Thus for a brief period in 1967 the only organisations publicly prominent in opposing conscription for overseas service were SOS, the Federal Pacifist Council of Australia, (FPC) and the Australian Quaker Peace Committee (AQPC).
In this void SOS was able to offer an ongoing opposition to the war. SOS, with its adult female membership, fitted uneasily into being categorised as either part of the established left or the newer more radical groupings. Whilst not being party aligned, SOS managed to portray a respectable image, even though at certain times it found itself taking confrontationist positions and pushing the bounds of civil disobedience. 10
Over the period of opposition to the war the organisation saw its political stance develop from one which was not politically aligned, to a period where it saw it self fairly closely aligned to the ALP and retaining strong ALP links. It adopted an early position (1968) supporting the use of civil disobedience. 11 An SOS publication argued that, " We feel the situation is so desperate, that civil disobedience is our only
course".12
9 Saunders M. & Summy R.,The Australian Peace Movement:A short history,Peace Research Centre, Australain National University, Canberra, 1986 p 61.
10 Though some key members were either ALP members or became ALP members such as Jean
McLean and Joanne MacLaine-Cross.
11 Armstrong P ., A History of Save Our Sons Movement of Victoria, 1965-197 3, MA, Monash
University, Clayton, 1991, pp 179-181.
12 ibid, pl 40, SOS Newsletter No 26, March 1968.
Its structure was one devoid of traditional heirachical positions, in which women were coopted or invited on to the committee. Jean McLean, one of the better known and more visible faces of SOS, was to be its secretary from 1966, one of the few official
positions within this loose structure. 13
The FPC was a body established in the early part of World War 2. Its origins can be traced back to June 1942 when the small diverse pacifist groups in Australia sought a
centralised structure to coordinate their activities.14 They were the Australian section
of the War Resisters International, a body formed in 1921 and established in line with a strong pacifist stand. Throughout the early period of the Vietnam War the FPC were prominent in circulating and publicising anti war issues through a monthly publication,
Peacemaker, as well as actively supporting actions organised against the war and
conscription. The FPC's membership and support base was made up predominantly of
older people, many of who were motivated by religious factors.15
The AQPC were not strictly political in the sense that it appeared to have explicit political goals. Rather it was a religious grouping whose history of pacifism can be traced back to 1660. Their membership consisted of those who had been admitted to the Society of Friends, and the AQPC, coordinated activities in all states of Australia, bar New South Wales. Their stance on why conscription should be opposed is summed
up eloquently in a leaflet they issued entitled, Conscription, why it is wrong!:
13 Armstrong P., ibid, pl 7, pp 186-187.
14 Saunders M.& Summy R., op cit, p 31.
15 Guyatt C., in Forward R.,and Reece B.(eds.), op cit, pp 184-185.
Because it is essentially an enforced training of young men to kill their fellow man. It trains them in habits of Violence and inculcates wrong values. It is a negation of those religious principles to which we claim adherence as a Christian nation. 16
Despite the lack of concerted organisational opposition in 1967, a number of individuals were prominent in publicly refusing to register for conscription for
overseas service. January-February 1967 saw the registration period for males turning twenty in that year. For those who failed to comply there was the prospect of two years jail as punishment. In Victoria, Errol Heldzingen and in New South Wales Chris Campbell and Mike Matteson took public stances on refusing to be drafted and made
both the authorities and public aware of their stance.17 These three followed in the
footsteps of the Sydney school teacher Bill White who had defied a notice on July 18 1966 which directed that he report for duty at an army induction centre. White, a conscientious objector, was incarcerated, but eventually convinced the courts of his status as a conscientious objector. His refusal to cooperate drew strong publicity and support, highlighting the injustices of the scheme and stood in contrast to YCAC's approach, which had focussed primarily on electoral campaigns aimed at changing the
federal Government.18 The actions of these young men inspired others who now
decided to take a stronger stand. " The point at which I became a draft resister rather than someone simply opposed to the Vietnam War was late in 1967. Inspired by the actions of individuals such as Errol Heldzingen, Mike Matteson and Bill White I
started resisting and said I would refuse any further cooperation with the state" .19
Heldzingen, who later found himself in the armed forces was a prominent figure in this time. Heldzingen, who had been involved with the Communist Party of Australia's (CPA) youth wing, the Eureka Youth League (EYL), found himself attending the anti- 16
Conscription, why it is wrong! undated leaflet quoted in ibid, pp 182-183. 17
Hamel-Green M., in King P.(ed), op cit, p 111. 18
ibid, p 100.
war demonstrations and developing a political line supporting the National Liberation Front of Vietnam (NLF). When he was called up he refused and became an early non complier.20
It was during this period that the differences in the opposition to conscription from overseas service started to crystalise. For more radical activist orientated newer
groupings there was a confrontationist approach. For the established bodies of the Left there was initially a reliance on conscientious objection and the use of tactics that the peace movement had perfected over the last decade: peaceful rallies, petitions, and appeals to conscience. How these converged and were related to and influenced each other will be the central focus of this chapter. First the established Left groups approach to conscription will be examined followed by their newer more radical counterparts.