Whitlam and the Vetnam War - A question of priorities
Whitlam and the Vietnam War – a question of priorities.
Bobbie Oliver
[A Paper presented at the 19th Biennial Labour History Conference, Melbourne Trades Hall, 26 November 2025.]
The first act of the first Whitlam ministry in December 1972 was to release the imprisoned draft resisters and to drop all pending prosecutions on 300 others. Occurring prior to many other important decisions that the ‘duumvirate’ of Whitlam and Barnard made in the first 14 days of Labor government, this act has led to an assumption that Gough Whitlam always strongly opposed the conscription of young men for military service in Vietnam and Australia’s involvement in the war.
Yet, initially, Whitlam did not prioritise ending conscription above other policies. In a December 1969 letter to F.E. (Joe) Chamberlain, the State Secretary of the ALP in Western Australia, Whitlam stated, “We maximise our opposition to the Vietnam War by maximising support for our party. I do not believe that I should single out any one of half a dozen major issues for my exclusive attention. Support for us on one issue is strengthened by support for us on other issues”. [1]
My paper explores why Whitlam’s attitude to the war changed between 1969 and 1972.
On 11 January 1967, The Canberra Times reported that Arthur Calwell was resigning the leadership of the ALP and that Gough Whitlam was “favoured to win the resulting caucus ballot”. “Mr Whitlam”, the report continued, “faces the herculean task of re-building the shattered ALP. His parliamentary ranks are thin and he must still cope with left-dominated party bodies like the Federal Executive… The process will be slow and traditionally bitter, as is Labor’s way, but the outcome will be vital to the maintenance of the two-party democratic system”. [2]
Whitlam took the leadership of a depleted party which had been soundly beaten at a recent election, partly because its anti-Vietnam War stance was not where a majority of Australian voters were at in 1966. If 18-year-olds had been able to vote in those days, the result might have been quite different!
While Whitlam was Leader of the Opposition, Australia’s Prime Minister changed three times. Harold Holt (Menzies’ successor) was drowned in December 1967; his successor John Gorton, resigned in 1971, and Billy McMahon then held the post until the 1972 election. In Troy Bramston’s opinion, McMahon “performed poorly” in matters of public interest such as the status of women, ending conscription and bringing the remaining troops home from Vietnam. [3]
Under Calwell’s leadership, the ALP had strongly opposed Australian military involvement in the Vietnam War. In 1965, the ALP Federal Conference and the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party (FPLP) had unanimously opposed the government’s decision to send troops. In 1966, WA, Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria sent resolutions to the Federal Executive opposing conscription and requesting clarification on party policy.
Yet, in February 1967, Whitlam gave a “flat No” when asked on Four Corners whether he would withdraw Australian troops from Vietnam. He said that Labor’s efforts would be directed towards pressing the government to urge the Americans to make a settlement in Vietnam. This showed a clear departure from Labor’s pre-election policy. Whitlam maintained this stance into mid 1967, when he criticised the government for failing to support UN Secretary General U Thant’s peace proposals. [4]
The Communist Party paper Tribune was unimpressed, pointing out that Whitlam’s argument that “Bring the troops home” was just an election slogan, was totally unacceptable. They also reported dissent within the ALP from Lionel Murphy, Calwell and others, who supported immediate withdrawal of Australian troops. [5]
Joe Chamberlain, the ALP’s Western Australian Secretary, publicly rebuked the Deputy Leader, Lance Barnard, for expressing doubts about Labor’s Vietnam policy. Chamberlain passionately defended the ALP opposition to the war and accused the Federal leadership of siding with “the Holt government and LBJ”. Whitlam was furious and demanded that Chamberlain apologise. He refused. At the WA State Conference in 1967, Whitlam and Chamberlain (both arrogant and stubborn men) were not even on speaking terms until forced to make peace and shake hands! [6]
The Left-Wing ALP advocates of immediately withdrawing the troops and ending conscription prevailed at Labor’s biennial Federal conference at the end of July 1967. The Conference resolved that “a future Labor Government would withdraw Australian troops from Vietnam unless the Vietnam allies, including America, accepted conditions aimed at ending the conflict”. The conditions were that America stopped bombing North Vietnam, recognised the National Liberation Front as a party to negotiations, and transformed the war into a “holding operation”. The Canberra Times commented that the conference decision destroyed Whitlam’s hopes of that Labor would endorse a “flexible” Vietnam policy and hailed it as a “big success” for the “Left-wing delegates”. [7]
While the ACTU had adopted a policy of not prejudicing the carriage of any supplies for Australian troops, including weapons and ammunition, the more militant unions opposed this policy. The Seamen’s Union of Australia (SUA) objected to any Australian involvement in Vietnam even prior to armed forces being sent. Seamen crewing ships carrying soldiers, equipment and weapons were directly involved in assisting the prosecution of the war. In 1966, the crew of Boonaroo prevented arms being shipped to Vietnam, but a similar protest early in 1967, involving crews of Boonaroo and Jeparit failed because the navy took over the ships. The Melbourne branch of the Waterside Workers Federation (WWF) also disobeyed union policy and went on strike in May 1965 as a protest against Australia’s involvement in Vietnam. In 1969, the WWF’s Sydney branch refused to load military supplies. [8]
In October 1967, Whitlam opposed the government’s intensification of the war and its “open ended commitment”, which he said gave America a “blank cheque”. He criticised Treasurer Billy McMahon’s statement that “We are an unconditional ally of the United States”. Whitlam followed this up with a 50-minute address in Parliament the following month, in which he urged the government to support a pause in the bombing of North Vietnam. He said that unless the bombing stopped, the Americans could never put pressure on Hanoi to accept a peace deal. [9]
Campaigning for the Senate election in November 1967, Whitlam pursued the line of Australia maintaining its “responsibilities” in Vietnam but said that a Labor government would negotiate with its Allies to change the war from intensification to a “holding pattern”. He did not mention the recent ALP resolution calling for immediate withdrawal. Nor did he mention conscription. [10]
In December 1969 (as mentioned in my Introduction), Whitlam insisted in a letter to Chamberlain: “I do not believe that I should single out any one of half a dozen major issues for my exclusive attention. Support for us on one issue is strengthened by support for us on other issues”. So, what happened between December 1969 and December 1972 to so radically change Whitlam’s priorities? There had already been a seismic shift in opposition to the war. Initially, those who objected to military conscription, which in many cases, led to service in Vietnam, were individual conscientious objectors. That is, they applied for exemption as was permitted under the National Service Act. They became rebels only if, when magistrates refused to grant them exemption, they refused to enlist.
By 1969, masses were protesting not just against conscientious objectors being conscripted, but against the draft system. Those who were called up burned their draft cards at mass gatherings, refused to apply for exemption, or appear in court when summoned and went underground to avoid arrest. By February 1971, the Draft Resisters’ Union claimed that 11,500 men were resisting arrest. [11]
In November 1969, the American and Australian public became aware of a massacre by US troops at Song Mai village, where hundreds of civilians were killed. This action, known as the My Lai massacre, had occurred more than 18 months earlier and had been hushed up by US authorities. After the details emerged, a meeting of Victorian Shop Stewards’ Delegates called for Australian troops to mutiny if they were ordered to take part in the killing of civilians. The meeting condemned the jailing of draft resister Brian Ross, and urged trade unionists and individuals to unite in forcing the repeal of the National Service Act. [12]
Anti-war protestors in the US had already staged a moratorium demonstration across several cities, attracting thousands. Moratorium campaigns commenced in all Australian capital cities with the first march being held on 8 May 1970. Over 70,000 people attended the Melbourne march, led by ALP Member of Parliament, Dr Jim Cairns, who became a hero of the protest movement. More than 70 Labor Members of Parliament signed a statement supporting the Moratorium. [13]
No other city matched Melbourne’s effort in that first Moratorium march, but about 10,000 turned out in Sydney, 5,000 in Brisbane, 2,000 in Hobart and only 1,000 in Adelaide. Despite its much smaller population, Perth’s numbers rivalled those in Sydney. Sixty students protested outside Parliament House in Canberra. There were several violent incidents – all aimed at the protestors rather than committed by them. In Hobart, police prevented a woman from driving her car into the route of the march; Perth demonstrators were pelted with eggs, lemons and water and attacked with fly spray, while returned Vietnam veterans interrupted the Adelaide march several times, seizing and burning National Liberation and pacifist flags. [14]
The marches were followed by sit-ins at National Services offices, the US embassy and elsewhere around the country. As demonstrations increased in numbers and frequency, a grassroots revolution was occurring among individuals. Back in 1965 and 1966, conscripts had often felt isolated and alone. Rohan Cahill, a Sydney University student who was in the second draft, recalled that being called up made him feel like “an outsider looking in on life”. [15] Like many others, he faced the unenviable alternative of enlisting with the possibility of being sent to Vietnam and taking part in a war he didn’t agree with, or spending two years in jail.
As resistance against conscription hardened from individual objection to a mass movement that questioned the legitimacy of the National Service Act, broader public opinion also changed. Gallup polls conducted over the period of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War indicate this shift. In September 1965, shortly after the first active service troops, 1 Royal Australian Regiment (1RAR) arrived at Bein Hoa Base, 56 per cent of Australians polled believed the government had made the right decision in committing armed forces to the conflict. Only 28 per cent favoured withdrawal. Those in favour of military involvement had increased to 62 per cent in the May 1967 poll. [16] This was in the context of Labor’s crushing election defeat in late November 1966 and Whitlam’s election as leader in early 1967. No wonder the pragmatist in Whitlam urged a cautious approach, despite risking a party split!
Yet when interviewed in March 1968, Whitlam insisted that there was a change in attitudes. He said that the Australian public was “very worried at the unending and the fruitless character” of the war. If the war was still being fought at the time of the next Federal election in 1969, it would be “one of the big issues … [but] not the only issue”. A Labor government would not send any more conscripts to Vietnam.[17] Here, he was certainly tapping into popular sentiment. Gallup Poll results reveal that, even in the days when a majority of Australians had supported military action in Vietnam, most did not believe that conscripts should be sent. Sending conscripts to Vietnam, where 19,000 of them served and 200 of them died, was never a popular move.
Whitlam believed that Australians wanted their government to exercise influence on the United States to end the war. John Gorton’s government wasn’t doing this. When the interviewer pressed him about whether Australia had much influence with the US government, Whitlam stated that it was Holt’s support the previous year that had been instrumental in the continued bombing of North Vietnam.
At the NSW State Labor conference in June 1969, Whitlam stated that the ALP would campaign to end the Vietnam War and abolish military conscription. He said that the ALP supported President Nixon’s reduction of US forces in Vietnam, which was in line with Labor Party decisions taken as far back as 1966. He claimed, also, that soldiers supported a move to raise a volunteer army, instead of depending upon conscripts.[18] This moderate stance may well have resonated with many Australians. A Gallup poll conducted in August 1969 revealed a change: 55 per cent of those polled now favoured troop withdrawal. [19]
Also, there was increased publication of views by the resisters. Many of these were educated, articulate and thoughtful young men, with strong Christian or Humanitarian beliefs. A lot of resisters did not fit the ‘hippy’ image. Nor were they being ‘selfish’ as accusers claimed. The Mowbray triplets from Queensland, who made a public stand without being drafted, were young men of conservative appearance and strong Christian beliefs.[20] Gary Cook, from Western Australia, was also clean shaven and short haired when he began his stand against conscription. Later he grew his hair, only to have it forcibly cut by prison officers. [21]
Increasingly, too, the public became aware of the brutal treatment that many resisters endured in civilian and military prisons. Methods in military detention included being woken up every half hour and made to stand to attention, periods of solitary confinement, denial of clean clothing or bathing facilities, and a bread and water diet. Interrogating the Minister for the Army, Phillip Lynch, about these conditions, Clyde Cameron MP stated that solitary confinement “with or without a bread and water diet” had not been imposed in South Australian civilian prisons for many years even against “the worst murderers, garrotters or rapists”. [22] It is probable that Whitlam was present in the parliament during this session.
The October 1969 election was a turning point for the ALP. Labor’s voting share rose from below 40% in 1966 to almost 47% in 1969, with more seats being won in every state except NSW. After the disastrous result of 1966, it was a morale booster for the party, and evidence that its Vietnam War policies were becoming more popular. [23]
In October 1970, interviewer Ann Deveson asked Whitlam about statements in his speech the previous night. He emphasised that a Labor government did not intend to withdraw troops “holus bolus” from Vietnam but would phase out the commitment by not replacing battalions that had finished their tour of duty. Whitlam strongly believed that the Australian people wanted this. He also believed that there was no need for conscripts and that Australia could raise a voluntary army when required. The necessary numbers could be obtained by offering better conditions for soldiers and their families and creating a pathway back to civilian life when their period of service was over. [24]
Much of the labour movement (ALP and trade unions) maintained strong opposition to the war. Jim Cairns was Chair of the Moratorium campaign in Melbourne and led the first march. In Perth, the third moratorium march on 30 June 1971 was headed by the Labor Premier, John Tonkin; the State ALP secretary, Joe Chamberlain, and the TLC secretary, Jim Coleman. Their presence suggested that the WA labour movement was pretty solidly against conscription and Australia’s involvement in the war. [25] Whitlam joined Jean McLean and Professor Marcus Oliphant to speak at an anti-war rally in Adelaide in August 1971. [26]
In 1972, there was rising confidence among war resisters that Labor would win the next election and would end conscription and withdrew the last of Australia’s troops from Vietnam. And this assumption was not merely among dissidents. State police forces adopted a laissez faire attitude to draft resisters. Arresting them was a Federal Police responsibility. Bill Thomas, a draft resister who served as Labor member in the Western Australian Parliament told me, that when he was ‘underground’, the local police knew where he was. They had Gary Cook in jail and weren’t too bothered about catching others.
One wonders whether even the Federal Police weren’t that bothered about arresting draft resisters. A list dated 18 April 1972, held in the National Archives, contained only 20 names across the whole of Australia, for whom arrest warrants were outstanding. Michael Hamel-Green, himself a draft resister, has estimated that there were 2,738 non-compliers in 1971 and 1,238 in the first half of 1972. [27] While these figures are well short of the DRU’s estimated 11,500 they indicate that the Federal authorities should have had a much longer list of outstanding arrest warrants than 20 names. Nor was it because of their diligence in catching and imprisoning offenders. When the ALP came to government in December 1972, only eight resisters were in prison.
In conclusion, Whitlam became Leader of the ALP just after a crushing defeat that was partly caused by the Party being out of step with public support for Australian intervention in the Vietnam War. But significant sections of the party and the trade unions still subscribed to Calwell’s strong opposition to the war. As resistance mounted among conscripts and public views began to change towards the war, Whitlam became convinced that ending conscription and ending the Australian commitment in Vietnam were the way to go. Consequently, when he became Prime Minister, two of his first acts were to abolish conscription and to free those still in prison for their beliefs.
References
[1] Whitlam to F.E. Chamberlain, 18 December 1969, in Whitlam Prime Ministerial Collection.
[2]Canberra Times, 11 January 1967, p. 2.
[3] Troy Bramston, Gough Whitlam. The Vista of the New, Harper Collins Publishers Australia, 2025, pp. 305 ff.
[4]Canberra Times, 28 February 1967, p. 2.
[5] Tribune, 1 March 1967.
[6] Bobbie Oliver, Unity is Strength (API Network, Bentley, 2003), pp. 240-1.
[7] Jonathan Gaul, “ALP foreign policy”, Canberra Times, 12 July 1967, p. 1.
[8] Diane Kirkby, Voices from the Ships. Australia’s seafarers and their union, (UNSW Press, Sydney, 2008), pp. 47-54.
[10] Jonathan Gaul, “Labor fights on home affairs”, Canberra Times, 14 November 1967, p. 1.
[11] Bobbie Oliver, Hell No! I won’t go! resistance to conscription in postwar Australia (Interventions, Melbourne, 2022), p. 155.
[12] Tribune, 14 January 1970, p. 3.
[13] Oliver, Hell No! pp 141, 146.
[14] Oliver, Hell No! pp. 147-154.
[15] Rowan Cahill, cited in Oliver, Hell No! p.59.
[16] Peter Edwards, A Nation at War. Australian Politics, Society and Diplomacy during the Vietnam War, 1965–1975 (Allen & Unwin/Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 1997, pp 75, 235, 341-4.
[17] Transcript of Whitlam’s interview on Meet the Press, Brisbane, 24 March 1968, p. 1, Whitlam Prime Ministerial Collection.
[18] Sydney Morning Herald, 16 June 1969.
[19] Edwards, A Nation at War, p. 341.
[20] Oliver, Hell No! passim pp. 125-137.
[21] Oliver, Hell No! pp 157, 183.
[22] Clyde Cameron, cited in Oliver, Hell No! p. 102.
[23] Ross McMullin, The Light on the Hill. The Australian Labor Party, 1891–1991, (Oxford University Press Australia, 1992 edition), p. 326.
[24] Interview transcript titled, “Mr Whitlam. Interview with Ann Deveson. Macquarie Network, 29 October 1970”, Whitlam Prime Ministerial Collection.
[25] Oliver, Unity is Strength, Image 37.
[26] Tribune, 4 August 1971.
[27] Michael Hamel-Green, “The Resisters: a history of the anti-conscription movement 1964-1972” in P. King (ed), Australia’s Vietnam: Australia in the Second Indo-China War, (Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1983), p. 121.
Bobbie Oliver is the Secretary to the Board of the Australian Living Peace Museum and Director of the Centre for Western Australian History at the University of Western Australia. She has published widely on the anti-war movement in Australia, including Hell No! We won’t go! Resistance to conscription in postwar Australia (Interventions Publishing, Melbourne, 2022) and Peacemongers. Australian Resistance to War and Military Conscription 1885 to 1945 (Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK 2024).