the return to centralised wage fixation, noting the union commitment to wage restraint. They endorsed Labor’s expansionary
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 241
Bookhouse
N AT I O N A L E C O N O M I C S U M M I T
241
fiscal policy to the extent it was consistent with inflation reduction. Hawke got business to endorse the Accord, a compact which it had not drafted and to which it was not a party. Business was outsmarted by Hawke, Keating and Kelty. But what choice did it have? 3
Critics of the Accord believed the costs outweighed the benefits. Among other things they said, it led to stagnant productivity and falling real wages, inflation became entrenched and, ‘monetary policy became hostage to the Accord’.4 The Labor model of consensus worked well until 1986–87 and according to Paul Kelly helped to win Hawke an historic third term in government at the election in 1987.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 242
Bookhouse
‘. . . I have had enough . . .’
Australia Card
G EORGE G EORGES , Senator for Queensland, 10 December 1986 The continuing debate in Australian history over the rights of the individual versus the role of the state came to a head in the controversy over the so-called ‘Australia Card’. The proposed card was effectively to be an identity card that, among other things, would store personal information and could be used for taxation, welfare and heath insurance purposes.1 Dr Neal Blewett, the Minister for Health in the Hawke Labor Government argued that the Australia Card program: . . . will be one of the most effective weapons available in this Government’s fight against tax avoidance and evasion, and social welfare fraud. It will help ensure that every Australian pays their fair share of tax while ensuring that benefits from the welfare system go properly to those in need.2
The introduction of the Australia Card Bill conflicted with Labor Senator George Georges’ personal views in favour of individual rights. His resignation from the Labor Party over this issue was the culmination of a number of disagreements he had had over the direction of the Hawke Government. . . . I have been consistently opposed to the card from the moment it was proposed as being a very serious intrusion into the rights of the individual in our society. Although I am a socialist, I believe strongly in the rights of the individual to exist without unnecessary bureaucratic interference by the state. As a socialist who believes that the economic arrangements of our society should be in the hands of the state, I believe that the rights of the individual must be even further protected in that 242
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 243
Bookhouse
AUSTRALIA CARD
243
sort of society. When Dr Blewett says that privacy is the right and privilege of the rich, he is not quite correct. Privacy is the right of every individual, no matter which society he lives in. The right to privacy is perhaps more the right of a socialist than of a capitalist. It is perhaps even more necessary. So let us put to one side the question of privacy. Privacy is the right of each one of us, no matter what sort of society we live in. To destroy the privacy of the individual would destroy society. I believe that the ID card is intrusive, cumbersome and unnecessary. The ID card has been presented to us as a licence to exist in our society. If one does not have that licence one cannot exist. On those grounds alone the whole proposition ought to be discarded. It ought to be put to one side and we should consider the alternatives. The alternatives are there to achieve what the ID card is supposed to achieve without interfering with our basic rights . . . It is no use coming into this place and criticising the Taxation Office for its faults, errors and so-called inefficiencies unless we properly examine what we have done. We have not provided the facilities or funds necessary to the Taxation Office to meet the challenge of tax avoidance and evasion . . . As a society we cannot respond to the challenge to provide the personnel to the departments to man the technology which could prevent the massive tax evasion we are now trying to correct by the establishment of a national identity system. My fear is that, once put in place, the system will not remain at the level the Government seeks to achieve. The very draconian penalties which will be imposed to prevent the misuse of the ID card are an argument against the card and its introduction. No argument has been addressed to the right of an individual in our free society to disappear, to change his past, to get away from— SENATOR WALSH :
A criminal record that you are about to be caught up with? A record of criminal activity?
S E N AT O R G E O R G E S :
Yes. Why not, if that criminal activity took place during a
person’s teens? SENATOR WALSH :
If you had been running heroin and made a few million out of it you are arguing that all you have to do is to change your identity and you should be able to walk away from that record of criminal activity?
SENATOR GEORGES : SENATOR WALSH :
I am not saying that.
That is what you are facilitating.
SENATOR GEORGES :
No, I am not facilitating that at all. If the Minister directed his attention to the big boys around the place and if the system were directed to the major frauds in this society, we would not need to have to introduce the ID card . . . What the Minister is saying to me is that if a youngster were in some way to come into conflict with the law—
SENATOR WALSH : What I am saying to you is that your formula will facilitate people
walking away from a record of criminal activity.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
244
9:49 AM
Page 244
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
SENATOR GEORGES : I would suggest that in the minds of reasonable people those who may have been in breach of the law or in breach of the normal behaviour of society should have a right to escape from that. All I am saying to Senator Walsh is that they should have a right to escape. They have a right to change their identity. One would not be able to escape at any time because of the procedures which the Government is trying to impose upon us. One would not be able to change one’s identity. People who are poor, underprivileged, abused or socially disadvantaged will have no chance. All I can say is that we must realise that magnitude of what we propose [sic]. I would suggest that there are other means of dealing with the problems that Senator Walsh has raised about the mighty who can use the courts and sophisticated lawyers to escape the penalties. But let us not, because of them, impose upon the weak the need to be identified at will . . . The Government’s ID system will not be one of high integrity unless a couple of things are done. First of all, a person will be obliged to carry his ID card at all times. Such is technology that all the information can be put on a very small card. The card will be a sort of dog tag that people wear in the army. It will be able to be carried quite easily. If that arrangement becomes too cumbersome, it is quite possible to put all of the information on a very small metallic or plastic card which can be suitably inserted as farmers are now doing with cattle that they want to identify from a distance. People will be able to be identified easily at will by anyone without any interference and without them knowing. Let me tell the Senate this: The steps that are being taken are steps towards that draconian situation. I am not prepared—I have not in the past and I will not now—to support a proposition that will set us along that path. It has been fairly clear in the past that I do not support an identification system. I do not support the legislation. Honourable senators will recall that on a previous occasion I cast my vote against a piece of legislation which the Government brought forward—I cast my vote against every one of you—and for that I was suspended from my Party. As part of that suspension there was the warning: ‘Don’t ever do it again’. SENATOR MASON :
So much for democracy.
SENATOR GEORGES : . . . The thing that has to be made clear is that when one begins
to lose one’s faith in a party which either denies its policy or moves away from its basic principles one can only come to a point of making a decision. So the decision is clear. I am not going to support this piece of legislation. When it comes back to the Senate, as it will come back, I will oppose it. But in the meantime, to clear the decks, I will resign. SENATOR WALSH :
Why don’t you resign from the Senate too, then?
SENATOR GEORGES : . . . I will have that in mind. But let us wait, shall we? I have that in mind as well because I am not prepared to limit the position of my Party in
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 245
Bookhouse
AUSTRALIA CARD
245
A cartoon in The Australian newspaper on 3 July 1985 shows Prime Minister Bob Hawke expressing his enthusiasm for the “Australia Card.” REPRODUCED WITH THANKS TO BILL MITCHELL AND THE AUSTRALIAN.
this place. I know what Senator Walsh has in mind—that the last 18 years of working in this place count for nothing. So what he would demand is that I resign not only from the Party but also from the Senate. I will make that decision in my own time to suit myself and those people who have supported me. But what Senator Walsh and a number of others have succeeded in doing is destroying my constituency, whom I do not represent in this place any more. They have reduced me to the point of being embarrassed and sometimes humiliated when I move amongst those people who support me. Well, I have had enough of it.3
k George Georges (1920–), Australian Labor Party 1968–1987, Independent 1986–1987, Senator for Queensland.
k Although Senator Georges’ resignation was dramatic it did not affect the Australia Card Bill vote in the Senate. The Democrats and the Liberal opposition joined forces against the Bill and it was defeated by 32 votes to 26 votes. Democrat Senator Haines opposed the Bill, due to its ‘ability to place everyone under some sort of surveillance [which] poses a very real threat to privacy’.4 Similarly, Liberal Senator Jim Short stated that one of the reasons the opposition opposed the Bill was because
0885-main.qx5
246
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 246
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
it would ‘constitute an unprecedented and unjustifiable intrusion into the individual privacy of all Australians and will greatly damage our civil liberties’.5 The Australia Card Bill was introduced into the parliament on two further occasions. The Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] was defeated in April 1987. It became the subject of a double dissolution election in 1987. However, it was never put to a joint sitting—the Hawke Government adandoned the Bill as it would ultimately have depended on regulations that the Senate could disallow. Senator George Georges continued in the parliament as an independent until his resignation in 1987. Former Senator Arthur Geitzelt said of him that, ‘Senator Georges is possibly one of the most honest men in the Senate. He has principles that he will abide by through thick and thin’.6 In 1994 George Georges rejoined the Labor Party.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 247
Bookhouse
‘Trials for war crimes will not stop war . . . they will strengthen peace . . . ’
War crimes horror
M ICHAEL M ACKLIN , Senator for Queensland, 15 December 1988 In response to public calls for an investigation into Nazi war criminals living in Australia, the Hawke Government introduced the War Crimes Amendment Bill in 1987. The Bill, in particular the extradition clauses, was highly controversial and evoked strong reactions. In particular, many were concerned that the legislation could severely infringe civil rights and lead to grave miscarriages of justice. These strong views were reflected in the debate on the Bill and it had a tortuous passage through the Parliament. It was introduced into the Parliament in October 1987 and took sixteen months to pass. Michael Macklin, then Deputy Leader of the Democrats, recalled his reasons for delivering this brutally graphic and highly emotional speech: I was concerned that the debate on war crimes had gone on so long and become so detailed that the term ‘war crimes’ had lost its meaning for most people and had become a phrase no more stark than ‘balance of payments’ or ‘hamburger chain’. I re-read the transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials and surprised even myself when I delivered this speech, with all its horror, in tears. 1
Sir Hartley Shawcross, Chief Prosecutor for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, said in his opening speech at the trials in Nuremberg of major German war criminals that with the passage of time there will be a tendency to discount, perhaps because of their very horror, the stories of aggression and atrocity. It was for this reason that he saw the Nuremberg trials as a ‘touchstone and an authoritative and impartial record to which future historians may turn for truth and future politicians for warning.’ 247
0885-main.qx5
248
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 248
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor for the United States, declared that the London Agreement upon which the Nuremberg Charter was based ‘for the first time made explicit and unambiguous what was heretofore . . . implicit in international law, namely that to prepare, incite, or wage a war of aggression, or to conspire with others to do so is a crime against international society; and that to persecute, oppress, or do violence to individuals or minorities on political, racial, or religious grounds in connection with such a war; or to exterminate, enslave or deport civilian populations is an international crime and that for the commission of such crimes individuals are responsible’. The Charter had atrocities committed in the concentration camps at the head of its list of criminal charges. These were committed against prisoners of war— including Australians—and against civilians. The charges were not against soldiers in the customary lines of battle. It was not the intent of the subsequent trials to indict war as such, nor to curb what soldiers did to other able bodied soldiers. Traditionally war had maintained a combatant—non-combatant distinction and the extermination camps had racially violated this distinction. When one turns to the documents of the trials, one is encompassed in horror— the enslavement and deportation of millions, the murder and savage treatment of prisoners of war, the mass executions of civilians, the shooting of hostages and the attempt to eliminate whole races of people . . . As one goes through the passages of the Nuremberg trials, as I have done, one comes across the horror of deportation from occupied Western Europe: 6,000 from tiny Luxembourg, 5,200 Danes, 5,400 Norwegians, 12,000 Dutch, 37,000 Belgians and 250,000 French—with fewer than 50,000 returning after the brutal ordeal. These numbers are only for forced labour and do not include the millions for extermination. A few pages later, one comes across the 400 Allied airmen killed because it was decided that the camp that they were in was overcrowded. This tale of carnage is followed by an even more hideous recital—if that were possible—of the crimes committed on the people of the Soviet Union: torture with bars of red-hot iron; eyes gouged out, stomachs ripped open, feet, hands, ears and noses hacked off, arms and legs nailed to stakes. Literally millions stripped of warm clothing by the advancing German armies died of the terrible cold of the war winters. Such numbers are hard to comprehend, but on reading the transcript of the trial one comes across incident after incident that moves one to despair for humanity . . . On average, 200 people died every day in every one of the innumerable prisoner of war camps which sprang up as the eastern front pushed further into the Soviet Union. Thousands upon thousands died on the way to such camps being packed into closed rail trucks without food and water for days on end—one chilling German document in the material of the Nuremberg trials held by the United States matter of factly details how on one such train trip all 1,500 passengers were dead on arrival at the death camp. All this makes difficult reading when it involves soldiers. How much harder
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 249
WA R
Bookhouse
CRIMES HORROR
249
when it involves citizens—men, women and children. One such crime was the destruction of the village of Licice in Czechoslovakia as a reprisal for the shooting of Heydrich, the so-called Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. At dawn all the men were collected in a stable yard and shot in batches of 10. The shooting went on until 172 male adults had been killed and the executioners were then photographed with the corpses at their feet like a hunting party. Some of the women were immediately shot while the remaining 194 were sent to a concentration camp. Ninety of the children were also killed in the concentration camps while some were declared Aryan and sent to Germany and have not been traced. The bodies of all the murdered men and women were thrown into a common grave, the houses plundered and then burned and demolished, the rubble cleared away and the ground ploughed up and the whole lot surrounded by barbed wire. This was not the first nor the last of such crimes. Random atrocities are found on every page of the transcript . . . The transcript contains accounts from German soldiers as well as from their victims. I quote from one: Some kilometres from Agen when we were passing through a small hamlet of some twelve houses a woman about thirty years old was watching us from a window. Seeing a lorry halted by the roadside, our company commander asked her, ‘Are there any Maquis here?’ ‘No’ she answered. ‘Then whose is the lorry?’ ‘I don’t know’ she replied. Without further questioning she was dragged down from the first floor, undressed, beaten with cudgels and hanged bleeding from a nearby tree.
In Sroda, in Poland, a group were arbitrarily selected and marched through the town with the Gestapo escort beating and torturing them. Arriving at the place of execution, they were forced to dig a ditch with their bare hands as a grave. They were then told to stand in line and were mowed down by machine-guns. Those still alive were finished off with spades and trampled down until the surface was level. This took place in 1939; there were still five long years of the awful Holocaust to run . . . When I was in Europe I visited one of these concentration camps in the German Democratic Republic. This camp is on a wooded hill six miles from Weimar and looks out over a beautiful pastoral valley with little church spires appearing here and there above the tiny villages. This camp was established in 1937 and was for eight years the scene of unbelievable daily barbarism and brutality. I stood in a room and saw tiled cement tables with a depression big enough for a human body to fit in and tapered at the end so that the blood could flow into a bucket from the bodies of the inmates who were experimented upon as human guinea pigs. I saw the building where thousand upon thousand of Soviet prisoners of war were shot through the head by means of being backed towards a vertical measuring standard with an automatic contraption which shot a bullet into the back of the neck as soon as the wooden bar which determined height touched the top of the head . . .
0885-main.qx5
250
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 250
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Nuremberg illustrated that humanity can be defended in court, not against a new offence but against one which has existed since one person took up arms against another. All law is ultimately a political affair. Governments and parliaments have to decide to legislate, to establish courts and the conditions in which they operate; citizens have to give consent to those laws in order that they may operate. Trials for war crimes will not stop war but it is my hope that they will strengthen peace . . . There is no accurate record of the total number of war trials which have been conducted since World War II based on the Nuremberg Tribunal precedent. At Dachau, to mention only one camp where trials were held, the United States tried 1,672 accused and convicted 1,416 of them. There were 450 separate tribunals in the Pacific area alone where one or more accused were tried for war crimes. War crime trials have been conducted in many countries around the world on an almost continuous basis since 1945 . . . I believe that as a nation we have a solemn obligation both to those who were murdered and to their Australian families and friends. I believe that we have a solemn obligation to those Australians who, surviving cruel and inhuman tortures, came to build a new life in this country. I believe that we have a solemn obligation to pursue justice for them and for all humanity. I cannot say to the victims who still bear the marks on their bodies, ‘Just forget about it’. I cannot say to those people whose mother, father, brother, sister, aunt and uncle were butchered in the unspeakable ways I have detailed, ‘Just forget about it’. Finally, I cannot say to my children when asked about my attitude to such loathsome crimes, ‘I just forgot about it’. I will vote for this Bill.2
k Michael Macklin (1943–), Australian Democrats, Senator for Queensland 1981–90.
k Ultimately, the Bill was passed in a significantly amended form. Three people were charged with war crimes but none convicted. Further amendments to the War Crimes Act in December 1999 allowed extradition of suspected war criminals and, together with an extradition agreement with Latvia, this allowed proceedings to commence against Konrads Kalejs in 2001. He died before these could be concluded, as did Antanis Gudelis and Karlis Ozols who were under investigation by Lithuania and Latvia respectively. According to Dr Colin Rubenstein, Executive Director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council: While the various attempts of Australian governments since the late 1980s to take action against Nazi war criminals in Australia, through direct prosecutions or extradition, have been both principled and courageous, it is unfortunate that, largely due to the lack of evidence these have not succeeded, in contrast to marked success enjoyed in some other democracies throughout the last decade.3
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 251
Bookhouse
CENTENARY YEARS
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 252
Bookhouse
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 253
Bookhouse
‘. . . aggressors must not be permitted to prevail . . .’
The first Gulf War
B OB H AWKE , Prime Minister, 4 December 1990 In August 1990 Kuwait was conquered and occupied by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army. The United Nations demanded an unconditional withdrawal but sanctions imposed by the UN seemed to have little effect. The occupying Iraqi forces remained in place. On 29 November 1990, the UN Security Council gave Saddam Hussein until 15 January 1991 to withdraw his forces. On 4 December 1990, Prime Minister Bob Hawke made a statement to the parliament committing an Australian naval taskforce to the coalition forces. Hawke’s speech was described as ‘one of his best’.1 It was pointedly directed towards sections of the Labor Party unhappy with the government’s position. Hawke later described the Gulf War as, ‘in many ways the most demanding single challenge I dealt with in my public life’.2 . . . Honourable members will know that on 29 November the Security Council of the United Nations passed an extremely grave resolution. That resolution is momentous, and in some respects it is quite unprecedented. Resolution 678 authorises member states of the United Nations, from 15 January 1991, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement the Security Council’s previous resolutions on the Gulf crisis. Essentially, those previous resolutions call on Iraq to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait, and to release all hostages. The resolution also requests all states to provide appropriate support for actions taken under the resolution. The words ‘all necessary means’ carry a clear meaning in this resolution: they encompass the use of armed force to compel compliance with the Security Council’s resolutions. The United Nations has often authorised the deployment of military 253
0885-main.qx5
254
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 254
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
forces to prevent conflict; but only once before has it authorised the use of armed force to compel compliance with its resolutions—in Korea, 40 years ago. Korea is in that respect a precedent for the action which the Security Council has now taken. But in other respects, and in very important respects, this resolution is quite unprecedented. Never before has such a grave and momentous resolution been so broadly supported. Honourable members will know that the resolution was carried by a vote of 12 to 2, with one abstention . . . The gravity of the situation makes it important to restate the reasons we believe that Iraq’s actions must be reversed, even to the point of using armed force, and why we believe that important Australian interests are at stake. Iraq’s seizure of Kuwait was an act of pure aggression, motivated solely by the desire of Iraq’s leaders to increase their territory, their wealth and their power . . . Who could doubt that, having swallowed Kuwait, a stronger Iraq would not then turn on its other neighbours? Who will explain how Iraq could then be prevented from establishing an hegemony over the entire region; an hegemony backed not only by chemical weapons, but sooner or later by nuclear weapons as well? And who could doubt the brutality of that hegemony? These are not scaremongering speculations. They are serious assessments of the regional consequences of allowing Iraq’s aggression to stand. They carry with them the terrible question: were we to turn a blind eye now, what still greater crisis, with what still greater stakes, would we have to act to resolve in the future, at what still greater cost? These are crucial issues. They relate to the fate of vast numbers of our fellow human beings. But these humanitarian concerns do not stand alone. They stand alongside, and reinforce, important Australian interests which are deeply engaged in the Gulf. First, Australia has a direct and immediate interest in the peace and prosperity of the Middle East. It is an important market for our products and an important source of imports. Australia needs the Gulf’s oil, and our trading partners elsewhere in the world need the Gulf’s oil. So stability in the Gulf is important to all Australians. But most important of all, standing higher than all the factors I have mentioned, Australia has an interest in the establishment and maintenance of an international order based on the charter of the United Nations. This has been from the outset, and remains, the Government’s guiding principle in this crisis. Our highest priority is to uphold the principles of the United Nations: that international disputes must not be settled by force; that national borders must be respected; and that aggressors must not be permitted to prevail . . . The security and prosperity of middle powers like Australia will in the years ahead depend directly on the strength of the United Nations’ principles. The strength of those principles in the years ahead depends absolutely on the support we give them today. To put it bluntly: if we or our neighbours were subject to aggression in the future, we would want, and we may need, the support of the
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 255
THE
Bookhouse
FIRST
G U L F WA R
255
United Nations. It is in our interests to support the United Nations today. That support must include our recognition that the United Nations should be willing to defend its principles with armed force if necessary . . . We would all fervently hope for a peaceful resolution. But if we rule out the use of force against a regime which has already used it, we have given up seeking a resolution at all. The international community would have simply acquiesced in Iraq’s aggression . . . The Government will now authorise the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to deploy ships of our task force from the Gulf of Oman into the Persian Gulf to exercise and operate with allied naval forces in preparation for that role. The ADF will also now participate in allied military planning. These steps need to be taken now because they are essential to ensuring that our ships are fully prepared to operate as safely and effectively as possible should conflict erupt. They do not formally commit Australian forces to any action; ADF units will remain at all times under Australian national command . . . I know there will be some who will ask why we should contribute in the Gulf when others do not. The essential answer to this is: what others do or do not do does not obviate our responsibility to judge for ourselves what is right, and what is in our interests, and to act accordingly. We also need to recognise that not only should we contribute but, unlike many others, we can contribute; we have a relevant capability to contribute. I know there will also be some who cavil at the leading role being played in the Gulf by the United States. They will suspect that other nations which participate will only be serving American interests. That view is profoundly mistaken. The United States is certainly playing a leading role, as we would expect from a nation as wealthy and powerful as the United States. Indeed, we would be disappointed if the United States did not play such a leading role. But the United States’ role has been clearly at one in this case with the wider interests of the international community, as demonstrated by the support for resolution 678 in the Security Council. There are even those who have purported to base their assessment of the Gulf situation on the presumption of moral equivalence between the United States and Iraqi positions. If such views were to be taken seriously, it would reflect very poorly on the standard of our public debate. Let there be no ambiguity here, no mindless muddying of the waters. If it comes to conflict, the international community will not be the aggressor. The United States and the other allies will not be the aggressor. The aggressor is the nation that took, occupied and annexed Kuwait in August. The Australian Labor Party comes to this issue with a lot of history. For much of its 100 years the Australian Labor Party has struggled to ensure that Australia’s armed forces are not used to fight other people’s wars. In the 1930s that led Labor to turn its back on aggression, as so many others did in so many parts of the world. But Labor learnt the lesson of that mistake, and did more than its share to correct it. Dr Evatt recognised not only that aggression must be resisted, wherever
0885-main.qx5
256
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 256
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Prime Minister Bob Hawke in the House of Representatives Chamber, 1990. AUSPIC
it occurs, and by armed force if need be, but also that all nations must be prepared to contribute to that task. As he said in 1945: It must be made crystal clear that the nations seeking representation in the world organisation must be prepared to contribute their share of physical force to restrain the action of proved aggressors.
Since its establishment, Labor has been committed to strengthening the United Nations as the arbiter of a better world order. That is still our goal, more so than ever, as the passing of the Cold War brings the goal closer to our grasp. And we recognise the obligations which those aspirations impose on us as a nation. Confident as I am of the importance of Australia’s interests and the correctness of our approach, I cannot—and do not—deny that the decisions we are taking are onerous indeed. Should it come to conflict, Australians may be involved in combat for the first time in nearly 20 years—albeit in very different circumstances. This is a heavy responsibility, but I and my Government will not shirk the exercise of that responsibility . . .3
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 257
THE
Bookhouse
FIRST
G U L F WA R
257
Robert (Bob) Hawke (1929–), Australian Labor Party, Member for Wills 1980–92. Positions held: Leader of the Opposition February–March 1983, Prime Minister 1983–91.
k Dr John Hewson, the leader of the opposition, supported the government’s commitment to the UN forces. Air attacks on Iraq started on 17 January 1991 and on Sunday 24 February, coalition forces commenced ground operations. In his memoirs Hawke wrote that it was all over in one hundred hours. He also stated why coalitiion forces did not continue the task of removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq itself: Some people argued that the job was not finished, that the coalition forces should have pushed on to Baghdad and destroyed Saddam Hussein’s régime. I never shared that view, for two reasons. First, the UN resolutions did not give us authority to do it and to defy the UN in the moment of victory would have undermined the moral basis of all that we had been fighting for. Second, we had no idea what it would take to topple Saddam and no idea of whom to set up in his place. The UN military action in the Gulf succeeded because it had very clearly defined military objectives.4
Twelve years later, Australian military forces again joined other nations in fighting in Iraq (see speech at pages 299–303). This time, Saddam Hussein’s régime was ousted in light of its continued defiance of UN attempts to search the country for weapons of mass destruction.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 258
Bookhouse
‘. . . a new relationship between indigenous and other Australians.’
Legislating the Mabo decision PAUL K EATING , Prime Minister, 16 November 1993 In introducing the Native Title Bill, Paul Keating started one of the longest debates in parliamentary history. The Bill gave effect to the High Court’s controversial Mabo decision, which recognised native title and abolished the concept of terra nullius. Supporters of the Bill claimed it represented an historic turning point in the nation’s history and would, in Keating’s words, provide the basis for, ‘a new relationship between indigenous and other Australians’.1 Today is a milestone. A response to another milestone: the High Court’s decision in the Mabo case. The High Court has determined that Australian law should not, as Justice Brennan said, be ‘frozen in an era of racial discrimination’. Its decision in the Mabo case ended the pernicious legal deceit of terra nullius for all of Australia—and for all time. The court described the situation faced by Aboriginal people after European settlement. The court saw a ‘conflagration of oppression and conflict which was, over the following century, to spread across the continent to dispossess, degrade and devastate the Aboriginal people’. They faced ‘deprivation of the religious, cultural and economic sustenance which the land provides’ and were left as ‘intruders in their own homes’. To deny these basic facts would be to deny history—and no self-respecting democracy can deny its history. To deny these facts would be to deny part of ourselves as Australians. This is not guilt: it is recognising the truth. The truth about the past and, equally, the truth about our contemporary reality. It is not a symptom of guilt to look reality in the eye—it is a symptom of guilt to look away, to deny what is 258
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 259
L E G I S L AT I N G
Bookhouse
THE
MABO
DECISION
259
there. But what is worse than guilt, surely, is irresponsibility. To see what is there and not act upon it—that is a symptom of weakness. That is failure. Mr Speaker, some seem to see the High Court as having just handed Australia a problem. The fact is that the High Court has handed this nation an opportunity. When I spoke last December in Redfern at the Australian launch of the International Year for the World’s Indigenous People, I said we could make the Mabo decision an historic turning point: the basis of a new relationship between indigenous and other Australians. For the 17 months since the High Court handed down its decision, the government has worked to meet this challenge . . . As Prime Minister, I have made our response to the Mabo decision a personal priority. The Mabo committee of ministers has worked tirelessly. A team of officials has provided continuous support. Right from the start, the government recognised the national and historic importance of a proper response to the Mabo decision, and put in place a year-long process of consultation and detailed policy development. Also right from the start, we made our twin goals clear: to do justice to the Mabo decision in protecting native title and to ensure workable, certain, land management. We held extensive talks with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, state and territory governments and the mining and pastoral industries. Our processes were open. We kept on talking—always on the basis of accepting the Mabo decision and wanting to make it work . . . I will not say it was easy. Good policy rarely is. And the result will not—and could never—satisfy everyone. If it is to be good legislation it should not even try. This legislation is principled and workable, the product of a sustained and thorough policy process. Mr Speaker, this has been a huge undertaking on a subject of immense complexity. The rewards for the nation of getting it right are also immense. To retreat from this challenge, to say that this opportunity is beyond our reach as a nation, beyond the limits of our collective intellect and goodwill, would be to betray not just the indigenous people of Australia but ourselves, our traditions and our future. It is to be hoped, Mr Speaker, that those who have so far confined their role in Mabo to spoiling and oversimplification will now bring a constructive approach to their examination of this proposal. The process has already seen much goodwill in the community, not least from people and groups whose interests and points of view are very different. Let us carry that goodwill into this parliament . . . The bill has four key aspects: • • •
ungrudging and unambiguous recognition and protection of native title; provision for clear and certain validation of past acts—including grants and laws—if they have been invalidated because of the existence of native title; a just and practical regime governing future grants and acts affecting native title; and
0885-main.qx5
260 •
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 260
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
rigorous, specialised and accessible tribunal and court processes for determining claims to native title and for negotiation and decisions on proposed grants over native title land . . .
Mr Speaker, native title is derived from the traditional laws and customs of indigenous people. These may vary considerably across Australia. This bill does not codify native title rights. Rather it provides that, in determining native title claims, the federal or state bodies involved will ascertain the rights in each particular case. Because the foundation of our position is acceptance of the High Court’s decision, the bill protects native title to the maximum extent practicable. Under the bill, native title, once determined, will be held by a body corporate representing the native title holders concerned. This will facilitate dealings in relation to the land and will endure over time . . . Industry gains a very great deal from this bill because it imposes clear, statutory rules for land use where the Mabo decision left uncertainty. The bill does not lock land away. On the contrary, as I have explained, we are not setting up complicated barriers to mining exploration or operations . . . The bill will ensure the validity of legislative regimes governing economic activities offshore—those relating to commercial fisheries and petroleum extraction operations being of particular note. However, recognising the different circumstances applying offshore, while any future grants or interests will have to be issued in a nondiscriminatory manner, they will not be subject to the freehold test or to the associated negotiation and arbitration procedures. In general, the bill provides that governments can confirm any existing ownership of natural resources, including forests and minerals. But any future acquisition of natural resources from native titleholders must—properly—be on a non-discriminatory basis . . . In the interests of fairness for existing grant holders, where compensation is owed to native titleholders for validation of past grants, it will be government, not the grant holder, who pays. We recognise that the Commonwealth should make a proper contribution towards compensation costs. We will have further discussions with the states and territories willing to join with us in this national approach, as well as on cost sharing for the legal and administrative regime . . . The government has always recognised that despite its historic significance, the Mabo decision gives little more than a sense of justice to those Aboriginal communities whose native title has been extinguished or lost without consultation, negotiation or compensation. Their dispossession has been total, their loss has been complete . . . While these communities remain dispossessed of land, their economic marginalisation and their sense of injury continues. As a first step, we are establishing a land fund. It will enable indigenous people to acquire land and to manage and maintain it in a sustainable way in order to provide economic, social and cultural benefits for future generations. Addressing dispossession is essential but will not be enough to overcome the legacy of the past and achieve reconciliation . . .
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 261
L E G I S L AT I N G
Bookhouse
THE
MABO
DECISION
261
The land management challenges posed by Mabo are hugely important and they are comprehensively dealt with in the bill. But let me conclude, as I started, on the wider significance of the Mabo case. For today, as a nation, we take a major step towards a new and better relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. We give the indigenous people of Australia, at last, the standing they are owed as the original occupants of this continent, the standing they are owed as seminal contributors to our national life and culture: as workers, soldiers, explorers, artists, sportsmen and women—as a defining element in the character of this nation— and the standing they are owed as victims of grave injustices, as people who have survived the loss of their land and the shattering of their culture. Who can say that we would have survived these experiences as well as they have? Today we offer a modicum of justice to indigenous Australians because we have reached an understanding of their experience—and our responsibility. Today we move that much closer to a united Australia which respects this land of ours, values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and provides justice and equality for all . . .2
k Paul Keating (1944–), Australian Labor Party, Member for Blaxland 1969–96. Positions held: Minister for Northern Australia 1975, Treasurer 1983–91, Prime Minister 1991–96.
k The Coalition parties, while accepting the existence of native title, strongly opposed the Bill. Dr John Hewson, the Leader of the Opposition, said: We will be voting against such legislation for one basic reason: it is bad legislation for Australia. It is bad legislation because it goes way beyond what the High Court decided in the Mabo case. It is bad because it creates enormous complexity, delay, uncertainty, and division in Australian society. It is bad because it assumes a mistaken view of the root cause of Aboriginal and Islander disadvantage. It is bad, because without good reason, it constrains future opportunities for national development to the detriment of all Australians, and creates future financial liabilities, the scale of which no-one can predict.3
The Native Title Bill finally passed through the Senate on 21 December 1993, after over fifty hours of debate. As the President of the Senate, Kerry Sibraa declared the vote, the public galleries erupted in cheers and clapping. Senator Gareth Evans, Leader of the Government in the Senate, who had shepherded the Bill through the chamber, raised his fist in a triumphal salute to the cheering galleries. In a famous gesture, he walked across the chamber to kiss Senator Cheryl Kernot, Leader of the Democrats, who had played a key role in securing passage of the legislation.
0885-main.qx5
262
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 262
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Ron Brunton, a prominent anthropologist and public affairs commentator, assessed the first ten years of the Native Title Bill: Although Aborigines in some parts of Australia have gained benefits, recent Federal and High Court decisions indicate that the high expectations aroused by the Mabo decision and the Keating Government’s subsequent legislation will not be fulfilled, as native title is unlikely to exist over much of the country. Some prominent Aborigines have gone so far as to state that native title has been a ‘disaster’, creating serious divisions within communities while delivering few positive outcomes. Conversely, although native title claims have hindered development in many areas, the negative economic effects have not been as serious as many non-Aborigines feared.4
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 263
Bookhouse
‘. . . Australia’s Head of State should be an Australian . . .’
An Australian republic by 2001 PAUL K EATING , Prime Minister, 7 June 1995 Six years before Australia celebrated the Centenary of Federation, Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating proposed that Australia should become a republic. In launching this campaign he focussed on the argument that the nation needed to have ‘an Australian Head of State’.1 Opinion polls were generally in favour of a republic. The opposition leader, John Howard, was a strong supporter of the existing constitutional arrangements while a number of members of his shadow cabinet supported Australia becoming a republic. Keating’s carefully crafted speech was designed to appeal to Labor’s heartland and to divide the Liberals. Ian Sinclair, a senior National Party figure and formerly a minister in the Fraser and preceding coalition Governments praised Keating’s statement; ‘it was the best speech, the most statesman-like speech, I have ever heard him make’.2 It is the Government’s view that Australia’s Head of State should be an Australian— that Australia should become a republic by the year 2001. Tonight I shall describe the means by which we believe this ought to be done. Honourable members will recall that to fulfil an undertaking given during the last election campaign, on 28 April 1993 the Government established a Republic Advisory Committee to prepare an options paper which would describe the minimum constitutional changes necessary to create a federal republic of Australia . . . In the eighteen months which have passed since the release of the Report, the idea of an Australian republic has come to occupy a central place in our national political debate: not only in this Parliament but within the political parties, in major 263
0885-main.qx5
264
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 264
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
representative and community bodies, in schools and universities, communities at large and, I daresay, around countless Australian dinner tables. In the process many Australians have come to favour a Republic. Just as many, perhaps, now believe it is inevitable. Many may regret the prospect of change and be unsure about the means by which it can be achieved, but recognise that sooner or later we must have an Australian as our Head of State. That one small step would make Australia a republic. Governments can wait for opinion to force their hand, or they can lead. They can wait for the world to change and respond as necessity demands, or they can see the way the world is going and point the way. We are approaching the 21st century and the centenary of our nationhood. As never before we are making our own way in our region and the world. For us the world is going—and we are going—in a way which makes our having the British monarch as our Head of State increasingly anomalous. The fact is that if the plans for our nationhood were being drawn up now, by this generation of Australians and not those of a century ago, it is beyond question that we would make our Head of State an Australian. Any suggestion that the British monarch would fill the role would not be entertained. This is not because our generation lacks respect for the British monarchy, or the British people, or our British heritage, or the British institutions we have made our own, or our long friendship with the British in peace and in war. On the contrary, Australians everywhere respect them, as they respect The Queen. But they are not Australian. It is so obvious, that if we were just now drawing up our constitution, we probably would not even feel the need to say that the Australian Head of State will be Australian—it would go without saying . . . But the creation of an Australian republic is not an act of rejection. It is one of recognition: in making the change we will recognise that our deepest respect is for our Australian heritage, our deepest affection is for Australia, and our deepest responsibility is to Australia’s future. Nothing in the creation of an Australian republic will alter the facts of our heritage and our affections. Indeed our relationship with Britain may well become the more thoroughly ‘modern relationship’ which the British Prime Minister expressed a desire for two years ago. The development of a mature and modern relationship will certainly not be inhibited by recognition of the truth. We are friends with separate destinies to carve out in the world. We are not as we once were, in a parent–child relationship . . . It is not a radical undertaking that we propose. In proposing that our head of state should be an Australian we are proposing nothing more than the obvious. Our head of state should embody and represent Australia’s values and traditions, Australia’s experience and aspirations. We need not apologise for the nationalism in these sentiments, but in truth they contain as much commonsense as patriotism . . .
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 265
Bookhouse
AN AUSTRALIAN
REPUBLIC BY
2001
265
At present, under the Constitution, Australia’s Head of State is The Queen and her “heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”. Anyone reading the Australian Constitution who is unfamiliar with the practical realities of Australian government would assume that the role of the monarch was central. In fact, the involvement of the British monarch in Australia’s affairs is now very limited. The Queen’s role as Head of State is in most respects carried out by the Governor-General. Of the responsibilities The Queen retains, the most notable is her appointment of the Governor-General which, by convention, she does on the advice of the Prime Minister . . . The Queen of Australia is also Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other countries in the United Nations. Notwithstanding that The Queen is Australia’s Head of State and fulfils that duty conscientiously, when she travels overseas she represents only the United Kingdom. Her visits abroad often tend to promote British trade and British interests— they do not promote Australia’s trade and interests. This is, of course, right and proper for the Head of State of the United Kingdom. But it is not right for Australia. The right Head of State for Australia is one of us, embodying the things for which we stand, reminding us of those things at home and representing them abroad. We number among those things fairness, tolerance and love of this country. It is a role only an Australian can fill. Each and every Australian should be able to aspire to be our Head of State. Every Australian should know that the office will always be filled by a citizen of high standing who has made an outstanding contribution to Australia and who, in making it, has enlarged our view of what it is to be Australian. In these and other ways, the creation of an Australian republic can actually deliver a heightened sense of unity, it can enliven our national spirit and, in our own minds and those of our neighbours, answer beyond doubt the perennial question of Australian identity—the question of who we are and what we stand for. The answer is not what having a foreign Head of State suggests. We are not a political or cultural appendage to another country’s past. We are simply and unambiguously Australian. If only by a small degree an Australian republic fulfilled these ideals then it would be worth it . . . We therefore intend to ask the Australian people if they want an Australian republic with an Australian Head of State. The change we propose has very limited implications for the design of Australia’s democracy. It is the so-called “minimalist” option. All the essential Constitutional principles and practices which have worked well and evolved constructively over the last hundred years will remain in place . . . The Head of State will assume the Governor-General’s constitutional duties, most of which are, by convention, performed in accordance with the advice of the government of the day. These include summoning and dissolving the House of
0885-main.qx5
266
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 266
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Representatives and the Parliament as a whole and issuing writs for Federal elections. The Head of State will also take over the Governor-General’s role as titular Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. In line with actual practice, we propose that the Constitution be amended to make clear that the Head of State will exercise these constitutional duties on the advice of the government of the day. Finally, the Head of State will retain those very few powers now held by the Governor-General which, in the most exceptional circumstances, may be exercised without, or possibly contrary to, Ministerial advice. These are the so-called reserve powers. The Republic Advisory Committee identified these powers as: the power to appoint the Prime Minister; the power to dismiss the Prime Minister and therefore the government; and the power to refuse a request by the Prime Minister to dissolve one or both Houses of the Parliament . . . We therefore propose, as the Republic Advisory Committee suggested, that the Head of State be elected by a two-thirds majority vote in a joint sitting of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament on the nomination of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Such a joint sitting would be a unique occasion, bringing together all the political parties, and both Houses of the Parliament, in a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. Obviously, before the vote was taken the non-government parties would have to be consulted to ensure that the candidate had their support. It would be impossible for any government to dictate the outcome of this process. A two-thirds majority vote of both Houses would require bipartisan support and ensure that the Head of State had the blessing of all the major parties. The RAC report makes the point that a two-thirds majority in the present parliament would require the votes of 40 more members than the Government presently has. In fact, no government since World War II has enjoyed a two-thirds majority . . . As an additional step to ensure that the office of Head of State is not politicised, the Government proposes that serving and former parliamentarians—Commonwealth, State and Territory—be excluded from candidature until five years have passed since their departure from parliament . . . The detail of the changes we propose may at first glance obscure the meaning of them. The meaning is simple and, we believe, irresistible—as simple and irresistible as the idea of a Commonwealth of Australia was to the Australians of a century ago. The meaning then was a nation united in common cause for the common good. A nation which gave expression to the lives we lead together on this continent, the experience and hopes we share as Australians. The meaning now is still a product of that founding sentiment—it is that we are all Australians. We share a continent. We share a past, a present and a future. And our Head of State should be one of us.3
k
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 267
Bookhouse
AN AUSTRALIAN
REPUBLIC BY
2001
267
Paul Keating speaks in the House of Representatives, 1993. NEWSPIX.
Paul Keating (1944–), Australian Labor Party, Member for Blaxland 1969–96, Positions held: Minister for Northern Australia 1975, Treasurer 1983–91, Prime Minister 1991–96.
k The need for an Australian head of state put forward by Keating was designed to maximise popular appeal for a republic. There was an alternative argument that the nation already had an Australian head of state in the Governor-General. However, Keating’s argument was designed to appeal to those members of the public who were concerned about the ‘British Queen’. Two days after Keating’s statement on the Australian republic, John Howard responded by arguing for a people’s convention to consider the issue of a republic. The defeat of the Keating Government in 1996 meant that the initiative on the republic fell to the Coalition Government. The People’s Convention advocated by the Coalition was held in February 1998. A majority of delegates supported Australia becoming a republic, but were divided over the method of election of a President. The referendum was held on 6 November 1999. The question asked of Australians was whether, ‘the Constitution should be altered to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a Republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of Parliament’. Almost 55 per cent of Australians voted against this proposal. The republic referendum failed to pass in each of the six states, succeeding only in the ACT.4
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 268
Bookhouse
‘Wake up Australia, before it is too late . . .’
Maiden speech
PAULINE H ANSON , Member for Oxley, 10 September 1996 In the hundred years of federation probably no first speech has caused more widespread controversy than that delivered by Pauline Hanson. Following considerable public controversy about reports of her remarks about race, Ms Hanson stood for election as an independent at the 1996 federal election. Her campaign attracted much media attention, as did her first speech. A senior press gallery journalist described the scene in the House of Representatives: When Pauline Hanson rose to make her maiden speech to the Federal Parliament on Tuesday night, it was as though there had been a bomb scare in the House . . . Not one Labor MP was present. Just a scattering of Coalition MPs stayed to listen, along with three of her fellow Independents. Few first speeches to parliament have been made to so few. Yet it was an extraordinary first speech. A maiden speech the likes of which the Australian Parliament has not heard before.1
Alan Ramsey, another senior journalist in the press gallery, summarised the impact of Hanson’s speech: ‘Probably no single backbench politician ever created more continuing controversy—or struck a more responsive public chord—with his or her first parliamentary speech.’ 2 . . . I come here not as a polished politician but as a woman who has had her fair share of life’s knocks. My view on issues is based on commonsense, and my experience as a mother of four children, as a sole parent, and as a businesswoman running a fish and chip 268
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 269
Bookhouse
MAIDEN
SPEECH
269
shop. I won the seat of Oxley largely on an issue that has resulted in me being called a racist. That issue related to my comment that Aboriginals received more benefits than non-Aboriginals. We now have a situation where a type of reverse racism is applied to mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctness and those who control the various taxpayer funded ‘industries’ that flourish in our society servicing Aboriginals, multiculturalists and a host of other minority groups . . . Present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, moneys and facilities available only to Aboriginals. Along with millions of Australians, I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the government and paid for by the taxpayer under the assumption that Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in Australia. I do not believe that the colour of one’s skin determines whether you are disadvantaged . . . I have done research on benefits available only to Aboriginals and challenge anyone to tell me how Aboriginals are disadvantaged when they can obtain three and five per cent housing loans denied to non-Aboriginals. This nation is being divided into black and white, and the present system encourages this. I am fed up with being told, ‘This is our land.’ Well, where the hell do I go? I was born here, and so were my parents and children. I will work beside anyone and they will be my equal but I draw the line when told I must pay and continue paying for something that happened over 200 years ago. Like most Australians, I worked for my land; no-one gave it to me . . . The majority of Aboriginals do not want handouts because they realise that welfare is killing them. This quote says it all: ‘If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime.’ . . . Reconciliation is everyone recognising and treating each other as equals, and everyone must be responsible for their own actions. This is why I am calling for ATSIC to be abolished. It is a failed, hypocritical and discriminatory organisation that has failed dismally the people it was meant to serve. It will take more than Senator Herron’s surgical skills to correct the terminal mess it is in . . . If politicians continue to promote separatism in Australia, they should not continue to hold their seats in this parliament. They are not truly representing all Australians, and I call on the people to throw them out. To survive in peace and harmony, united and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag. The greatest cause of family breakdown is unemployment. This country of ours has the richest mineral deposits in the world and vast rich lands for agriculture and is surrounded by oceans that provide a wealth of seafood, yet we are $190 billion in debt with an interest bill that is strangling us . . . In real dollar terms, our standard of living has dropped over the past 10 years. In the 1960s, our wages increase ran at three per cent and unemployment at two per cent. Today, not only is there no wage increase, we have gone backwards and
0885-main.qx5
270
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 270
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
unemployment is officially 8.6 per cent. The real figure must be close to 12 to 13 per cent . . . We have lost all our big Australian industries and icons, including Qantas when it sold 25 per cent of its shares and a controlling interest to British Airways. Now this government want [sic] to sell Telstra, a company that made a $1.2 billion profit last year and will make a $2 billion profit this year. But, first, they want to sack 54,000 employees to show better profits and share prices. Anyone with business sense knows that you do not sell off your assets especially when they are making money. I may be only ‘a fish and chip shop lady’, but some of these economists need to get their heads out of the textbooks and get a job in the real world. I would not even let one of them handle my grocery shopping. Immigration and multiculturalism are issues that this government is trying to address, but for far too long ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties. I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 per cent of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country. A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united. The world is full of failed and tragic examples, ranging from Ireland to Bosnia to Africa and, closer to home, Papua New Guinea. America and Great Britain are currently paying the price. Arthur Calwell was a great Australian and Labor leader, and it is a pity that there are not men of his stature sitting on the opposition benches today. Arthur Calwell said: Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90% of Australians.
I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell . . . In this financial year we will be spending at least $1.5 billion on foreign aid and we cannot be sure that this money will be properly spent, as corruption and mismanagement in many of the recipient countries are legend. Australia must review its membership and funding of the UN, as it is a little like ATSIC on a grander scale, with huge tax-free American dollar salaries, duty-free luxury cars and diplomatic status . . . Abolishing the policy of multiculturalism will save billions of dollars and allow those from ethnic backgrounds to join mainstream Australia, paving the way to a strong, united country. Immigration must be halted in the short term so that our dole queues are not added to by, in many cases, unskilled migrants not fluent in
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 271
Bookhouse
MAIDEN
SPEECH
271
the English language. This would be one positive step to rescue many young and older Australians from a predicament which has become a national disgrace and crisis. I must stress at this stage that I do not consider those people from ethnic backgrounds currently living in Australia anything but first-class citizens, provided of course that they give this country their full, undivided loyalty. The government must be imaginative enough to become involved, in the short term at least, in job creating projects that will help establish the foundation for a resurgence of national development and enterprise. Such schemes would be the building of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line, new roads and ports, water conservation, reafforestation and other sensible and practical environmental projects. Therefore I call for the introduction of national service for a period of 12 months, compulsory for males and females upon finishing year 12 or reaching 18 years of age. This could be a civil service with a touch of military training, because I do not feel we can go on living in a dream world forever and a day believing that war will never touch our lives again . . . Time is running out. We may have only 10 to 15 years left to turn things around. Because of our resources and our position in the world, we will not have a say because neighbouring countries such as Japan, with 125 million people; China, with 1.2 billion people; India, with 846 million people; Indonesia, with 178 million people; and Malaysia, with 20 million people are well aware of our resources and potential. Wake up, Australia, before it is too late . . . Everything I have said is relevant to my electorate of Oxley, which is typical of mainstream Australia. I do have concerns for my country and I am going to do my best to speak my mind and stand up for what I believe in. As an Independent I am confident that I can look after the needs of the people of Oxley and I will always be guided by their advice. It is refreshing to be able to express my views without having to toe a party line. It has got me into trouble on the odd occasion, but I am not going to stop saying what I think. I consider myself just an ordinary Australian who wants to keep this great country strong and independent, and my greatest desire is to see all Australians treat each other as equals as we travel together towards the new century . . . I thank you for your attention and trust that you will not think me presumptuous if I dedicate this speech to the people of Oxley and those Australians who have supported me. I salute them all.3
k Pauline Hanson (1954– ), Independent 1996–97, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation 1997–98, Member for Oxley 1996–98. Positions held: Creator and Leader of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party.
k
0885-main.qx5
272
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 272
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The speech was widely attacked as racist, bigoted and offensive. Subsequently, the parliament unanimously endorsed a motion denouncing racial intolerance and reaffirming the right of all Australians to be treated with equal respect, ‘regardless of race, colour, creed or origin’. However, Pauline Hanson continued to gather public support. Her party, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, was formed in April 1997. Just a year later it won a stunning eleven seats in the Queensland Parliament. Following a redistribution, Pauline Hanson stood for the new seat of Blair in the 1998 election (which contained large sections of Oxley) and lost. However, with a 14 per cent vote in Queensland a One Nation candidate was able to win a Senate seat. Pauline Hanson tried to re-enter parliament by standing for the Senate in 2001. However, the divisiveness of her policies and internal party divisions, combined with allegations of electoral fraud, had eroded One Nation’s support and she failed in her attempt. In 2003 she stood controversially and unsuccessfully, for the NSW parliament. Shortly afterwards, she was found guilty of electoral fraud and sentenced to three years gaol. She was released from prison after serving eleven weeks when she won an appeal against her conviction.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 273
Bookhouse
‘. . . one people . . . free from fear and persecution.’
Response to Pauline Hanson B ILL O’C HEE , Senator for Queensland, 30 October 1996 Perhaps the most eloquent response to Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech came from Bill O’Chee, a young National Party senator of Asian descent. Senator O’Chee’s own experiences strongly supported the press comments that indicated an upsurge of racist incidents following Hanson’s speech. Those who heard this speech long recall the dramatic description of young school children of Asian descent, who ‘watched the clock in fear as the minute hand ticked closer to lunchtime’ when they would have to leave the safety of their classroom to face playground bullying.1 Today I rise to speak on behalf of people who cannot speak for themselves. I am rising to speak for another generation of Australians who are being asked to pay a price that some of us have already paid. I am rising to speak on behalf of the young school students who are ethnic Asian, but farther in heart from Asia and far closer in heart to Australia than anyone can possibly imagine. I am speaking in this place because it is about time that those young Aussies, the flower of the next generation, received the respect that they deserve in the schools which they attend. In the other place, an honourable member has said that we should halt Asian immigration. There have been claims that Asians are responsible for tuberculosis, that Asians are responsible for crime, and that Asians are responsible for the forthcoming civil war. As every honourable senator knows, each one of those claims was outrageously false and outrageously ill informed. I want to deal with each of those claims briefly. Last century, it was believed that Asians were responsible for leprosy. That was false, just as it is false to say that Asians are responsible for tuberculosis . . . Asians 273
0885-main.qx5
274
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 274
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
coming to this country cannot be responsible for the introduction of tuberculosis, because every person seeking permanent residency in this country has to undergo a health check before they get their residency . . . Asians are not responsible for our crime rate. In fact, to the extent that the Bureau of Criminology keeps statistics of crime rates of different ethnic groups in this country, the ethnic Asian community has one of the lowest crime rates in Australia . . . Then, of course, there is the suggestion that the Asian community in this country is going to cause a civil war. Why would we want to cause a civil war? This is our country; it is our precious homeland in which we were born, in which we were nurtured, and in which we strive to live in freedom and in peace. We have no interest in civil war, we have no interest in strife, and we have no interest in division. Our interest is in peace and equality and freedom. That brings me to the claim that freedom of speech is paramount. Freedom of speech is important. It was one of the things for which our Anzacs fought and died. It was one of the finest, most wondrous gifts which we inherited from the Westminster system. But freedom of speech counts for nothing unless the citizens of a nation enjoy freedom from fear, freedom from violence and freedom from persecution. Together, freedom of speech, freedom from fear, freedom from violence and freedom from persecution are the four great freedoms on which this nation was built. But none is more important than the others, and those who exercise freedom of speech must ensure, just as those who exercise the freedom to drive a car must ensure, that their freedom does not come at the expense of the freedom of others to live safe from fear or persecution or violence. Every freedom in this country is a freedom that must be exercised cautiously and lovingly, if that freedom is to have value. If she truly believes in a united Australia, in one Australia, one people and one flag, it is about time that the honourable member for Oxley, Mrs Hanson, called on her supporters to cease the intimidation and the violence against young Australians of ethnic Asian background. Unless she does so, she gives lie to her claim that she is interested in one Australia. Unless she does so, she divides this country. Unless she says that racial persecution must stop, nobody in this country can have any faith that her comments about building one country are anything other than mere rhetoric. I want to talk about those precious young Australians who are the victims of the consequences of her actions. In hundreds of schools around this country young Australians watched the clock in fear as the minute-hand ticked closer to lunchtime. They knew that once they left the safety of their classroom and entered the playground, they would become the whipping boys and the whipping girls of the fear and paranoia that Mrs Hanson has whipped up in this country. Why do I say that? I say it because I know it. Twenty-five years ago I was one of those children. I do not speak about it often in this place. In fact, I have never spoken about that to this day, but it is true. I understand how Mrs Hanson can feel
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 275
RESPONSE
Bookhouse
TO
PA U L I N E H A N S O N
275
discriminated against when she sees people getting special treatment on the basis of the colour of their skin, and to a certain extent it is discriminatory. But that is nothing in comparison to the real discrimination and fear that these wonderful young people feel as the clock comes round to lunchtime. I really believe that this country is far finer than the vision of hate and division which has been created in the last couple of months. This nation is about upholding the fundamental truths which attract people from the four corners of the world. As the people come to us from the four corners of the world, I propose a foursquare deal for all Australians because there are four truths that underpin everything in Australian society. They are as follows. Freedom—freedom of speech, freedom from fear, freedom from persecution and freedom from violence. A fair go—equality of opportunity regardless of circumstance, regardless of the colour of your skin, regardless of the wealth or poverty of your parents. Mateship—loving one’s countrymen, respecting them and treating them as you would want to be treated yourself. And reward for effort—looking after those who seek to look after themselves. Those are the four great truths upon which this nation was built. They marked the upward passage of our society and turned us from a convict settlement into one of the greatest nations on the face of the earth. They encouraged young Australian men and women to spread these truths to other countries and to other people less fortunate than ourselves. They are the four great truths which we should seek to uphold in this place. Protecting the weak, the needy and the vulnerable are a consequence of the four great truths. If this nation is to have any meaning, if this society is to have any value, we must ensure for all of our citizens the four-square deal which I outline here today. But, most importantly, unless you have lived with fear, unless you have felt it well up in your throat, unless you have come scarred and battered from the battlefield of the intolerant mind, freedom of speech, which is won with little effort and paid for with no sacrifice, is freedom of speech in rhetoric only. It is really freedom to be intolerant. I believe the finest thing we can offer is a tolerant Australia. I say to Mrs Hanson that, if she believes in the Australian spirit, if she believes in one Australia, she should publicly call on those who support her to end the hatred. If she does not, it is not being cruel to be kind, it is being cruel to be cruel. At the end of the day, despite our differences across this chamber, we are here because we love what Australia can be. Do not turn it into something which it should not be or once was and should be for ever regretted. But lift high our hopes, our aspirations and our vision to make one Australia mean one people who live free from fear and free from persecution. I thank the Senate.2
k William (Bill) O’Chee (1965–), National Party, Senator for Queensland 1990–99.
k
0885-main.qx5
276
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 276
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Along with fellow National Party Senator Ron Boswell, Bill O’Chee led the campaign to stop their own party in Queensland giving preferences to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation ahead of the Labor Party, believing that Australia and the National Party would be irreparably compromised by such a deal. While the campaign was successful, Senator O’Chee paid the ultimate political price. He lost his senate seat in 1998. One Nation won the seat in Queensland which traditionally had gone to the National Party.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 277
Bookhouse
‘We can never fathom the depth of your grief . . .’
Death of a daughter
J OHN H ERRON , Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, 2 September 1997 While most of the speeches in the parliament involve legislation, policy or pure politics, there is still scope for the personal and the poignant. The following speech by then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, John Herron, was made shortly after the death of his oldest daughter. He commented: When I was asked what my best speech in parliament had been, I thought back through my many ministerial speeches and those I made when in Shadow Cabinet. But it didn’t take me long to identify the speech I gave on the adjournment to mark the passing of my dear daughter, Maryann, as the best and most heartfelt I had delivered. 1
Last Tuesday my eldest daughter, Maryann, died suddenly at the age of 37. Born with Down Syndrome, we suspect autistic, she never spoke. I speak of this tonight because I believe there is a need for the government and the community to understand the feelings of the families of the intellectually handicapped. One of Maryann’s sisters was overseas at the time of her death. She wrote a letter which summarises the feelings of her nine brothers and sisters: Dear Mum and Dad, Peter and I wanted to send you a note to let you know that we are thinking of you at the moment. We could never imagine how difficult this is for you, but I guess that over here we have been able to cope so much better ourselves remembering how special Maryann really
277
0885-main.qx5
278
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 278
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
is, and how much she has helped all of us be such better people as a result of her just being. We feel so much for just being able to know her. On top of everything that both of you taught us, Maryann taught all of us patience, acceptance, and a fair amount of humility as well. We feel so glad you had the opportunity to do ‘Australian Story’ last year. We also feel an enormous gratitude to you both for speaking so freely about Maryann and exposing yourselves, and her, to everyone else who saw the programme. We were proud to have her as a sister, and proud that you were able to talk about everything so truthfully. People like Maryann so often spend their lives behind closed doors and without acceptance, and you diminished a lot of the stigma for people with the same disabilities, just by exposing our family as it is—we were privileged to have her as part of our family. We can never fathom the depth of your grief, but we hope that you will have the time to grieve that you need. We hope she has a beautiful good-bye service, and we send our love with her. With love, Peter and Catriona
At the requiem mass, Father Jim Spence, a family friend, said the following: In his book No Man is an Island Thomas Merton reminds us that we do not live more fully merely by doing more, seeing more, tasting more, experiencing more. What some of us need to discover is that we will not begin to live more fully until we have the courage to do and taste and see and experience much less. Ultimately we are not judged on our material success in life. St Augustine reminds us: ‘In the evening of life we are judged on love.’ We do not choose our talents, our handicaps, our temperaments. Rather, we are chosen to show aspects of God’s love to the world, to help others grow towards the perfection of love. A handicap is a reminder that no person is an island, that we need each other, that we need opportunities to serve each other. We help each other even by giving people opportunities to serve us, to show love to us. Maryann is one of God’s children who remained childlike—and Jesus reserved a special affection for children. He put his arms around them, laid his hands on them, and gave them his blessing. Our faith tells us that that is what he is doing with Maryann right now. Our hope assures us that ‘We shall all be reunited, when every tear will be wiped away.’ Family and friends will be one again in God’s kingdom. So now we look not at what might have been but rather at what is to come. The hope of eternal glory is the comfort of our faith that brings shining through the sadness the confidence that death has not come to Maryann as a stranger, but as a friend, who took her by the hand and said: Arise, make haste my love, my dove, my beautiful one, and come. The winter is over and gone; The flowers have appeared in our land, The time for singing has come.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 279
D E AT H
Bookhouse
OF A DAUGHTER
279
My wife and I are extremely grateful for the loving care and affection shown Maryann by the Sisters of Mercy and all the staff at the Mercy Centre over the years. She touched many people. We are also grateful for the condolences of our friends, my colleagues and fellow senators. I particularly appreciate the action of Senator John Faulkner, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who came to my office last Tuesday with a condolence card signed by opposition senators. John Faulkner had taught intellectually handicapped children in the past and was aware of the bond between the intellectually handicapped and their families. My wife and I are strengthened by the knowledge that with Maryann’s passing we have our own little saint in heaven who will watch over us forevermore.2
k John Herron (1932–), Liberal Party 1990–02, Senator for Queensland 1990–2002. Positions held: Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Affairs 1996–2001.
k Like many speeches made on the adjournment, John Herron’s speech went unreported.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 280
Bookhouse
‘We want to see the East Timor issue finally resolved’
Australian troops in East Timor ALEXANDER DOWNER, Minister for Foreign Affairs, 21 September 1999 In November 1975, the colony of Timor declared itself independent of Portugal. It was invaded by Indonesian forces nine days later and subsequently incorporated into Indonesia.1 On 30 August 1999 the people of East Timor voted for independence in a referendum supervised by the United Nations. After the ballot, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said ‘the Indonesian armed forces proved unwilling or unable to maintain security in East Timor’. There was widespread destruction of infrastructure in East Timor, and it was estimated that some 240,000 people fled to West Timor.2 The Australian military led a deployment of multinational forces, sponsored by the United Nations, to restore peace and security in East Timor. The decision by the Howard Coalition government to deploy Australian forces to East Timor dramatically reversed Australian foreign policy of twenty-five years. As Howard recognised when speaking on the issue in parliament, ‘for a quarter of a century, [Australian] Governments of both political persuasions had reluctantly acquiesced in Indonesia’s policy towards East Timor’.3 In this speech, on the motion endorsing Australia’s peace-keeping role in East Timor, Alexander Downer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, dealt with the vital issue of Australia’s relationship with Indonesia. The starting point for all our discussions today should be this: the decisive vote for independence on 30 August is now an internationally established fact that can never be undone. In announcing the ballot outcome, the United Nations SecretaryGeneral, Kofi Annan, said that the United Nations would not fail the people of East 280
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 281
AUSTRALIAN
Bookhouse
TROOPS IN
EAST TIMOR
281
Timor. The international community is determined to ensure that the 5 May agreement is seen through to its conclusion, and that was reflected in the United Nations Security Council open debate on 11 September at which 51 countries made statements expressing their deep concern over the situation in East Timor. There was also the United Nations Security Council resolution of 15 September authorising the establishment of a multinational force. Australia has supported and will continue to support fully the United Nations’ work in East Timor, including assisting with the return of UNAMET [United Nations Mission in East Timor] and the leadership of INTERFET [International Force in East Timor]. Before the outcome of the 30 August ballot can be realised, though, there must be restoration of peace and security in East Timor. Anyone who has seen the simply horrible images on our television screens will have been sickened by the appalling violence visited on East Timor since 4 September. In the face of this appalling violence, Australia marshalled all of its diplomatic resources to enable a multinational force to be deployed in East Timor as soon as possible. The goals of the International Force in East Timor, known as INTERFET, are to bring the United Nations process back on track until a United Nations peacekeeping operation can be deployed and to assist the East Timorese people by restoring security and facilitating humanitarian aid. The United Nations Security Council resolution gives a very strong mandate to INTERFET. It has full chapter VII powers. Its mandate is to: . . . restore peace and security in East Timor, to protect and support the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) in carrying out its tasks and, within force capabilities, to facilitate humanitarian assistance operations . . .
Australia, at the request of the United Nations Secretary-General, has accepted the leadership of INTERFET and will also deploy up to 4,500 Australian Defence Force personnel, all of whom will be foremost in our thoughts as they embark on what will most certainly be a difficult and, perhaps, dangerous operation. We have been liaising intensively with regional and other countries to build a genuinely multinational force . . . A key factor in INTERFET’s success will be to restore security and, in that context, it will be important that it receives appropriate support from Indonesia and that an effective relationship is established with TNI [Indonesian armed forces]. The Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ali Alatas, announced on 15 September that the Indonesian armed forces, known as TNI, would have no active combat role and that overall responsibility for maintaining security would be passed to INTERFET. Military to military talks between Australia and Indonesia have been held to define clearly the role of TNI and its relationship with INTERFET, and General Cosgrove has reported excellent working relations with TNI on the ground so far in his discussions in Dili. Violence has generated a pressing humanitarian crisis in East and West Timor through the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people . . . it is impossible
0885-main.qx5
282
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 282
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
to estimate accurately how many East Timorese people have been displaced within and outside East Timor . . . but the total could be 300,000 . . . or it could be even more. The government is fully seized of the extent and urgency of the problem and also recognises the enormous Australian community interest in easing the suffering in East and West Timor. Australia has taken the lead in assisting United Nations agencies to get humanitarian assistance to where it is most needed in the shortest possible time . . . I want to underscore that the plight of displaced East Timorese in West Timor is also of enormous concern. Australia is supporting fully efforts by the international community to gain access to displaced East Timorese in West Timor, which remains extremely difficult. Australian aid to the United Nations and other international relief organisations will help support international operations in West Timor. INTERFET will be doing its utmost to create a secure environment in East Timor in which the East Timorese feel safe to return from across the border. We have given refuge to over 1,500 East Timorese in Australia during the crisis. The East Timorese people have made their choice and we are now poised at the birth of a new, independent East Timor. Australia is ready to assist, including through reconstruction and development. We have long been the largest provider of development assistance in East Timor, and we will continue to be unstinting in our assistance in future. If East Timor is to achieve peace and start the long process of recovery, there must be reconciliation amongst the East Timorese people. We have seen the terrible consequences of the current cycle of hatred in the suffering of an entire population. Australia is willing to help reconciliation in whatever way we can. We urge the different groups in East Timor to work together, in cooperation with the United Nations, to put behind them the violence of the past for the sake of future generations. While our attention is naturally focused on East Timor, I think it is important to say something about Australia’s broader relationship with Indonesia. I stress that our interest in the East Timor issue is not, as some might think, divorced from our deep and abiding interest in seeing a strong, prosperous and democratic Indonesia— an Indonesia which has good cooperative relations with the international community; an Indonesia where human rights and freedoms are respected. Australia has been a firm supporter of Indonesia’s democratic transformation. Indeed, there has been no firmer supporter anywhere in the world. We have done our utmost to help ordinary Indonesians cope with the impact of the economic crisis. Australia has demonstrated its goodwill towards Indonesia over many years, starting from our support for Indonesia’s struggle for independence. Clearly, there have been strains in the relationship recently. We have suspended certain aspects of military to military relations in light of the well-documented failings of TNI. The Indonesian decision to abrogate the agreement on maintaining security was also not surprising. But, despite this, our long-term interests have not changed. We continue to believe that Indonesia is vital to the stability and prosperity
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 283
AUSTRALIAN
Bookhouse
TROOPS IN
EAST TIMOR
283
of our region, and we have no interest whatsoever in undermining Indonesia or the people of Indonesia. It has been for this reason, among others, that we want to see the East Timor issue finally resolved, and for it to cease being an obstacle in Indonesia’s relations with the international community, including the international financial community . . . . . . in the past year no country has done more to assist the people of East Timor realise their right to a free and fair vote on their own future than has Australia. And no country has done more to try to prevent violence there, both before and after the ballot. These are judgments that we have heard from leaders across the globe, and from objective leaders of the East Timorese community. The breadth of Australia’s support for the ballot process is illustrated by our unwavering support for UNAMET. We are the largest single donor country to UNAMET, with $20 million in financial and logistical support and a major contribution of personnel to UNAMET, including the largest civilian police contingent and an Australian as the CIVPOL [International Civilian Police] commissioner. We have made unmatched efforts to encourage support for UNAMET from the international community, not just diplomatic but financial and logistical. We also established the Australian Consulate in Dili in June, the only representation of its kind in East Timor. I think it is important to understand that East Timor is an important issue for the international community, and has been for a quarter of a century, and that no country on earth has done more to resolve that problem than has this country over the last year. I do not want to dwell too much on the critique that we have heard today of the government’s policy, because all of us accept that it is the nature of our political system that oppositions feel the burden of having to make criticisms of the government no matter what happens. To suggest that the violence in East Timor that we saw immediately after the ballot is the responsibility of the Australian government and the people of Australia is utterly absurd. The weight of criticism on the government’s handling of the question of East Timor would appear to be that we did not send a peacekeeping force into East Timor before the last few days . . . To say that the opposition somehow wanted to send in a peacekeeping force before the result of the ballot was announced is simply proven to be incorrect by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition . . . There will be the normal party political points made by the Labor Party, but to my dying day I will be very proud of the fact that we spent an enormous amount of time, more than any other country on earth, trying to get freedom for the people of East Timor. In the end, much as I deeply regret the loss of life that has taken place, we will succeed. That success will be a great tribute to Australia, to Australian policy and to all Australians. This is well recognised around the corridors of the United Nations and in the international community. In recent weeks and over the whole of this exercise Australia has won enormous international respect for the
0885-main.qx5
284
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 284
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
very principled and determined stance that we have taken on the issue of East Timor.4
k Alexander Downer (1951–), Liberal Party, Member for Mayo 1984– . Positions held: Leader of the Opposition 1994–95, Minister for Foreign Affairs 1996– .
k By the time the motion passed, more than one hundred members had spoken in the debate. The major political parties ‘were united in their support for Australian and other troops taking part in the multinational force, Interfet’,5 but the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, argued that Australia did not ‘press upon the United States, the United Nations or any other interlocutors a requirement for absolute security to be put in place for the ballot and the protection of the population afterwards’.6 Ultimately, the Australian-led UN intervention was successful and at midnight on 20 May 2002, East Timor became the world’s newest democracy, with Xanana Gusmao the new nation’s first president.7 Almost five years after the intervention in East Timor, Alexander Downer reflected on relations between Australia and Indonesia: Following East Timor’s separation from Indonesia in October 1999 it was suggested that Australia and Indonesia would suffer long term damage in the bilateral relationship. However, Australia and Indonesia have moved forward to build on issues of mutual interest, including counter-terrorism and people smuggling.8
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 285
Bookhouse
‘. . . a day when we sweep away the ramshackle tax system which was appropriate for 1932 . . .’
A new tax system
P ETER C OSTELLO , Treasurer, 29 June 1999 In the 1998 federal election, the Coalition parties went to the polls proposing, among other things, the most far-reaching restructuring of the tax system ever attempted in Australian history. The reforms included the introduction of a goods and services tax (GST), significant cuts in income tax, a major package to assist families and reform of federal–state financial relations. The Coalition won a narrow victory in the election and a key task was to convince the Senate to pass the legislation to give effect to the tax changes. The tax reform package was investigated by four senate committees and was subject to one of the longest debates in the Senate’s history. Finally a majority of the Democrats decided to support the legislation provided a number of changes were made and, in particular, that the GST would not apply to food. The Treasurer, Peter Costello, the architect of the tax reform package, savoured the historic moment when the Senate returned the amended bills to the House. One of the best parliamentary debaters of his generation, he savaged the Labor Party in this speech for its failure to support reform. I count it an honour to be standing here in the great forum of the nation on what will be one of its great historic days—a day when we sweep away the ramshackle tax system which was appropriate for 1932, a day when we set up a new system for Commonwealth–state financial relations, a day when we move to change Australia’s income tax structure, a day when we change family assistance in a profound, deep and meaningful way; and one of those historic days which, in relation to the tax system, comes along perhaps every 40 or 50 or maybe even 99 years. 285
0885-main.qx5
286
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 286
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
When you see such days in the House of Representatives, the great days when change is effected on behalf of the nation, you have the opportunity to sit down and to reflect on and put into historical context what the chamber happens to be doing and the great anticipation that there will be for the decades which are to come. You saw one of those speeches from the Prime Minister as he stood at this dispatch box. He put into historical perspective where our country had been in the past in the course of opening up to the great winds of economic change and where it would go in the future as the government builds upon reform and stakes out a position for our country into the next century . . . I would like to follow in that tradition, not respond to the Leader of the Opposition [Kim Beazley] who gave a speech which you would probably hear at any ALP branch meeting on a Thursday night in a small hall . . . We do not begrudge the thinking of Scullin in 1932 when he was thinking about indirect tax. He was confronting an economy which had a narrow goods base. Services were probably unthought of. It was not known how you could possibly tax services. Scullin did what was right for the times of Scullin. But is it right for the 21st century? Could Scullin have thought about the way in which you would trade currencies across screens? Was Scullin thinking about the way in which sophisticated economies would develop services? Was Scullin thinking about how you would take taxes off exports in a WTO compliant manner in a modern trading world? Was Scullin thinking about how you would export financial services, accounting services or legal services and how you would take off those embedded taxes in a new modern trading world? Of course he was not . . . Let us look at the broad sweep of tax reform history. As the Prime Minister said, the Asprey committee in 1975 came to the conclusion that we needed to broaden the indirect tax base. I can remember when I was a student that the big debates going on in those days were how Australia would modernise its tax system. We look at the efforts of the Prime Minister when he was Treasurer in the Fraser government to broaden the indirect tax base and to move into line with most of the developed world. We look at the contribution that was made by Hawke and Keating. Prime Minister Hawke said this, and I could not agree with it more: Unless there is a source of income in the consumption area, then the mass of Australians— the ordinary taxpayers—are not going to be able to get the substantial cuts in personal direct taxes to which they are entitled . . .
I have been subject to review teams that have come through Australia representing state-of-the-art international thinking, from the IMF and from the OECD. Both of them have regularly recommended that Australia needs to broaden its indirect tax base. Funnily enough, since I have been Treasurer no mission from the IMF and no mission from the OECD has ever come through and said, ‘What you need is a wholesale sales tax’; They have never, ever said that or anything like it. They have never said anything like, ‘What you need to do is narrow your indirect tax base.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 287
A
Bookhouse
N E W TA X S Y S T E M
287
What Australia needs is a goods based tax system in a services based economy’; They have never said anything like that . . . The Leader of the Opposition made an interesting point before. In many European countries value added taxes were supported by social democrat governments. Why? Because they knew it was important to secure a revenue base to secure a social base. What we are doing here—and, let it be said, opposed by Labor—is securing the revenue base to secure the social base. All of that revenue goes to state governments to secure the social base for future citizens. Do we believe for a moment that the Labor Party would run to the next election with a policy of abolishing the goods and services tax and reintroducing wholesale sales tax? Do we believe that? No. That is why we know, by putting in place a base indirect tax system which grows in proportion to the economy, that this parliament can say, here and now, that for decades to come we have secured the means to look after the poor in Australia—those who have needed a helping hand—to look after the education of our young people, to look after the road infrastructures. The people who cared about social services in this country were the people who cared enough to develop a revenue base to fund it. That is the point that I want to make in relation to the Labor Party . . . I want to make some more points in relation to tax reform . . . There is no other plan in Australia to give the states a growth tax. It does not exist. It has not been put forward. His plan in relation to GST is wholesale sales tax. His plan in relation to Commonwealth–state relations is nothing. His plan in relation to income tax is higher income taxes. And his plan in relation to family assistance—which he also opposes—is nothing. Nothing has been put forward from Labor in relation to increased family assistance; there has been no proposal in relation to increasing family thresholds or increasing part A or part B family allowances. You heard it in the speech from the Leader of the Opposition: in a 20-minute speech, it was at the 19-minute 40-second mark that he talked about an alternative. It was in these words: ‘Labor supports tax reform when it opposes broadening the indirect tax base. Labor supports tax reform when it opposes income tax cuts. Labor supports tax reform when it opposes new Commonwealth–state relations. Labor supports tax reform when it opposes family assistance.’ Labor does not propose; Labor opposes . . . When Paul Keating put forward these reforms and was unable to bring them off, he said this: If we don’t as a nation adopt this proposal then you won’t see significant reforms in this country in taxation for the balance of the century.
Here, in our time, in 1999, under the leadership of the Prime Minister—and I want to pay absolute tribute to the Prime Minister who led this debate from the 1970s on—at this turn of the century, there were people who wanted to build. There were people who took hard decisions. There were people who were prepared to take the
0885-main.qx5
288
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 288
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Peter Costello at Parliament House, Canberra, September 2003. PENNY BRADFIELD/FAIRFAX PHOTOS.
onslaughts of opportunism and populism because we believed and we wanted to build because we knew Australia always deserved better; because we knew a new tax system was necessary for a new century; because we had a vision for a new Australia; because we had a vision for reform; and because we were prepared to work to get it. And the winners will be the Australian nation and the Australian people and the families of Australia who will have the opportunity to work and save. They will have more money in their pockets, and they will have the assurance that the social base has been secured because the government was prepared to lead, and this is the government that takes great pride in doing so.1
k Peter Costello (1957–), Liberal Party, Member for Higgins 1990– . Positions held: Treasurer 1996– .
k The unprecedented scope of the tax reform package caused considerable nervousness among the Coalition ranks Liberal and National party members were aware that the Progressive
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 289
A
Bookhouse
N E W TA X S Y S T E M
289
Conservative Party in Canada, which had introduced a GST some years earlier, had been virtually wiped out in the subsequent election. The tax reform package came into effect on 1 July 2000. At the November 2001 election Labor campaigned on a promise to rollback many aspects of the tax reform package. However, the Howard Government was elected with an increased majority. The Labor Party subsequently dropped its opposition to the GST.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 290
Bookhouse
‘. . . evil struck with indiscriminate and indescribable savagery . . .’
Bali terrorist attack
J OHN H OWARD , Prime Minister, 14 October 2002 On 12 October 2002, the Sari Nightclub and Paddy’s Bar in Bali were bombed and 88 holidaying Australians were killed. Many others, Australians and non-Australians, were airlifted from Bali, suffering appalling injuries caused by fire and shrapnel.1 The terrorist attack in Bali came one year, one month and one day after that on the World Trade Center in New York, which left more than 3000 dead, and at a time when Australia was actively involved with the United States in fighting the new ‘war on terror’. In the following speech, described by veteran political journalist Alan Ramsey as one ‘of considerable humanity’,2 Prime Minister Howard effectively articulated the feelings of a nation. The speech was made just two days after the bombings when there was still great uncertainty about the identities of Australians who had been killed and wounded and while victims were still being airlifted to Australian hospitals. . . . For the rest of Australian history, 12 October 2002 will be counted as a day on which evil struck, with indiscriminate and indescribable savagery, young innocent Australians who were engaging in an understandable period of relaxation; young Australians whose innocence was palpable and whose death and injury we join the rest of the Australian community in marking and mourning today. In many respects the word ‘terrorism’ is too antiseptic an expression to describe what happened. It is too technical and too formal. What happened was barbaric, brutal mass murder without justification. It is seen as that by the people of Australia and it is seen as that by the people of the world. It is a terrible reminder that terrorism can strike anyone anywhere at any time. Nobody anywhere in the world 290
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 291
BALI
Bookhouse
T E R R O R I S T AT TA C K
291
is immune from terrorism. It is a reminder that, in this time of a borderless world, with a particularly mobile young population, Australia can scarcely imagine that it can be in any way immune from such horrible attacks. I know that the thoughts of everyone in this parliament—and, indeed, the thoughts of millions of Australians—are with those of our fellow country men and women who still do not know whether their daughter or their son or their brother or their sister or their lover or their mother or their father or their mate is alive or dead. The agony of waiting at the end of a mobile telephone for a call is an anxiety that we can only begin to think about and try in our own inadequate way to share, and we hope that that effort is of some comfort to them. I know that the hearts of every man and woman in this parliament will go out to them and to those who know the worst already, and our thoughts and prayers are with those who are coping with injuries, many of them horrendous burns as a result of the flames that followed the bombing of the nightclub . . . As the House and, I am sure, the nation will be aware, a major rescue and medical evacuation operation has been under way since news of the attack came through. On behalf of this parliament and all of the Australian people, I want to express our gratitude to and admiration for the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, particularly the Royal Australian Air Force; and the doctors, nurses and paramedics, many of whom have worked in very difficult circumstances . . . This foul deed—this wicked, evil act of terrorists—has claimed the lives of not only Australians but also claimed the lives of many of the innocent people of Bali, a beautiful, hitherto peaceful part of Indonesia. Bali is much loved by so many Australians. In many cases, it is the first place that young Australians visit. Many of us will feel the poignancy of this attack coinciding with the end of the football season in Australia. So many of the young people in that club that night were members of Australian rules football teams, rugby league teams and rugby union teams. They were having a bit of fun at the end of a hard season. It is that connection with the everyday occurrences of life which we know so well and embrace so lovingly, that cruel conjunction, which makes something such as this that much more despicable and something that all Australians will utterly repudiate to the depths of their being. We must remember, though, that this will have an enormous impact on the people of Indonesia and the economy of Bali. The Indonesian economy is a fragile economy. It relies very heavily on tourism. Those who did this are no friends of Indonesia. Those who did this sought to inflict misery on and deliver hatred to not only the people of Australia and the people of the other nations who lost their sons and daughters but also the people and the government of Indonesia . . . All of us have a right to feel a sense of deep anger and a deep determination to do everything we can, as a nation and as a community, working with the government and the people of Indonesia, to bring to justice those who are responsible for this
0885-main.qx5
292
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 292
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
crime. We owe it to those who died, we owe it to those who have been injured and we also owe it to a proper sense of justice. Nothing can excuse this behaviour. No cause—however explained, however advocated, however twisted, however spun— can possibly justify the indiscriminate, unprovoked slaughter of innocent people. That is what has occurred here. We must do all we can, as a nation and as a community, to mete out a proper response—a measured, sober, effective response— which brings to justice, if we can, those who are responsible . . . I can also inform the House that this morning the National Security Committee of cabinet met in the wake of this outrage. We discussed the proposal that the two ministers travel to Jakarta. We also decided to institute a review of the adequacy of domestic terrorist legislation. It is inevitable that, in the wake of what occurred in Bali over the weekend, the thoughts of Australians will turn to the potential vulnerability of our own soil, our own mainland, to a possible terrorist attack. There is no point in ignoring that. I do the Australian people no service if I pretend that, in some way, it cannot happen on the Australian mainland. In a sense, this is sequential. I do not think any of us believed that something like 11 September 2001 would happen until it really happened. We might have intellectualised afterwards and said, ‘Oh yes, we thought that might happen,’ but in our hearts we did not really believe it was going to happen. Equally, I do not think many Australians contemplated that what happened at the weekend in Bali would in fact occur. It is therefore very important that we disabuse ourselves for all time of any notion that something like that cannot happen in one of our cities and on our own mainland. We must dedicate and commit ourselves to doing all we can to guard against such an event. We therefore need to again assess the adequacy of our domestic law. I know it has been only recently reviewed, but further events have occurred and we are required as a matter of responsibility to almost 20 million Australians to do that. It is also necessary that we review the adequacy, which I have asked be done, of our counter-terrorism capacity. Once again, that was the subject of significant review after 11 September 2001, and major augmentation of the assets followed as a result of that review. It is therefore timely that those assets and that capacity also be reviewed. I do not say these things lightly or with any sense of overdramatising the situation, but we are living in different circumstances and different times. That has been the case since 11 September last year. It is dramatically more so the case now, because what happened at the weekend claimed our own in great numbers, was on our own doorstep and touched us in a way that we would not have thought possible a week ago or even three days ago. It has been the case that all the world, including Australia, has been more vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks since 11 September last year . . . Retreat from the war against terrorism will not purchase for the retreaters immunity against the attacks of the terrorists. That has been the experience of the last year; that has been the experience of mankind throughout history. You will not
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 293
BALI
Bookhouse
T E R R O R I S T AT TA C K
293
Prime Minister John Howard consoles a mourner at a memorial service in Bali, October 2002. CRAIG ABRAHAM/FAIRFAX PHOTOS.
escape the reach of terrorism by imagining that if you roll yourself into a little ball you will not be noticed, because terrorism is not dispensed according to some hierarchy of disdain; it is dispensed in an indiscriminate, evil, hateful fashion. Those who imagine that it is dispensed according to a hierarchy of disdain do not understand history and are deluding themselves. The war against terrorism is not, as has frequently been said in this place, a war against Islam. People of good Islamic faith will abhor what happened in Bali. They will find it as despicable to the tenets of their faith as Christians, Jews and many others will find it despicable to the tenets of their faiths. It is therefore important that we reaffirm again our commitment to a tolerant Australian community—an Australian community that, while embracing all, is an Australian community bound together by the common values of openness, individual liberty and individual freedom. We fight terrorism because we love freedom; we fight terrorism because we want to preserve the way of life that this country has; we fight terrorism because we share the values of other countries that are in the war against terrorism; and we fight terrorism because it is intrinsically evil and you do not seek to covenant with
0885-main.qx5
294
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 294
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
evil and you do not seek to reach an accommodation with those who would destroy your sons and daughters and take away the security and the stability of this country . . . I am saddened beyond words of proper description by what has happened. I hope I speak for all Australians in sending my and their love to those who are grieving and in expressing the fierce determination to do everything I and we can to bring to justice those who have done such evil things to our people.3
k John Howard (1939–), Liberal Party, Member for Bennelong 1974– . Positions held: Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs 1975–77, Treasurer 1977–83, Minister of State for Special Negotiations Jul–Dec 1977, Minister for Finance 1979, Leader of the Opposition 1985–89, 1995–96, Prime Minister 1996– .
k The death toll from Bali reached 202, including 88 Australians, 32 Indonesians, 23 British and 7 Americans. In the days following the bombing, the Australian and Indonesian police forces worked closely to bring the perpetrators to justice. In an unprecedented level of cooperation, Australian Federal Police were directly involved in the investigations on the ground in Indonesia.4 29 men have been put on trial and three have been sentenced to death.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 295
Bookhouse
‘The state should never be used as God’s enforcer.’
Human stem cell research
A MANDA VANSTONE , Minister for Family and Community Services, 11 November 2002 Conscience votes, where members and senators are able to vote without party direction, are comparatively rare in Australian parliaments. Since 1990, there have been only two conscience votes in which both major parties have participated—one on euthanasia, the other dealing with research on human embryos. These debates typically demonstrate the strikingly different views that members of parliament have on the nature of life, on the role of the state, and the impact that Christian values should have on legislatures. The Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 proposed to allow scientists access to excess embryos from the in vitro fertilisation scheme for stem cell research. The speech made by Liberal Party Minister, Amanda Vanstone, was remarkable for the frank way in which she discussed religion and the impact this should have on scientific research. . . . As best I can see, the views of the opposition to this bill depend on the particular view of just what it is that comes out of the freezer. There has been some debate about that and I would like to share my views on this issue as well. I think a proper, fair and practical description of what comes out of the freezer is a five-day-old ball of about 150 cells, and of that the researchers will want to use about 30. What comes out of the freezer is undeniably human tissue but it is not human. That ball of cells has no hope whatsoever of becoming a human being without further intervention. We should not confuse the existence of a chance of becoming a human being with actually being human. 295
0885-main.qx5
296
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 296
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
The tissue, I think, can be likened to organs taken from a recently deceased person for transplant. Neither the organ nor the tissue is dead; it is human tissue but it is not human. One might say the same of sperm, for example. You could say, ‘Let’s protect every sperm that is available because it might, under circumstances where other things have to happen, become a human.’ That is pretty much the same concept. What has to happen there is that the sperm has to meet with an egg to fertilise that egg, which then has to be looked after. What has to happen with a five-day-old ball of cells in which the egg and sperm have already met is that it then has to be implanted in a woman and stay there for nine months. In both cases nothing is going to happen unless other things are brought into play. So my very strong view is that we are not talking about a human; we are talking about human tissue that will with the intervention of others, and only with the intervention of others, have the chance of becoming human. I completely support a parent’s right to demand that any of these untouched fertilised eggs be left untouched for later use or not be used for research. However, I have confidence that very few, if any, parents who have had the advantage of the IVF program would refuse the opportunity for spare fertilised eggs to be used. They themselves turned to the wonders of science to give them what apparently nature was otherwise going to deny them, and I think those who through the wonders of science have had what must have been their greatest dream realised would certainly not deny the chance for science to produce better things for others. After all, how many fertilised eggs at varying stages of development were used in the IVF programs to get to the point where we could have a successful IVF program? . . . Some supporters of this bill, including me, do not deny where we are now with the science. We simply want science to have the opportunity to take us to further and better places. You cannot say, ‘There is no practical application of this now, so let’s not do the research.’ That is the equivalent of saying to a child, ‘You are not allowed to swim in the pool until you have learned to swim.’ How can we possibly refuse to do research on the basis that we do not have the researchers’ outcomes? You will not get those outcomes until you proceed with the research. So, again, I am very much in favour of our proceeding with this research . . . Let me turn to some of the objections which have their basis in a religious view held by their proponents. My own position is this: if you lead a good life, any god worth knowing will accept you into his or her heaven. I do not think—since I went to an Anglican school I will use St Peter as an example—that there will be any St Peter at some set of pearly gates dispatching infidels to another place, smirking behind his hand that this sucker made the mistake of going to a Roman Catholic, an Anglican or a Baptist church or of being a Jew, a Hindu or a Muslim. If in fact the basis for getting into heaven is that you pick the right church now, then frankly I am not terribly interested in getting there; it could be a very boring place. I think that living by a decent set of values is far more important than defending the dogma of one church over another. I am confident that if you lead a good life
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 297
HUMAN
Bookhouse
STEM CELL RESEARCH
297
and if there is a kingdom of heaven you will be welcome. Your religion is your business and no-one else’s. My personal view is that, when you make your religion an issue, you drag it into the political domain and you tarnish it. It follows that I attach very little importance or interest to arguments over religious dogma. Equally, I do not turn to the state to legislate for one religious view over another. Surely, we can clearly see the risks of adopting a view that your religion is the right one and the rest of the world must be converted . . . My point is quite simple: each to his own religion. If you say to me that doing something is against God’s will, then I will respond by assuring you that, if God is annoyed, God will punish whomever has done that thing. The state should never be used as God’s enforcer. Over the years, as I have been approaching 50, I can assure you that I have every confidence in God’s ability to settle accounts. It has not been my experience that he or she usually waits until you are dead. Many people who have done the wrong thing have met their maker in a practical sense while they were still alive. In summary, I put these propositions again. We are talking about fertilised eggs that are in the freezer. They have not the slightest chance of becoming human unless they are accepted by the mother to be carried for nine months. We are talking about fertilised eggs where that is not the case. The consequence is that they are either going in the bin or going to be used for the betterment of mankind. My other proposition is that we cannot now say whether the science is good or bad. We do not know where the science is going to take us. Science of itself is not intrinsically good or bad; it is what we do with it that will make that case. I understand that the benefits of this research may take years to come. That only makes me say: start more quickly. I simply ask those who, because of their religious beliefs, have a very genuine concern about this bill to accept that they are entitled to follow their religious beliefs; they are not entitled to demand by legislation that everybody else does the same.1
k Amanda Vanstone (1952–), Liberal Party, Senator for South Australia 1984– . Positions held: Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs 1996–97, Minister for Justice 1997–98, Minister for Justice and Customs 1998–2001, Minister for Family and Community Services 2001–03, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs 2003– .
k The Bill passed 99 votes to 33 votes in the House of Representatives. In the Senate the numbers were 45 votes in favour and 26 votes against. As expected the vote did not follow party allegiances. For example in the Senate, two Cabinet ministers, Senators Alston and Minchin, opposed the Bill, while three other ministers, Senators Hill, Patterson and Vanstone, all voted in favour of the legislation. The two Green
0885-main.qx5
298
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 298
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
senators had differing views, with Bob Brown voting against the Bill and Kerry Nettle voting for it. In the House of Representatives, Prime Minister John Howard and his political counterpart Leader of the Opposition Simon Crean supported the Bill. In stark contrast, the Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson voted against it.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 299
Bookhouse
‘Force has been the only language that Saddam Hussein’s regime has ever understood . . .’
The second Gulf War
J OHN H OWARD , Prime Minister, 18 March 2003 Some twelve years after Australian forces were first committed to fight Iraqi aggression (see speech at pages 253–257), Prime Minister John Howard announced that Australia would once again take up arms against Iraq, as part of a coalition to enforce United Nations resolutions. However, unlike 1990, it would not be under the UN banner. France, Germany and Russia led UN Security Council opposition to the use of force against Iraq. Australia joined the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ led by the United States and strongly supported by Britain and a number of other countries. The prime minister said, ‘it was a difficult decision, it was an unpopular decision, it was a lonely decision’.1 Large anti-war rallies were held around Australia as public opinion opposed action against Iraq without UN sanction. The Prime Minister’s speech to Parliament was marked by constant interjection from the opposition benches and three Labor members were ejected from the parliament. . . . This morning I announced that Australia had joined a coalition, led by the United States, which intends to disarm Iraq of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction . . . The government has now authorised our defence forces, which were predeployed to the gulf to acclimatise and contribute to the campaign to persuade Saddam Hussein into compliance, to take part in coalition operations. There is no more serious decision for any government than to commit its forces to military conflict abroad. Under our system, this decision lies with the executive of government: the cabinet. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that the parliament, at the first opportunity, 299
0885-main.qx5
300
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 300
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
have the chance to debate this motion. It is essential that the reason for that decision be made plain to the representatives of the people and that they have a full opportunity to debate them and to have their views recorded. In 1991, the world judged that the Iraqi regime was a dangerous aggressor. In the interests of world peace and regional security, the community of nations required Iraq to surrender its offensive arsenal, its chemical and biological weapons, and abandon its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agreed to comply. We have waited 12 years for it to give action to that commitment. On 8 November 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1441—the 17th Security Council resolution on Iraq regarding the threat it poses to international peace and security. This resolution, which was adopted unanimously, gave Iraq a final opportunity to demonstrate immediate compliance with its disarmament obligations. Over the last four months, we have seen no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein is willing to comply with resolution 1441. He has offered up minor concessions but he has not demonstrated that he is willing to declare or destroy Iraq’s prohibited weapons programs. The government believes very strongly that Iraq’s continued defiance of the community of nations presents a challenge which must be addressed . . . It is inherently dangerous to allow a country such as Iraq to retain weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the light of its past aggressive behaviour. If the world community fails to disarm Iraq, we fear that other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can have these most deadly of weapons and that the world will do nothing to stop them. As the possession of weapons of mass destruction spreads, so the danger of such weapons coming into the hands of terrorist groups will multiply. That is the ultimate nightmare which the world must take decisive and effective steps to prevent. Possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by terrorists would constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people. The government’s principal objective is the disarmament of Iraq; however, should military action be required to achieve this, it is axiomatic that such action will result in the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Early this morning, President Bush telephoned me and formally requested Australia’s support and participation in a coalition of nations who are prepared to enforce the Security Council’s resolutions by all necessary means. This request was subsequently considered and agreed to by cabinet . . . Sadly, the government is not surprised that it should have come to this. Force has been the only language that Saddam Hussein’s regime has ever understood . . . Even under the threat of force he [Saddam Hussein] has only engaged reluctantly in token, piecemeal destruction of weapons and continues to deny the existence of weapons programs. Even with over 200,000 coalition troops massed at his borders he quibbles about how interviews are to be conducted with his scientists and how many of the reconnaissance aircraft supporting the inspectors can fly at any one
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 301
THE
Bookhouse
SECOND
G U L F WA R
301
time. After 12 years, he does not believe that the international community has the will to act. In that he has made a terrible error of judgment . . . Twelve years ago the community of nations determined that Iraq could not be permitted to develop and possess weapons of mass destruction. Today’s security environment reinforces that judgment. Our alliance with the United States is unapologetically a factor in the decision that we have taken. The crucial, long-term value of the United States alliance should always be a factor in any major national security decision taken by Australia . . . America has given strong leadership to the world on the issue of Iraq. The Security Council would not have been re-energised, the United Nations would not have been re-energised, had it not been for the action of the United States in returning the issue to the United Nations in September of last year. We have supported the American position on this issue because we share their concerns and we share their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to. Alliances are two-way processes and, where we are in agreement, we should not leave it to the United States to do all of the heavy lifting just because they are the world’s superpower. To do so would undermine one of the most important relationships we have. In an increasingly globalised and borderless world, the relationship between Australia and the United States will become more rather than less important as the years go by . . . The Australian government is deeply disappointed that the Security Council has been unable to maintain a unity of purpose on the issue of Iraq. The strong position taken last year, clearly articulated in resolution 1441, was that Iraq was being given one final chance to disarm—one final chance to show its immediate willingness to meet the terms of the cease-fire agreed in April 1991. The goal of 1441 was immediate and complete disarmament, not simply the return of weapons inspectors—that was merely an issue of process. A further resolution by the Security Council demonstrating that it was galvanised to take action might have—just might have—persuaded Saddam Hussein to take the steps necessary to achieve a peaceful solution to this conflict. The position articulated by those opposed to action is fundamentally flawed. They recognise that the threat of military action has been the only way to elicit a positive response from Iraq. Does anybody imagine that the weapons inspectors would have returned to Iraq had it not been for the American military build-up? Kofi Annan does not believe so. Hans Blix does not believe so. Even Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, acknowledges that reality, as does his President. So the position articulated by those who have been so critical of the Americans and others is fundamentally flawed. They recognise that the threat of military action has been the only way to elicit a positive response from Iraq; yet they squander the leveraging power of a military force by clearly demonstrating they are never prepared to actually use it. This strategy not only is illogical but also ignores the practical reality: it is not possible to keep
0885-main.qx5
302
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 302
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
our forces in the Gulf, on alert, indefinitely. And everyone knows that, if the forces were brought home, the weapons inspectors would quickly be expelled from Iraq . . . We reject totally the argument put by France and by some other countries that the presence of inspectors will lead, over the passage of time, to disarmament. We cannot and will not ignore the experience of the last 12 years. We believe that the time has come to disarm Iraq, by force if necessary. We are participating in the USled coalition to achieve this objective. It is important to understand that the decision taken by the government is in accordance with the legal authority for military action found in previous resolutions of the Security Council. We supported, and would have preferred, a further Security Council resolution specifying the need for such action. We did so to maximise the diplomatic, moral and political pressure on Iraq, not because we considered a new resolution to be necessary for such action to be legitimate . . . The engagement of our defence forces will be limited to the period of the conflict and to those elements already deployed—that is, the transport ship HMAS Kanimbla, which departed from Sydney on 23 January with approximately 350 personnel embarked, including Army detachments providing air defence and amphibious cargo transport craft; the Special Forces Task Group, including a Special Air Services squadron from Perth and special forces combat support elements, including specialist troops to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction drawn from the newly established Incident Response Regiment; CH47 troop lift helicopters and a quick reaction force drawn from the Sydney based 4RAR commando unit; a squadron of 14 FA18 Hornet fighter aircraft, three C130 Hercules transport aircraft, as well as an air forward command element responsible for coordinating air operations with coalition partners, and two P3 patrol aircraft currently in the gulf supporting the war on terror; a Navy clearance diving team capable of locating, rendering safe and disposing of mines; and the HMAS Anzac and HMAS Darwin, which were already in the Middle East policing UN sanctions on Iraq. Although, as part of the coalition, Australian forces will be under the operational control of the Coalition Commander, they will remain under Australian national command at all times. Australian commanders are bound by Australian rules of engagement and separate Australian targeting directives. The government has been mindful to ensure that the ADF retains the capability to continue to service our current commitments, including our contribution to the UN force in East Timor, and to respond to any short notice contingencies that may arise. The deployment, although modest in terms of the size of the total coalition force, is a sizeable commitment for Australia. The 2,000 ADF personnel and maritime, land and air assets currently deployed to the Middle East are not a token contribution. Every one of our service men and women is precious to their families, their loved ones and their nation. I want to say to the men and women of our defence forces who are deployed with the coalition forces that I have the greatest confidence in your abilities and your judgment. You may be part of the Australian deployment or
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 303
THE
Bookhouse
SECOND
G U L F WA R
303
deployed while on exchange duties with our friends and allies. Your nation admires your courage and salutes your commitment to duty. You belong to the most professional armed forces in the world, and all of us are proud of your reputation. Your government and your military commanders have spared no effort and no expense to try to prepare you for the terrible reality of active service. I am under no illusion—your mission is a difficult one and inevitably involves great danger. All agree that the Iraqi regime is one of the most repressive and cruel in the world. It is in open defiance of the United Nations Security Council. No-one wants Saddam Hussein to keep and expand his arsenal of prohibited weapons. We believe passionately that your efforts are vital to ensure the long-term security of Australia and our world. The cause is just. The action is legitimate. We all pray that you and your coalition partners will make quick progress and that soon you will be home, safe and sound, reunited with those whom you love . . . 2
k John Howard (1939–), Liberal Party, Member for Bennelong 1974– . Positions held: Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs 1975–77, Treasurer 1977–83, Minister for Special Trade Negotiations Jul–Dec 1977, Minister for Finance 1979, Leader of the Opposition 1985–1989, 1995–1996, Prime Minister 1996– .
k Simon Crean, the leader of the opposition said that the government had capitulated to the US and that it was a black day for Australia and international co-operation. He said, ‘we should never support military action outside that supported by the United Nations . . . ’ Simon Crean did not argue the existence of weapons of mass destruction, but pointed out there had been ‘substantial progress in this disarmament of Iraq’.3 The government’s decision to send troops to Iraq was supported 80 votes to 63 in the House of Representatives but in the Senate it was rejected by a majority of senators. Just over a month later, the prime minister was able to report ‘a decisive victory of the American-led Coalition’. He also said: Not only was the military operation completed quickly and successfully but . . . the doomsday predictions . . . were not realised. The oilwells were not set on fire; there are not millions of refugees; the dams on the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers were not broached to bring on catastrophic flooding . . .4
However, the task of establishing peace and order in Iraq following the downfall of Saddam Hussein continued to challenge the ‘coalition of the willing’. The debate between the Howard Government and the ALP continued, fuelled in part by the fact that only evidence of programs for weapons of mass destruction, rather than the weapons themselves, was discovered. On 28 June 2004, the United States transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government led by President Ghazi al-Yawar and Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 304
Bookhouse
‘Australia still looks to America’
Welcome to US President Bush S IMON C REAN , Leader of the Opposition, 23 October 2003 The Labor Party’s opposition to Australia’s involvement with the United States in the 2003 Iraq war meant that when US President George W. Bush addressed a joint sitting of parliament later that year, it posed a particular problem for Labor leader, Simon Crean. Labor members were divided in their approach to the visit of the president, with some members initially threatening to turn their backs on him while he addressed the chamber. In the end a number of Labor Party dissenters decided to wear white arm bands. The following day the Herald-Sun reported ‘Mr Crean’s speech was a delicate balancing act of reaffirming commitment to the US alliance while expressing Labor’s deep reservations about the Iraq war’.1 Crean’s speech received very favourable press comment. One report said that Bush himself congratulated Crean on his remarks, saying, ‘good speech’.2 Interestingly, like Arthur Calwell’s famous 1965 speech on the Australia–US relationship and the Vietnam War (see pages 173–77), speechwriter Graham Freudenberg made an important contribution to Crean’s speech. . . . Your presence today reminds us all that the partnership between our two great nations is broad, deep and many sided. It is longstanding and, in its fundamentals, it is bipartisan. It is, above all, a partnership of peoples. It is something beyond political parties and beyond administrations. More than 60 years ago another great Labor Prime Minister, John Curtin, and a great American President, Franklin Roosevelt, forged that partnership together in the crucible of World War II. Curtin famously wrote in December 1941: 304
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 305
WELCOME
TO
Bookhouse
US P R E S I D E N T B U S H
305
. . . Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.
It is altogether fitting today that we should reaffirm that alliance in a world of rapid change. But the Australia of 1941 has been transformed, as Australia’s standing in the world has been transformed. We now also look to the future in our own region, as both a good friend and a good neighbour among the nations of Asia and the Pacific. We also look to our future in terms of our deep and enduring support for the United Nations and the principles of the United Nations Charter—as we did in East Timor. Above all, Australia looks to itself; to the self-reliance of a proud, a free, a strong and an independent people. The Australian perspective is bound to differ from time to time from the perspective of the United States. Of course, on occasions, friends do disagree—as we did, on this side, with you on the war in Iraq. But such is the strength of our shared values, our interests and our principles that those differences can enrich rather than diminish, can strengthen rather than weaken, the partnership. Our commitment to the alliance remains unshakable, as does our commitment to the war on terror. But friends must be honest with each other. Honesty is, after all, the foundation stone of that great Australian value, mateship. Mr President, the world has changed, but there remains an essential truth in Prime Minister Curtin’s words of 62 years ago: Australia still looks to America. That is a truth not just for Australia but for democracies everywhere. It is a profound, historical truth which derives its power not from the might of America but from the democratic promise upon which America was brought forth, conceived and dedicated 227 years ago. The equal rights of all nations, respect for the opinions of all peoples and the idea that all men are created equal: these principles, taken together, form the true and imperishable basis of the promise of, and the friendship between, our two great nations. May they never perish from the face of the earth.3
k Simon Crean (1949– ), Australian Labor Party, Member for Hotham 1990. Positions held: Minister for Science and Technology 1990–Jun 91, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy Jun 1991–93, Minister for Employment, Education and Training 1993–96, Leader of the Opposition 2001–03.
k During his speech to the parliament, President Bush reaffirmed the Australia–US alliance, referring to the relationship as ‘vital and vibrant’ and an ‘unbroken friendship’.4 The President was interrupted twice during his address, by the Greens senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle. The president responded to one of the interjections with the words ‘I love free speech’.5 The incident was reported on news services around the world. One of Bush’s most bitter critics was Labor member Mark Latham. In a phrase which would haunt Latham when he later became ALP leader, he referred to President Bush as
0885-main.qx5
306
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 306
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
‘the most incompetent and dangerous President in living memory’.6 Along with other Labor frontbenchers, Latham rose to shake President Bush’s hand when, following his speech, the president moved around the chamber to meet ministers and shadow ministers. Labor Member for Sydney, Tania Plibersek, presented the US National Security Adviser with an open letter signed by 44 opposition MPs, which urged a greater role for the United Nations in settling disputes.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 307
Bookhouse
Notes
William Groom Opening speech in the Federal Parliament 1901 1.
W. Groom, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 May 1901, pp. 76–83.
Edmund Barton White Australia Policy 1901 1 2 3 4 5 6
A. Berriedale Keith (ed.), Speeches and Documents on Colonial Policy, vol. 11, Oxford University Press, London, 1918, p. 227. P. Kelly, 100 Years: The Australian Story, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2001, p. 57. E. Barton, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 August 1901, pp. 3497–507. A. Deakin, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 September 1901, p. 4804. G. Reid, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 September 1901, p. 5278. ‘Documenting a Democracy: Australia’s Story’, National Council for the Centenary of Federation (Australia), <www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth4ii.htm> [10 December 2003].
Alfred Deakin Establishing the High Court 1902 1 2 3 4 5
G. Souter, Acts of Parliament, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1988, p. 74. J.A. La Nauze, Alfred Deakin: A biography, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1965, p. 289. ibid. A. Deakin, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 March 1902, pp. 10962–989. G. Graven, personal communication with the editor, 16 January 2003.
307
0885-main.qx5
308
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 308
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Norman Ewing Voting rights for women 1902 1
N. Ewing, Senate, Debates, 9 April 1902, pp. 11491–492.
Richard O’Connor Voting rights for Aborigines 1902 1 2 3
P. Kelly, 100 Years: The Australian Story, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2001, p. 160. R. O’Connor, Senate, Debates, 10 April 1902, pp. 11584–588. ‘History of the Indigenous Vote; Section 41 and an Australian Commonwealth’, Australian Electoral Commission, <www.aec.gov.au/_content/How/education/ indig_vote2.pdf> [17 April 2004].
George Reid The fight for free trade 1902 1 2 3
P. Kelly, 100 Years: The Australian Story, Allen & Unwin, Sydney 2001, p. 101. G. Reid, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 April 1902, pp. 11834–843 Kelly, 100 Years, pp. 136–37.
Littleton Groom Introduction of invalid and old-age pensions 1908 1 2 3 4 5 6
A. Fisher, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 June 1908, p. 11934. L. Groom, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 June 1908, pp. 11922–926. G. Reid, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 June 1908, p. 11927. ibid., p. 11929. Fisher, Debates, p. 11934. ‘A short genealogy of income support payments’, Department of Family and Community Services, <www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/> [16 January 2004].
Billy Hughes An attack on Alfred Deakin 1909 1 2 3 4 5 6
G. Souter, Acts of Parliament, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1988, p. 112. ibid., p. 113. W.F. Whyte, William Morris Hughes: His Life and Times, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1957, pp. 146–47. ibid. W. Hughes, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 May 1909, pp. 174–78. G. Davison, J. Hirst and S. Macintyre, The Oxford Companion to Australian History, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1998, p. 271.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 309
Bookhouse
NOTES 7 8 9
309
Souter, Acts of Parliament, p. 114. M. Grattan, Australian Prime Ministers, New Holland, Sydney, 2001, p. 80. Souter, Acts of Parliament, p. 115.
George Reid Private enterprise versus state control 1909 1 2 3
W.G. McMinn, George Reid, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1989, p. 249. G. Reid, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 July 1909, pp. 1144–158. McMinn, George Reid, p. 253.
Frank Anstey Opposing war aid for Belgium 1914 1 2 3 4 5 6
W. Denning, Caucus Crisis, Bookman Press, Melbourne, 2000, p. 146. L. Fitzhardinge, The Little Digger 1914–1952: William Morris Hughes, a political biography, vol. II, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1979, p. 32. A. Fisher, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 October 1914, p. 144. F. Green, Servant of the House, Heinemann, Melbourne, 1969, p. 42. F. Anstey, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 October 1914, p. 148. ibid., pp. 145–49.
Andrew Fisher First year of the Great War 1915 1 2 3
G. Souter, Acts of Parliament, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1988, p. 138. A. Fisher, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 August 1915, pp. 5556–557. J. Cook, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 August 1915, p. 5558.
Joseph Cook In support of conscription 1916 1 2 3
J. Cook, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 September 1913, pp. 8485–490. L.F. Fitzhardinge, The Little Digger 1914–1952; William Hughes, a political biography, vol. II, Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney, 1979, p. 191. D. Horne, Billy Hughes, Bookman Press, Melbourne, 2000, p. 126.
Frank Brennan The case against conscription 1916 1 2
F. Brennan, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 September 1916, p. 8559. ‘Hostile Speeches in Parliament’, The Age, 15 September 1916, p. 7.
0885-main.qx5
310 3 4 5 6 7
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 310
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
‘Conscription—The Referendum Bill’, The Age, 15 September 1916, p. 5. Brennan, Debates, p. 8559. ibid., pp. 8558–561. W. Hughes, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 February 1943, p. 324. F. Brennan, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 February, 1943, pp. 320–24.
Billy Hughes The Treaty of Versailles 1919 1 2 3 4 5
‘Back to Business: Mr Hughes in the House’, The Argus, 11 September 1919, p. 6. W. Hughes, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 September 1919, pp. 12163–179. F. Tudor, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 September 1919, p. 12394. ibid., p. 12395. ibid., p. 12396.
Billy Hughes Expulsion of Hugh Mahon 1920 1 2 3 4 5 6
‘Mr Mahon’s Speech’, The Argus, 12 November 1920, p. 7. ibid. ibid. W. Hughes, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 November 1920, pp. 6382–389. F. Anstey, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 November 1920, p. 6469. L.F. Fitzhardinge, The Little Digger 1914–1952; William Hughes, a political biography, vol. II, Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney, 1979, p. 455.
Stanley Bruce Returning arbitration to the states 1929 1 2
M. Grattan (ed.), Australian Prime Ministers, New Holland Publishers, Sydney, 2000, p. 137. S. Bruce, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 August 1929, pp. 280–91.
Ted Theodore Resignation from Scullin ministry 1930 1 2 3 4
R. Fitzgerald, Red Ted: The Life of E.G. Theodore, University of Queensland Press, Queensland, 1994, p. 265. ibid., p. 264. ibid. E. Theodore, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 July 1930, p. 3749–753.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 311
Bookhouse
NOTES 5 6
311
G. Davidson, J. Hirst and S. Macintyre (eds), Oxford Companion to Australian History, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1998, p. 401. Fitzgerald, Red Ted, p. 265.
Joe Lyons Leaving the Labor party 1931 1 2
‘Censure Motion—Government Wins’, The Age, 14 March 1931, p. 11. J. Lyons, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 March 1931, pp. 229–39.
Earle Page Attack on Robert Menzies 1939 1 2 3 4 5 6
‘Sensation in House’, The Argus, 22 April 1939, p. 1. E. Page, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 April 1939, pp. 14–18. A.W. Martin, Robert Menzies: A life, vol. 1, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999, p. 276. R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 April 1939, p. 19. ibid. Martin, Robert Menzies, p. 276.
Jack Beasley Canberra air disaster 1940 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
‘Army Chiefs Perish in Canberra Air Disaster’, Canberra Times, 14 August 1940, p. 1. R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 August 1940, p. 373. J. Curtin, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 August 1940, p. 375. J. Beasley, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 August 1940, p. 375–76. ‘Army Chiefs Perish in Canberra Air Disaster’, Canberra Times, 14 August 1940, p. 1 Memorial plaque at the site of air crash, Cowan Forest, Canberra. P. Pemberton, Harold Holt: Guide to Archives of Australia’s Prime Ministers, National Archives of Australia, Canberra, 2003, p. 11. ‘Canberra—Air Disaster’, National Archives of Australia, 2000, <www.naa.gov.au/ Publications/fact_sheets/FS142.html> [10 December 2003].
John Curtin MacArthur: Supreme Commander 1942 1 2 3
P. Dunn, ‘General Douglas MacArthur in Australia During WW2’, 1999, <www.home.st.net.au/-dunn/macarthur.htm> [17 November 2003]. B. Ralph, They Passed This Way, Kangaroo Press, Sydney, 2000, p. 94. ibid.
0885-main.qx5
312 4 5 6 7
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 312
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
J. Curtin, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 March 1942, pp. 364–69. The Age, 27 March 1942, p. 3. D. MacArthur, A Soldier Speaks, Fredrick A. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1965, p. 117–18. B. Chifley, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 August 1945, p. 4956.
John Curtin Battle of the Coral Sea 1942 1 2 3 4
D. Day, John Curtin: a life, Harper Collins, Sydney, 1999, p. 471. ibid., p. 470. ‘Australia’s Hour of Trial’, The Canberra Times, 9 May 1942, p. 2. J. Curtin, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 May 1942, pp. 1060–61.
Eddie Ward The Brisbane Line 1943 1 2 3 4 5 6
E. Spratt, Eddie Ward: Firebrand of East Sydney, Rigby Limited, Adelaide, 1965, p. 106. ibid., p. 107. E. Ward, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 June 1943, pp. 56–64. S. Loosley, personal communications with editor, 3 September 2003. Spratt, Eddie Ward, p. 118. C. Stewart, ‘A Line of Contention’, Weekend Australian, 22 March 2003, p. 37.
Dorothy Tangney Maiden speech 1943 1 2 3 4 5
D. Tangney, Senate, Debates, 24 September 1943, pp. 167–170. A. Millar, Trust the Women: Women in Federal Parliament, Department of the Senate, Canberra, 1993 p. 56. ibid, p. 57. M. Sawer and M. Simms, A woman’s place: women and politics in Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1993, p. 121. Australian Encyclopaedia, vol. 7 (6th edition) 1996, p. 2861.
Dame Enid Lyons Maiden speech 1943 1 2 3
E. Lyons, Among the Carrion Crows, Rigby, Adelaide, 1972, p. 167. E. Lyons, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 September 1943, pp. 182–86. J. Curtin, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 September 1943, pp. 186–87.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 313
Bookhouse
NOTES
313
Frank Forde Death of John Curtin 1945 1 2 3 4 5 6
‘All Parties United In Sorrow’, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July 1945, p. 5. F. Forde, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 July 1945, pp. 4112–114. R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 July 1945, p. 4114–115. ‘Shattering Blow To Empire—Duke’s Tribute’, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July 1945, p. 4. ibid. ‘Meet a Prime Minister—John Curtin’, National Archives of Australia, 2002 <www.primeministers.naa.gov.au/meetpm.asp?pmId=14> [20 November 2003].
Arthur Calwell Populate or perish 1945 1 2 3 4
P. Kelly, 100 years: The Australian Story, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2001, p. 65. C. Spender in Calwell, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 August 1945, p. 4914. A. Calwell, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 August 1945, pp. 4911–915. P. Ruddock, personal communication with the editor, 6 March 2003.
Adair Blain Return from Changi 1945 1 2 3 4
‘Blain’s Gazette’, Northern Territory Archives Service 28, August 1946, no. 3. ‘Members Cheer When Sgt. Blain Returns’, Northern Territory Archives Service 28, (no date, no source). A. Blain, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 September 1945, p. 5914. ‘Guest of Honour’, Northern Territory Archives Service 28, 30 September 1945, p. 1.
Jack Lang Battle within Labor ranks 1946 1 2 3 4 5 6
‘Dramatic Scene in Federal House’, The Age, 8 November, 1946, p. 1. ibid. ‘Sensation caused by Mr Lang’, The Argus, 8 November 1946, p. 1. D. Day, Chifley, HarperCollins Publishers, Sydney, 2001, p. 315. J. Lang, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 November 1946, pp. 73–6. P. Keating, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 September 1975, pp. 1452–453.
0885-main.qx5
314
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 314
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Ben Chifley Nationalising the banks 1947 1 2 3 4 5 6
‘Mr Chifley Leaves Basic Objections Unanswered’, The Age, 16 October 1947, p. 2. L. Haylen, Twenty years’ hard Labor, Macmillan, South Melbourne, 1969, p. 31. ‘Opposition Holds Up Mr Chifley Until Silenced by Gag’, Canberra Times, 16 October 1947, p. 1. B. Chifley, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 October 1947, pp. 798–809. Canberra Times, 16 October 1947. ‘Mr Chifley’s Defence’, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 October 1947, p. 2.
Robert Menzies Opposing bank nationalisation 1947 1 2 3 4 5 6
A.W. Martin, Robert Menzies: A life, vol. 2, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999, p. 77. ibid. ibid., p. 79. ibid. R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 October 1947, pp. 1279–291. Martin, Robert Menzies, p. 84.
Robert Menzies Outlawing the Communist Party 1950 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
A.W. Martin, Robert Menzies: A life, vol. 2, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999, p. 142. ‘Menzies’s Speech on Reds Bill’, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 May 1950, p. 4. R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 April 1950, pp. 1994–2007. University of New South Wales, ‘Professor George Williams National Press Club Telstra Australia Day Address’ 2003, <www.law.unsw.edu.au/events/ AustraliaDayAddress-Terrorism.html> [24 October 2003]. Martin, Robert Menzies, p. 146. ibid., pp. 146–47. ibid., p. 147.
Ben Chifley Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950 1 2 3 4
D. Day, Chifley, HarperCollins Publishers, Sydney, 2001, p. 506. ibid., pp. 506–7. B. Chifley, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 May 1950, p. 2007–279. Day, Chifley, p. 509.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 315
Bookhouse
NOTES 5 6 7
315
Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1999, p. 538. G. Davison, J. Hirst and S. Macintyre (eds), The Oxford Companion to Australian History, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1998, p. 145. Personal communication with the editor, 31 March 2004.
Queen Elizabeth II Opening of Parliament 1954 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A.W. Martin, Robert Menzies: A life, vol. 2, Melbourne University Press, 1999, p. 246. ibid. ‘Six Minute Speech to Packed House’, The Age, 16 February 1954, p. 1. Queen Elizabeth II, Senate, Debates, 15 February 1954, p. 6. R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 February 1954, p. 7. H. Evatt, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 February 1954, pp. 7–8. N. McKenna, Senate, Debates, 15 February 1954, p. 9.
Frank Browne In defence of democracy 1955 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F. Green, Servant of The House, Heineman, Melbourne, 1969, p. 159. ibid, p. 155. F. Daly, From Curtin to Kerr, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1977, p. 138. ibid. F. Browne, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 June 1955, pp. 1625–627. Green, Servant of the House, p. 160. ibid, p. 163. I. Hancock, John Gorton: He did it his way, Hodder, Sydney, 2002, p. 216.
Dr H.V. Evatt Petrov Royal Commission 1955 1 2 3 4
5
A.W. Martin, Robert Menzies: A life, Vol 2, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999, pp. 309–10. ibid, p. 310. R. Menzies, The Measure Of The Years, Cassell, Australia Ltd, 1970, p. 197. The publication of the so-called ‘Zinoviev letter’ four days before the general election resulted in the defeat of the British Labor Party by the Conservative Party in 1924. The letter had been allegedly signed by Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Comintern, and urged the British Communist party to ‘stir up the masses of British proletariat’ The letter was later shown to be a forgery. M. Gilbert, A History of the Twentieth Century, vol. 1., 1900–33, HaperCollins, London, 1997, p. 680. H. Evatt, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 October 1955, pp. 1694–718.
0885-main.qx5
316 6 7 8 9
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 316
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 October 1955, pp. 1874–875. R. Manne, The Petrov Affair, Text Publishing, Melbourne, 2004, p. 221. ibid, p. 274. ibid, p. 288.
Bert Kelly Attacking protection 1962 1 2 3 4 5
‘Liberal Backbencher Hits Govt. Over Import Restrictions’, The Age, 4 April 1962, p. 6. ibid. C. Kelly, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 April 1962, pp. 1247–252. F. Daly, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 April 1962, p. 1238. E.G. Whitlam, A Tribute to the Modest Member, Bert Kelly, The Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney, 1997, p. 11.
Arthur Calwell Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War 1965 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 April 1965, p. 1061. A.W. Martin, Robert Menzies: A life, vol. 2, 1944–78, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999, p. 520. ibid. R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 May 1965, p. 1108. A.A. Calwell, Be just and fear not, Lloyd O’Neil, Melbourne, 1972, p. 231. ibid., p. 232. ‘Vietnam War 1962–1972’, Australian War Memorial, <www.awm.gov.au.au/atwar/vietnam.htm> [21 January 2004]. G. Davison, J. Hirst and S. Macintyre (eds), The Oxford Companion to Australian History, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1998, p. 664. ibid. ibid. ‘Vietnam War 1962–1972’, [21 January 2004] Lee Kuan Yew, ‘The 1996 Architect of the New Century Dinner’, The Nixon Centre <www.nixoncentre.org/publications/YEW96.html> [18 April 2004].
Robert Menzies Rejection of economic planning 1965 1 2 3 4
A.W. Martin, Robert Menzies: A life, vol. 2, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999, p. 463. R. Menzies, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 September 1965, p. 1078–1087. A.W. Martin, Robert Menzies, p. 531. B. Carr, Thoughtlines: Reflections of a Public Man, Penguin Group, Melbourne, 2002, p. 185.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 317
Bookhouse
NOTES
317
Hubert Opperman Dismantling the White Australia Policy 1966 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
P. Kelly, 100 Years: The Australian Story, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2001, p. 73. H. Opperman, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 March 1966, pp. 68–70. F. Daly, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 March 1966, p. 575. ibid., pp. 576–77. ‘More Asians Will Be Let In’, The Australian, 10 March 1966, p. 1. ‘Abolition of the “White Australia” Policy’, Department of Immigration, 2002, <www.immi.gov.au/facts/08key.htm> [11 December 2003]. ‘Key Facts in Immigration’, Department of Immigration, 2002, <www.immi.gov.au/facts/02key.htm> [11 December 2003].
Harold Holt Aborigines: removing discrimination 1967 1 2 3 4
H. Holt, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 March 1967, pp. 263–64. G. Whitlam, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 March 1967, p. 279. Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 28th edition, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 1999, p. 538–39. ibid.
Edward St John The Voyager disaster 1967 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
D. Salter, ‘Breaking Ranks’, The Age Good Weekend in, 20 September 2003, p. 30. ibid. ibid. J. Killen, Killen: Inside Australian Politics, Methuen Hayes, Sydney, 1985, p. 115. ‘Voyager captain: Grave charge of drunkeness, Demand for vote on new inquiry’, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 May 1967, p. 1. E. St John, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 May 1967, p. 2167–172. T. Frame, Where Fate Calls, Hodder & Stoughton, Sydney, 1992, p. 280.
Malcolm Fraser Resignation from Gorton ministry 1971 1 2 3 4 5 6
I. Hancock, John Gorton: He did it his way, Hodder, Sydney, 2002, p. 321. M. Fraser, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 March 1971, pp. 679–84. Hancock, John Gorton, p. 323–24. J. Gorton, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 March 1971, p. 687. ibid. Hancock, John Gorton, p. 324.
0885-main.qx5
318
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 318
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
John Gorton Rights for homosexuals 1973 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
J. Gorton, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 October 1973, p. 2327. I. Hancock, John Gorton: He did it his way, Hodder, Sydney, 2002, p. 367. Gorton, Debates, pp. 2327–330. J. Cramer, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 October 1973, p. 2332. B. James, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 October 1973, p. 2334. Hancock, John Gorton, p. 370. G. Willett, Living Out Loud: A history of Gay and Lesbian Activism in Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2000, p. 98.
Neville Bonner Aboriginal rights 1974 1 2 3 4
‘Plea by Bonner’, Sydney Morning Herald, 20 September 1974, p. 12. ‘Aboriginal call for reckoning’, Canberra Times, 20 September 1974, p. 6. N. Bonner, Senate, Debates, 19 September 1974, pp. 1271–273. A. Ridgeway, Senate, Debates, 18 September 2003, p. 15644–645.
Rex Connor The loans affair 1975 1 2 3 4 5
R. Connor, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 July 1975, pp. 3610–625. G, Freudenberg, A Certain Grandeur: Gough Whitlam in Politics, Macmillan, Melbourne, 1977, p. 361. ibid., p. 362. ibid. ibid., p. 365.
Malcolm Fraser Constitutional crisis 1975 1 2
D. Kemp, personal communication with the editor, 2 January 2003. M. Fraser, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 November 1975, pp. 2913–917.
Gough Whitlam Constitutional crisis 1975 1 2 3 4
G. Whitlam, The Truth of the Matter, Penguin Books, Melbourne, 1979, p. 106. G. Whitlam, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 November 1975, pp. 2917–921. A. Reid, The Whitlam Venture, Hill of Content, Melbourne, 1976, p. 412. H. Emy in G. Davidson, J. Hirst and S. Macintyre, The Oxford Companion to Australian History, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 190–91.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 319
Bookhouse
NOTES
319
Gough Whitlam After the Dismissal 1975 1 2 3 4 5 6
A. Reid, The Whitlam Venture, Hill of Content, Melbourne, 1976, p. 421. ibid., p. 422. ‘Gough Whitlam in His Own Words’, SBS Television, 10 November 2002. G. Whitlam, The Truth of the Matter, Penguin Books, Melbourne, 1979, pp. 118–19. J. Kerr, Matters for Judgment, An Autobiography, Macmillan, South Melbourne, 1978, p. 373. Whitlam, The Truth of the Matter, p. 119.
Billy Wentworth Death of Mao 1976 1 2 3 4 5 6
D. Jull, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 June 2003, p. 16484. M. Duffy, ‘It’s no great leap to prize honesty’, Daily Telegraph, 21 June 2003, p. 14. C. Wentworth, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 September 1976, pp. 957–58. M. Fraser, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 September 1976, p. 955. G. Whitlam, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 September 1976, p. 955. J. Howard, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 June 2003, p. 16384.
Don Chipp Resignation from the Liberal Party 1977 1 2
D. Chipp and J. Larkin, Don Chipp: The Third Man, Rigby, Adelaide, 1978, p. 181. D. Chipp, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 March 1977, pp. 555–58.
Bob Hawke National Economic Summit 1983 1 2 3 4
R.J. Hawke, ‘A Confident Australia’, Inaugural Hawke Lecture, Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre, University of South Australia, 12 May 1998. R.J. Hawke, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 May 1983, p. 90–4. P. Kelly, The End of Certainty, Allen & Unwin, Sydney NSW, 1994, p. 67. R. Evans, ‘The Case against Kelty and the Accord’, The Australian Financial Review, 19 August 1999, p. 17.
George Georges Australia Card 1986 1 2 3 4
N. Blewett, Press Release, Australia Card Bill 1986, 22 October 1986, p. 1. ibid. G. Georges, Senate, Debates, 10 December 1986, pp. 3725–727. J. Haines, Senate, Debates, 9 December 1986, p. 3601.
0885-main.qx5
320 5 6
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 320
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
J. Short, Senate, Debates, 10 December 1986, p. 3731. A. Geitzelt in J. Faulkner, Senate, Debates, 24 September 2002, p. 4739.
Michael Macklin War crimes horror 1988 1 2 3
M. Macklin, personal communications with the editor, 20 August 2003. M. Macklin, Senate, Debates, 15 December 1988, pp. 4257–261. C. Rubenstein, personal communications with the editor, 21 January 2004.
Bob Hawke The first Gulf War 1990 1 2 3 4
P. Kelly, ‘Convincing case for our involvement’, The Australian, 5 December 1990, p. 1 B. Hawke, The Hawke Memoirs, William Heinemann Australia, Melbourne, 1994, p. 526 B. Hawke, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 December 1990, pp. 4319–325. Hawke, The Hawke Memoirs, p. 525.
Paul Keating Legislating the Mabo decision 1993 1 2 3 4
P. Keating, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 November 1993, p. 2877. ibid., pp. 2877–883. J. Hewson, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 November 1993, p. 3406. R. Brunton, personal communication with the editor, 22 March 2003.
Paul Keating An Australian republic by 2001 1995 1 2 3 4
P. Keating, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 June 1995, p. 1434. A. Ramsey, ‘Why Sinclair was pouring it on Keating’, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 June 1995, p. 33. Keating, Debates, pp. 1434–441. ‘Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia’, Department of the Parliamentary Library, <www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/referendums/ r1999.htm> [22 January 2004].
Pauline Hanson Maiden speech 1996 1
G. Kitney, ‘The Lesson in Pauline’s Perils’, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 September 1996, p. 11.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 321
Bookhouse
NOTES 2 3
321
A. Ramsey, ‘Hanson and a question of blame’, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 November 1996, p. 45. P. Hanson, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 September 1996, pp. 3860–863.
Bill O’Chee Response to Pauline Hanson 1996 1 2
W. O’Chee, Senate, Debates, 30 October 1996, p. 4753. ibid., pp. 4752–754.
John Herron Death of a daughter 1997 1 2
J. Herron, personal communications with the editor, 26 January 2004. J. Herron, Senate, Debates, 2 September 1997, p. 6233.
Alexander Downer Australian troops in East Timor 1999 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
The ‘World Factbook 2002’, Central Intelligence Agency, <www.cia.gov/cia/ publications/factbook/print/tt.html> [11 December 2003]. V. Coakley, ‘Towards Justice and Reconciliation in East Timor’, Alternative Law Journal, vol. 26, no. 5, October 2001, p. 230. J. Howard, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 September 1999, p. 10027. A. Downer, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 September 1999, pp. 10047–51. P. Cole-Adams, ‘Fever Pitched Battle: Howard v Beazley’, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 September 1999, p. 1. K. Beazley, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 September 1999, p. 10036. ‘Busy first day for fledgling nation’, Canberra Times, 21 May 2002, p. 7. A. Downer, personal communication with the editor, 16 June 2004.
Peter Costello A nex tax system 1999 1
P. Costello, House of Representatives, Debates, pp. 7760–763.
John Howard Bali terrorist attack 2002 1
K. Patterson, ‘Airlift of Bail Casualties Completed’, Minister for Health and Ageing, 2002, <www.health.gov.au/mediarel/yr2002/kp/kp021015.htm> [11 December 2003].
0885-main.qx5
322 2 3 4
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 322
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
A. Ramsey, ‘If Only it Didn’t Take Barbarity to Civilise Leaders’, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 October 2002, p. 1. J. Howard, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 October 2002, pp. 7491–501. S. Panell, ‘Court to see rebuilt Bali bomb detonated’, The Courier Mail, 8 January 2003, p. 6.
Amanda Vanstone Human stem cell research 2002 1.
A. Vanstone, Senate, Debates, 11 November 2002, p. 5857–861.
John Howard The second Gulf War 2003 1
2 3 4
J. Howard, ‘Closing Address to the Liberal Party National Convention’, Prime Minister of Australia, 2003 <www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech/106.htm> [11 December 2003]. J. Howard, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 March 2003, pp. 12505–512. S. Crean, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 March 2003, p. 12514. J. Howard, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 May 2003, p. 14418–426.
Simon Crean Welcome to US President Bush 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6
M. Harvey, ‘Fair dinkum mates to the end’, Herald-Sun, 24 October 2003, p. 5. L. Tingle, ‘Dreary PM no match for Crean’s essential truth’, Australian Financial Review, 24 October 2003, p. 7. S. Crean, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 October 2003, pp. 21688–689. G.W. Bush, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 October 2003, p. 21692. ibid. M. Latham, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 February 2003, p. 10926.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 323
Bookhouse
Glossary
Glossary
Accord—an agreement between the trade unions and the Labor Party in the 1980s, designed to prevent a wage explosion, whereby the unions agreed to limit wage demands in return for increases in job-creation measures and other social improvements. Act—a law made by the Parliament. Adjournment debate—usually conducted at the end of the sitting day, when members or senators are able to make speeches about any subject. Australian Democrats—formed by Don Chipp in 1977 after he resigned from the Liberal Party. While a minor party, it has had considerable electoral success and held the balance of power in the Senate for many years. Australian Labor Party—has its roots in the trade union movement and is the oldest political party in Australia. It was represented at the first federal election in 1901 and Australia’s first Labor government took office in 1904. Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist)—formed after the Australian Labor Party split in 1955; after a period of considerable instability within the Labor Party, particulary due to the way in which the ALP leader, H.V. Evatt, dealt with communist influences within the party. It became the Democratic Labor Party in 1957. Bill—a proposed new law that has been presented to Parliament. Cabinet—chaired by the prime minister, the cabinet includes the most senior ministers in government. Its numbers vary from government to government. Caucus—parliamentary members of the Australian Labor Party. 323
0885-main.qx5
324
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 324
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Censure motion—a motion in either the House of Representatives or the Senate that is highly critical of, and seeks to attach blame to, another member or members. Colonial Office—the office, established in 1901, of the British government that dealt with matters relating to the colonies. Conscience vote—also known as a “free vote”, this vote is made in either the House of Representatives or the Senate and members can vote in accordance with their personal views, not necessarily according to the direction of the political party to which they belong. Constitution—Australia’s constitution is set out in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitutional Act and provides the basis for government. Country Party—formed in 1920, the CP was intended to represent the interests of rural and regional Australia. It was renamed the National Country Party in 1975 and the National Party of Australia in 1982. Double dissolution—the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House if Representatives by the Governor-General. A double dissolution means that all business before both houses is ended and a general election is called to return members for all seats in both houses. A double dissolution can take place only when there is an intractable deadlock between the houses as prescribed in section 57 of the Constitution. Federation—the union of a number of states (or colonies as they were referred to in Australia), each of which retains some power to govern itself, while giving over some powers to a national government. Australia became a federation in 1901 when the colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania joined together. Free Trade—a major Australian political party in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was a broadly conservative party that advocated free trade rather than the protection of industry sectors by tariffs and other means. Fusion Party—resulted from the amalgamation in 1909 of Alfred Deakin’s protectionist liberals with former liberals and free-traders. Gag or closure standing order—procedures for ending discussion and debate in the House of Representatives or the Senate even if some members may still wish to speak. Governor-General—the representative of the Queen in Australia at a federal level. Hansard—this title refers to both the official transcript of the debates in parliament and the office that produces those transcripts. High Court—established under the Australian Constitution, the role of the High Court is to consider and decide upon matters that arise under the Constitution. The High Court also hears appeals from the supreme courts of the states and other federal courts.
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 325
Bookhouse
GLOSSARY
325
House of Representatives—one of the two houses of the federal Parliament of Australia. It currently has 150 members, each of whom is elected to represent a specific area or electorate. It is the house in which government is formed. Independent—a member of parliament who does not represent a specific political party. Joint sitting—when both the Senate and the House of Representatives meet together to make a decision on a proposed law which the two houses, meeting separately, have been unable to agree on after a double dissolution. Joint sittings also take place on certain ceremonial occasions, so all members and senators can be addressed at once. Lang Labor—a group of Labor Party members who agreed with the views of and were loyal to NSW Premier, Jack Lang. They formed the Australian Labor (NonCommunist) Party which had supporters in both Federal and State parliaments. Liberal Party of Australia—founded in 1944 by Sir Robert Menzies and others, it had its roots in the Liberal Party of 1909, the Nationalist Party of 1917 and the United Australia Party of 1931. Maiden speech—now known as a “first speech”, this is the first occasion on which a newly-elected member speaks in the Parliament. A maiden speech can be made at any time but the member is traditionally heard in silence without interjection or interruption. Mandate—political authority given by electors to government. Member of parliament—while this can mean a member of either house of parliament it is usually used to describe a member of the House of Representatives, who often use the initials “M.P.” after their names. Minister—a member of the executive government, who usually has responsibility for a government department. National Party of Australia—formerly the Australian Country Party (see above). Press gallery—the group of journalists who work from Parliament House and report on the proceedings of the parliament. Privy Council—The Privy Council in London was the ultimate court of appeal for the Australian legal system. Beginning in 1968 the Australian parliament progressively abolished Privy Council appeals until, with the simultaneous passage of the Australia Acts in the Australian and British parliaments in 1986, ‘judicial independence was finally gained’. Protection—the protecting of local production of goods from international competition by the imposition of tariff barriers. Referendum—a vote by all eligible voters on a specific question. In Australia, it is nearly always a vote on a proposed alteration to the Constitution. Royal assent—the final stage in making a law. It involves the signing of a Bill by the Governor-General, so making it into an Act of Parliament.
0885-main.qx5
326
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 326
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Royal commission—an organisation formed by a person or persons chosen by a government and given extensive powers to inquire into and report on a matter of specific public concern. Second reading—the second stage of the passage of a Bill through either the House of Representatives or the Senate. It is at this stage that the main debate on the purpose of the Bill takes place. Senate—one of the two houses of the federal Parliament of Australia. It has 76 senators, 12 from each of the six states and two each from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Senators are elected from each state and territory, voting as one electorate. Senator—a person elected to be a member of the Australian Senate Standing orders—the collection of rules that govern the way in which either house of parliament conducts its business Statute of Westminster—passed in 1931, this Act of the British Parliament gave legal effect to the definition of the independent status of the Australian parliament. Tariff—a duty, or tax, on imports designed to ensure that local products are competitively priced even if they are more expensive to produce. Third reading—the final stage in the passage of a Bill through a House of Parliament. Following the third reading, the Bill is submitted to the Governor-General for Royal Assent (see above). United Australian Party—formed in 1931, it was a union of the Nationalist Party with former members of the Australian Labor Party. We acknowledge the following sources that were used in the preparation of this Glossary: Australian Dictionary of Biographies 1891–1939, vol. 9, Melbourne University Press, 1983. Corcoran, R., The Collins Australian Dictionary of Political Terms, CollinsDove, (State), 1994. Davison, G., Hirst, J. and Macintyre, S., The Oxford Companion to Australian History, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1988. Glossary, Australian Parliamentary Library, 2004, www.aph.gov.au/find/glossary.htm [6 May 2004] Glossary, National Archives of Australia, www.primeministers.naa.gov.au. glossary.asp?searchtypebrowse [5 May 2004]
0885-main.qx5
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 327
Bookhouse
Select bibliography
Alexander, F., From Curtin to Menzies and after: Continuity or confrontation?, Thomas Nelson (Australia) Ltd., Melbourne, 1973. Australian Encyclopaedia, vol. 7, 6th edition, 1996. Australian Political Milestones, Thomas Nelson (Australia) Ltd., Melbourne, 1976. Berriedale Keith, A., Speeches and Documents on Colonial Policy, vol. 11, Oxford University Press, London, 1918. Calwell, A.A., Be just and fear not, Lloyd O’Neil, Melbourne, 1972. Carr, B., Thoughtlines—Reflections of a Public Man, Penguin Group, Melbourne, 2002. Chipp, D., & Larkin, J., Don Chipp: The Third Man, Rigby, Adelaide, 1978. Daly, F., From Curtin to Kerr, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1977. Davison, G., Hirst, J., Macintyre, S., The Oxford Companion to Australian History, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1988 Day, D., John Curtin: a life, Harper Collins, Sydney, 1999. Day, D., Chifley, Harper Collins, Sydney, 2001. Denning, W., Caucus Crisis, Bookman Press, Melbourne, 2000. Fitzgerald, R., Red Ted: The Life of E.G. Theodore, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1994. FitzSimons, P., Beazley A biography by Peter Fitzsimons, HarperCollins Publishers, Sydney, 1998. Fitzhardinge, L., The Little Digger 1914–1952: William Morris Hughes, a political biography, vol. 11, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1979. Frame, T., Where Fate Calls, Hodder and Stoughton, Sydney, 1992. Fruedenberg, G., A Certain Grandeur: Gough Whitlam in Politics, Macmillan, Melbourne, 1977. Gilbert, M., A History of the Twentieth Century, vol. 1, 1900–33. Grattan, M., Australian Prime Ministers, New Holland, Sydney, 2001. Green, F., Servant of the House, Heineman, Melbourne, 1969. Hancock, I., John Gorton: He did it his way, Hodder, Sydney, 2002. Haylen, L., Twenty years’ hard Labor, Macmillan, South Melbourne, 1969. Hawke, B., The Hawke Memoirs, William Heinemann Australia, Melbourne, 1994. Horne, D., Billy Hughes, Bookman Press, Melbourne, 2000. Kelly, P., End of Certainty, Allen &Unwin, Sydney, 1994.
327
0885-main.qx5
328
27/8/04
9:49 AM
Page 328
SPEAKING
Bookhouse
FOR
AUSTRALIA
Kelly, P., 100 Years: The Australian Story, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2001. Kiernan, C., Calwell: A Personal and Political Biography, Thomas Nelson (Australia) Ltd, Melbourne, 1978. Kerr, J., Matter for Judgement, An Autobiography, Macmillan, South Melbourne, 1978. Killen, J., Killen: Inside Australian Politics, Methuen Hayes, Sydney, 1985. La Nauze, J.A., Alfred Deakin: A biography, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1965. Lloyd, C.J., Parliament and the Press: The Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery 1901–88, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1988. Lyons, E., Among the Carrion Crows, Rigby, Adelaide, 1972. MacArthur, D., A Solider Speaks, Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1965. Manne, R., The Petrov Affair, Text Publishing, Melbourne, 2004. Martin, A.W., Robert Menzies: A life, vol. 1, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999. Martin, A.W., Robert Menzies: A life, vol. 2, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999. McMinn, W.G., George Reid, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1989. Menzies, R., The Measure Of The Years, Cassell, Australia Ltd, 1970. Millar, A. Trust the Women: Women in Federal Parliament, Department of the Senate, Canberra, 1993. Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia 28 edition, Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1999. Pemberton, P., Harold Holt: Guide to Archives of Australia’s Prime Ministers, National Archives of Australia, Canberra, 2003. Ralph, B., They passed this way: the United States of America, the states of Australia and World War II, Kangaroo Press, Sydney, 2000. Reid, A., The Whitlam Venture, Hill of Content, Melbourne, 1976. Safire, W., Lend me your ears: Great speeches in History, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1992. Sawer, M. and Simms, M., A woman’s place, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1993. Souter, G., Acts of Parliament, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1988. Spratt, E., Eddie Ward: Firebrand of East Sydney, Rigby Limited, Adelaide, 1965. Whitlam, G., The Truth of the Matter, Penguin Books, Melbourne, 1979. Whitlam, G., A Tribute to the Modest Member, Bert Kelly, The Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney, 1997. Whyte, W.F., William Morris Hughes: His Life and Times, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1957. Willett, G., Living Out Loud: A history of Gay and Lesbian Activism in Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2000.
Bh0885I-1stPages.QX5
13/7/04
4:47 PM
Page 329
Bookhouse
Index Index
Abeles, Peter 240 Aboriginal 19–22, 187–90, 208–12, 259, 261, 269, 270 Accord, The 241 Act of Parliament (Commonwealth) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (1979) 155 Commonwealth Electoral (1962) 22 Commonwealth Franchise (1902) 22, 106 Crimes 152 Defence 43 Immigration Restriction (1901) 7, 183 National Service (1964) 173 Public Service 30 War Crimes 247–50 Adermann, Charles 165 Africa 22, 59, 186, 270 Alatas, Ali 281 Allenby, Edmund 60 Alston, Richard 297 Anderson, John 298 Annan, Kofi 301 Anstey, Frank 43–6, 69, 163 Anthony, J. Douglas (Doug) 206, 215, 222, 235 Anti-conscription League 57 Anzac 107 ASEAN 177 Asia 22, 59, 146, 173–5, 177, 185, 186, 305
Aspry Committee (1975) 286 Attorney-General 11–5, 28–31, 32–5, 85, 155, 203, 207, 224 Australia Card 242–6 Australian, Council of Trade Unions 220, 235, 239, 240 Defence Force 255, 291 Democrats 233, 236, 237, 261, 270, 285 Head of State 263–7 Industry Development Corporation 214 Republic 67, 263–7 Australia–US Alliance 304, 305 Baghdad 257 Bali xii, 155, 290–4 Barton, Edmund xiii, 7–10, 15, 120 Batchelor, Egerton 28 Battle for Britain 147 Battle of the Coral Sea 99–100 Beasley, John (Jack) 91–3 Beazley, Kim (Jnr) 284, 286 Beazley, Kim (Snr) 207 Belgium 5, 43–6, 48 Best, Robert 55 Bialoguski, Michael 164, 166 Bill, Parliamentary (Commonwealth) Aboriginal Development Commission (1979) 212
329
Bh0885I-1stPages.QX5
330
13/7/04
4:47 PM
SPEAKING
Page 330
FOR
Appropriation (1975) 224 Australia Card (1986) 242–6 Banking (947) 135–19, 140–4 Communist Party Dissolution (1950) 145–50, 151–5 Customs Tariff (1902) 23–7 Franchise (1902) 16–8, 19–22 Invalid and Old Age Pensions (1908) 6, 28–31 Judiciary (1902) 11–5 Maritime Industries (1929) 70–4 Military Service Referendum (1916) 50–3, 54–7 Native Title (1993) 258–62 Public Service (1901) 5 Research Involving Embryos (2002) 295–8 Tariff Board (1962) 169–72 War Crimes Amendment (1987) 247–50 Bjelke-Peterson, Joh 240 Blain, Adair Macalister xii, 126–8 Blainey, Geoffrey v–vi Blewett, Neal 242 Blix, Hans 301 Bonner, Neville vi, 22, 208–12 Boswell, Ronald (Ron) 276 Bowen, Lionel 207 Brennan, Frank 46, 54–7 Brennan, Gerard 258 Brett, George 95 Brisbane Line 101–5 British Commonwealth 109, 122, 157, 158 Brown, Robert (Bob) 298, 305 Browne, Frank 160–63 Bruce, Stanley Melbourne 70–4, 86, 88 Brunton, Ron 262 Bush, George W. 300, 304, 305, 306 Cabban, Peter 192–4 Cabinet Australian Federal 160, 198, 234, 235, 266, 292, 299 British 66 Cairns, James (Jim) 213 Calwell, Arthur 120–5, 173–7, 199, 270, 304 Cameron, Archie 90, 127, 160 Canberra, Australian Capital Territory xii, 162, 227, 229 Carr, Robert (Bob) 182 Cass, Moses (Moss) 203
Bookhouse
AUSTRALIA Caucus, Australian Labor Party 53, 135, 151 Chamberlain, Joseph 7 Chamberlain, Neville 4 Changi (POW camp) xii, 126 Chifley, Joseph Benedict (Ben) 98, 119, 127, 131, 134,135–9, 149–50, 151–5 Child, Gloria (Joan) 110 China 23, 106, 166, 173–5, 184, 230–2, 271 Chipp, Donald (Don) 192, 194, 206, 233–7 Coalition of the Willing 299, 303 Cohen, Barry 206 Cold War 146, 173 Cole, Douglas 204 Coleman, Ruth 110 Coles, Arthur 93 Colombo plan 162 Commonwealth Bank 136, 137, 144 State Financial Relations 285, 287 Communism 147, 152, 155, 174, 175, 230, 232 Communists 145–8, 154, 155 Connor, Reginald (Rex) 207, 213–6, 218 Conroy, Alfred 13 Conscription/conscripts xi, 50–3, 54–7, 63, 173, 175, 176 Constitution, of Australia 11–6, 27–8, 55, 66, 148, 155–6, 158, 188–9, 217, 219, 223–4, 226, 266–7 Constitutional Crisis 217–21, 222–6 Cook, Joseph 46, 49, 50–3, 55 Copland, Douglas 140 Corser, Edward (Bernard) 90 Costello, Peter 285–9 Cramer, John 206 Craven, Greg 15 Crean, Frank 206, 225 Crean, Simon 176, 298, 304–6 Crimes Act, Federal 152 Victorian 205 Curtin, John xii, 56, 94–8, 99–100, 104, 115, 116–9, 304, 305 Daly, Fred 151, 160, 172, 186, 207 Daly, Thomas 197, 198 Darwin, Northern Territory 94, 96,153, 224, 271 Dawson, Anderson 17 Day, David 99, 151 De Quincey, Thomas vi, 33
Bh0885I-1stPages.QX5
13/7/04
4:47 PM
Page 331
INDEX De Villepin, Dominque 301 Deakin, Alfred xiii, 10, 11–5, 23, 32–5, 43 Deflation 134 Dismissal, The 226–7 Double Dissolution (of Parliament) 155, 227 Downer, Alexander 280–84 East Timor (see also West Timor) 280–4, 305 Emy, Hugh 226 Evans, Gareth 261 Evatt, Herbert V. 95, 155, 159, 160, 164–8 Ewing, Norman 16–18, 21 Fadden, Arthur 90,93, 101, 127 Fairbairn, James 91, 93 Faulkner, John 279 Federal Court of Australia 262 Fenton, James 83 Fisher, Andrew xi, 10, 28, 31, 35, 37, 43, 47–9 Fitzgerald, Ross 75 Fitzpatrick, Raymond 160, 163 Foley, George 69 Forde, Francis (Frank) 116–9 Forrest, John 29 Forty (40) hour working week 132 Fox Report 235 France 44, 48, 50, 60, 175, 299, 302 Fraser, John (Malcolm) 196–9, 213, 217–21, 222, 227, 229 Free Traders 37, 39 Freudenberg, Graham 176, 304 Fulton, William 204 Gaha, John 112 Gallipoli 47 Game, Philip 131 Geitzelt, Arthur 246 General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) 171 Georges, George 242–6 Germany 5, 44, 48, 58, 60, 63, 146, 299 Glynn, Patrick 15, 30 Goldstein, Vida 18 Goods and Services Tax (GST) 285, 287, 289 Gorton, John 163, 196–7, 199, 203–7, 214, 225 Government of Barton (Protectionist) 16, 19
Bookhouse
331
Bruce/Page (Nationalist) 6, 70 Chifley (Australian Labor) 120, 131, 144 Cook (Liberal) 6 Curtin (Australian Labor) 101, 104, 107 Deakin (Protectionist) 6, 28, 35, 36 Fadden (Country/United Australia) 101 Fraser (Liberal–National Country) 229, 230, 233, 286 Gorton (Liberal–National/Country) 177 Hawke (Australian Labor) 172, 238, 242, 246, 247 Holt (Liberal/Country) 183, 187 Howard (Coalition, Liberal–National/Country) 172, 217, 280, 289, 303 Hughes (Nationalist) 69 Keating (Australian Labor) 172, 262, 267 Menzies (Liberal/Country) 101, 145, 164, 168–9, 173 Scullin (Labor) 75, 80, 131, 170 Whitlam (Labor) 172, 177, 217, 230 Governor-General 3, 4, 119, 217, 219, 222, 226 –7, 265–7 Green, Marshall 214 Green, Roland Frederick (Frank) 163 Griffith, Samuel 15 Groom, Littleton E. 6, 28–31 Groom, William 3–6 Grudelis, Antanis 250 Guilfoyle, Margaret 18 Gullett, Henry 91, 93, 152 Gunn, William 215 Gusmao, Xanana 284 Haines, Janine 237, 245 Hall, David 37 Hall, Raymond (Steele) 237 Hancock, Ian 199, 203 Hancock, Lang 215 Hanson, Pauline 268–72, 273, 274 Harris, George 213 Hawke, Robert (Bob) 144, 238–41, 253–7, 286 Haylen, Leslie (Les) 135 Herron, John J. xii, 269, 277–9 Hewson, John 257, 261 High Court of Australia xiii, 11–5, 137, 139, 144, 153, 155, 219, 258–60, 262 Hill, Robert 297
Bh0885I-1stPages.QX5
332
13/7/04
4:47 PM
SPEAKING
Page 332
FOR
HMAS Anzac 302 Darwin 302 Kanimbla 302 Melbourne 191, 192, 195 Voyager xii, 191–94 Holder, Frederick 35 Holt, Harold 93, 182, 187–90 House of Representatives (Australian) xi, 53, 93, 106, 110–1, 115, 131, 145, 155–6, 158, 163, 222–3, 225, 227, 265–6, 268, 286 Howard, John 232, 263, 280, 290–4, 298, 299–303 Howe, Robert 30 Hughes, Thomas (Tom) 203 Hughes, William (Billy) 7, 15, 32–5, 37, 50, 53, 55, 57, 58–63, 64–9, 74, 140 Human stem cell research 295–8 Hussein, Saddam 253, 257, 299–303 Immigration xii, 10, 120–5, 179, 183, 186, 270 Minister for 10, 120–5, 183–6 In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) 296 Indonesia 271, 282, 284, 291, 294 Inflation 132, 134 International Force in East Timor (INTERFET) 281–2 Iraq 253–5, 257, 299, 300–3, 305 Jackson, Robert 248 James, Albert (Bert) 205, 206 Japan 61, 95, 102–3, 235, 270–1 Jess, John 191, 192 Johnson, Leslie 181 Judas 32–3 Kalejs, Konrad 250 Keating, Paul 134, 144, 241, 258–62, 263–7, 286, 287 Keating, Senator John 20 Kelly, Charles Robert (Bert) 27, 169–72, 206 Kelly, Paul 7, 19, 240 Kelty, Bill 240,241 Kemp, David 217 Kennedy, John F. 171 Kernot, Chery l261 Kerr, John 226–9 Khemlani, Tirath 213, 215, 216 Killen, D. James (Jim) 207 King George V 157 King George VI 157
Bookhouse
AUSTRALIA Kings Hall 119 Korea 173, 254 Kuching (POW camp) 126 Kuwait 253–5 Lang, John (Jack) 131–4 Latham, John G. 85 Latham, Mark 305, 306 Lee, Kuan Y. 177 Lincoln, Abraham 53 Loosley, Stephen 104 Lynch, Phillip 207, 216 Lyne, William 32, 38, 39 Lyons, Enid xi, 18, 111–5, 116 Lyons, Joseph (Joe) vi, 79, 80–5, 86, 89, 111, 116, 117 Mabo 258–62 MacKellar, Michael 195 Macklin, Michael J. xii, 247–50 Mahon, Hugh 64–9 Manne, Robert 168 Mao, Tse-tung 230–2 Martin, Allan 144, 181 Mason, Colin 237, 244 Matheson, Alexander 19, 20, 21 McArthur, Douglas 94–8, 99, 119 McEwen, John 103, 171 McGrath, David 82 McKenna, Nicholas 159 McMahon, William 199 McMillan, William 8 McSwiney, Terence 64, 68 Member for Ballarat 11–5, 32–3 Barker 127–8 Barton 152–6 Batman 54–7 Bendigo 58–9 Bennelong 290–4, 299 Blaxland 258–67 Burke 43–6 Capricornia 116–9 Corio 183–6 Cowper 86–90 Cunningham 213–6 Dalley 75–9 Darling Downs 3–6, 28–31 Darwin (Tasmania) 111–5 Denison 112 East Sydney 23–7, 36–9, 101–5 Flinders 70–4 Fremantle 94–100
Bh0885I-1stPages.QX5
13/7/04
4:47 PM
Page 333
Bookhouse
INDEX Gippsland 37–8 Grayndler 160, 186 Grey 37 Higgins 187–90, 203–7, 285–9 Hotham 233–7, 304–6 Hume 38 Hunter 7–10 Kalgoorlie 64–5 Kooyong 14–50, 178–82 MacKellar 189, 230–32 Macquarie 135–9, 151–5 Mayo 280–4 Melbourne 120–5, 173–7 Northern Territory 126–5 Oxley 268–72, 274 Parkes 5, 135 Parramatta 50–3 Reid 131–4, 160 Wakefield 169–72 Wannon 196–9, 217–21 Warringah 122, 191–5 Werriwa 222–29 West Sydney 31–3, 37, 91–3 Wide Bay 37, 47–9 Wills 238–41, 253–7 Wilmot 80–5 Menzies, Kate 90 Menzies, Robert G. 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 101, 102, 110, 119, 127, 131, 135, 140–4, 145–50, 151, 156, 159, 160, 164, 165, 168, 173, 176, 178–82, 191 Middle East 147, 186, 214, 254, 302 Migration 122–3, 179 Minchin, Nicholas (Nick) 297 Minister of/for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs 277–8 Air and Civil Aviation 91 Army 196 Arms and Repatriation 91 Defence 37 Environment and Conservation 203 External Affairs 37, 64, 70–4, 175 Family and Community Services 295–8 Foreign Affairs 280–4 Home Affairs 37 Housing 18 Housing and Construction 224 Immigration 10, 120–5, 183–6 Information 120–5 Labour and National Service 101–5 Markets and Transport 81 Minerals and Energy 213–6, 220 Navy 192, 194
333
Repatriation 171 Social Security 18 Trade 171 Trade and Customs 37 Minnelli, Liza 163 Moloney, Parker 81, 82 Molotov, V.M. 164, 166, 168 Moscow 231 Letters 165 Narodny Bank, London 215 Mugana Mines, Royal Commission into 75 Multiculturalism/ists 269–270 National Economic Summit conference 238–41 Nazi 231 War crimes/criminals 247–50 Soviet Pact (1939) 231 Nettle, Kerry 298, 305 New South Wales Aboriginal population of 20 Premier of 131, 182 State of 4, 21, 28, 29 New Zealand 4, 18, 22, 96, 107 Newspapers Age, The 131, 169 Argus, The 58, 64 Australian, The 186, 196, 197 Bankstown Observer, The 160 Canberra News, The 197 Canberra Times, The 99, 135, 197 Catholic Weekly 204 Daily Telegraph 196–7 Herald-Sun 304 Newcastle Morning Herald, The 100 Saturday Evening Post, The 166 Weekend Australian 105 Nixon, Richard 177 North Vietnam 173, 175, 177 Opperman, Hubert 10, 183–6 Organisation of Economic Development (OECD) 286 of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) 214 Outram Road (POW camp) 126, 128 Ozols, Karlis 250 O’Chee, William (Bill) xii, 273–6 O’Connor, Richard 11, 15, 19–22, 187 Pacific 174, 305 Page, Earle 65, 86–90
Bh0885I-1stPages.QX5
334
13/7/04
4:47 PM
SPEAKING
Page 334
FOR
Parliament of Australia (Commonwealth, Federal) xi, xii, 3, 18, 47, 64, 67, 86–7, 108, 110, 115, 117, 135, 141, 143, 157–8, 176, 190, 197, 208, 217, 219, 221, 266, 268, 299 British (Imperial, UK) 12–13, 314 New South Wales 4, 272 Queensland 209, 272 Party, political Anti–Socialist 27 Australian Communist 145, 147, 151, 153, 155 Australian Democrats 233, 236–7, 245, 261, 285 Australian Labor xiii, 23, 27–8, 31, 44–5, 50, 54, 63–4, 69, 74–75, 79–80, 85, 104, 117, 119, 131–6, 144, 147, 151, 159, 168–9, 172–3, 176, 186–7, 206, 219–20, 234–6, 242, 253, 255–6, 276, 285, 287, 289, 304 Democratic Labor 168 Labor (Non Communist) 91, 131 Country 35, 86–8, 90, 206, 219, 224 Free Trade 16, 23, 36 Fusion 35 Lang Labour 134 Liberal 53, 144–5, 159, 187, 199, 206, 208, 219, 224, 233–4, 236 Liberal–Country 22, 144 Liberal–National Country 229, 236 National 35, 263, 273, 276 National Labour 53 Nationalist 53, 66, 69, 74, 85 Pauline Hanson’s One Nation 276, 272 Progressive Conservative (of Canada) 288–9 Protectionist 3, 23 United Australia (UAP) 85–8, 93 Patterson, Kay 297 Peacock, Andrew 196, 197 Pearce, George 20, 37 Pensions, Old–age 3–4, 28–9, 31 Peoples’ Convention, The (Constitutional) 267 Perkins, Charles 208 Petrov Affair, The 164–8 Petrov, Vladimir 164–8 Playford, Thomas 17, 18 Plibersek, Tanya 306 Poynton, Alexander 37 Prime Minister 7–10, 36, 47–9, 50–1, 53–5, 58–75, 86–90, 94–100, 116,
Bookhouse
AUSTRALIA 135–9, 145–50, 165, 175, 178–82, 187–90, 197–8, 213, 217–26, 253–67, 286, 290–4, 299–303 Prisoner-of-war (POW) camps Changi xii, 126 Kuching 126 Outram Road 126, 128 Sandakan 126 Privy Council 144 Protection (of trade) xii, 23–7, 169–72 Protectionists 37, 39 Queen Elizabeth II 156–9 Queensland 4, 21, 29, 53, 77–78, 104,209, 212, 272 Ramsey, Alan 196, 198–9, 268, 290 Rankin, Annabelle 18, 115, 209 Referendum 50, 53, 56, 187, 190 Reid, George 10, 23–7, 31, 36–9, 169 Remembrance Day 1975 (see also Dismissal) 217, 227 Republic, Australian 67, 263–7 Reynolds, Leonard 181 Riordan, Joseph 224 Robertson, John 191–3, 195 Rodgers, Don 99 Roman Catholic Church 204 Ronald, James 24 Royal Commission into the Brisbane Line 104 on Espionage (The Petrov Royal Commission) 164–8 on the Monetary and Banking Systems 138 into the Voyager Disaster 191–5 (Second) into the Voyager Disaster 195 Rubenstein, Colin 250 Ruddock, Philip 125, 206 Sandakan (POW camp) 126 Scullin, James 75, 79, 80, 131, 286 Senate 106, 155–6, 217, 220, 222–23, 226 233, 237, 246, 261, 285, 297, 303 Senator for New South Wales 19–22 Queensland 208–12, 242–6, 247–50, 273–6, 277–9 South Australia 295–8 Western Australia 16–8, 106–10 Short, James (Jim) 245 Sibraa, Kerry 261 Sinclair, Ian 206, 263 Smith, David 227
Bh0885I-1stPages.QX5
13/7/04
4:47 PM
Page 335
Bookhouse
INDEX Snedden, Billy 207 Souter, Gavin 35 South Vietnam 173, 177 South-west Pacific 99 Soviet Embassy (Canberra) 168 Government 165–6 Union 146, 164–6, 248 Spender, Percy 103, 122 St John, Edward xii, 191–5 Staley, Anthony (Tony) 206 Stevens, Duncan 191, 193–5 Stewart, Francis 218 Street, Geoffrey 91, 93 Supply 220, 226 Swinbourne, Algernon vi, 117 Tangney, Dorothy vi, 18, 106–10 Tariff Board 169, 170 Terra nullius 258 Terrorism, (War on Terror) 290–1, 293 Theodore, Edward (Ted) 75–9 Thomson, Dugald 9, 30 Treaty of Versailles xiii, 58–63 Tudor, Frank 63 UNAMET (United Nations Mission in East Timor) 281, 283 United Kingdom (Britain, Great Britain) 5, 18, 44, 67–8, 100, 122, 171, 175, 204, 270, 299, 305 United Nations 253–5, 281, 299, 300–01, 303, 305 United States (of America) 4, 12–3, 18, 23–5, 94–6, 100, 151, 170–1, 173, 175–7, 214, 248, 250, 255, 281, 284, 290, 299, 301, 303–5 Uren, Thomas (Tom) 206 Vanstone, Amanda 295–8 Vernon Report 178–82 Vernon, James 178 Victoria, State of 3–4, 21, 29, 37, 53 Victorian Crimes Act 205 Vietnam 155, 173–7, 196–7 Villers-Bretonneux 59, 60 Walsh, Peter 243, 244, 245 War Cabinet 102–4 Coalition of the Willing 299, 303 Cold War 146, 173 Council 97
335
Crimes/criminals 247–50 Gulf War, First 253–7 Gulf War, Second 299–303 Iraq 253–5, 257, 299–303, 305 Military Service Referendum (1916) 50–7 National Service (1964) 173 Terrorism, (War on Terror) 290–1, 293 World War I xi, 173 World War II xii, 173, 250, 266 Vietnam 155, 173 Ward, Edward (Eddie) 101–5, 149 Webster, William 35 Wentworth, William (Billy) 189, 207, 230–2 West Timor 280, 282 Western Australia, State of 21, 53, 104, 215 White Australia Policy xiii, 7–10, 19, 60, 120, 183–6 White, C. Brundenell 91 Whitlam, E. Gough xii, 27, 79, 172, 176, 189, 196, 206, 213, 215, 216, 217, 222–6, 227–9, 232, 235 Williams, Daryl 155 Willis, Ralph 206 Wise, George 37, 38 Wolfenden Committee (of UK) 204 World Trade Centre, New York (see also Terrorism) 290 Trade Organisation (WTO) 286 World War I xi, 173 Anzac 107 Gallipoli 47 Military Service Referendum (1916) 50–7 Treaty of Versailles xiii, 58–63 Villers-Bretonneux 59–60 World War II xii, 173, 250, 266 Battle for Britain 147 Battle of the Coral Sea 99–100 Brisbane Line 101–5 Crimes/criminals 247–50 Dunkirk 113 Gestapo 249 Nazi–Soviet Pact (1939) 231 Nuremberg Charter 248 Nuremberg Trials 247–8, 250 Zeal, Senator William 20 Zinovieff letter 166
