46 CICD Newsletter, August 1970, Pauline Mitchell, interview, 17 /12/98.
47 CICD Annual Report of the Secretary, September 1971, p 4, held in the CICD collection UMA.
This approach allowed groups like CICD to actively support Draft resisters, without openly encouraging radical law breaking actions. The fact that counsellors provided both legal and illegal options allowed CICD to be seen to be 'even handed' in their support for young men who were unwilling or unsure about fighting in Vietnam.
The rebel unions also challenged the laws. At a meeting of over 200 workplace
delegates, organised by the Trade Union Anti-Conscription Committee (TUCAC);48
they issued the famous 'mutiny' call of December 15 1969 in which they called upon young men to refuse to fight.
We call upon young men already conscripted to refuse to accept orders against their conscience and to those already in Vietnam to lay down their arms in mutiny against the heinous barbarism perpetrated in our name against the aged, innocent, women and children.49
Yet despite these actions arousing outrage from the media, the political right and the established trade union movement, the Federal Government was unwilling to
prosecute. Like the actions of the CDNSA, the 'mutiny' call succeeded in drawing further attention to both the issue of conscription and the inability and unwillingness of the Federal Government to prosecute.
Buoyed by the mood at the time, the ALP Victorian branch conference in June 1970 saw over 400 party members vote unanimously for a motion supporting and
encouraging all young males who refused to fight in Vietnam. In part the motion read," Conference expresses its warm approval and support and encourages all young Australians to resist being conscripted to fight in the dirty war in Vietnam.1150 The conference also took a strong stand against the provisions and use of the Crimes Act. It 48 This group derived their support predominantly from the rebel unions and appears as a continuation of "The Committee for Conscience on Conscription".
sought the removal of all troops from Vietnam; the repeal of the NSA; the release of all of incarcerated as a result of the breaches of the NSA and the dropping of all charges against those who had defied the NSA. Around 300 of those present signed a
petition endorsing the motion.51
Not suprisingly the Federal Government was outraged by this action. Federal Cabinet met and contemplated using the provisions of the Crimes Act to prosecute the
Victorian ALP.52 In retrospect the actions of the Federal Government appeared little
more than a combination of wishful thinking and conservative rhetoric. Yet there was never any action taken possibly because of the rise in the community opposition to conscription.
This community opinion is reflected in the opinion polls on conscription. In
November 1967 70% of those interviewed were in support of ongoing conscription, yet by April 1970 that figure had dropped to 55%. In contrast the percentage opposing conscription had grown from 25% to 34% in this same period. Against this movement any attempt by the Federal Government to prosecute could only mean further
polarising of the issue and further conflict which they seemed to avoid. 53
SOS had long been one of the most consistent organisations in opposition to conscription for overseas service. Whilst they were hardly a radical grouping they were prepared to use civil disobedience as a tactic. On February 8 1971, five of their
49 Sun 1/12/69, Australian 1/12/69, Scates R, op cit, p50, Hamel-Green M., in King P.(ed), op cit, pp
116-117.
50 Age, 15/6/70.
51 Age, 15/6/70, Hamel-Green M.,in King P.(ed), op cit, p 125.
52 Age, 16/6/70.
members were arrested on the 10th floor of the Princess Gate building owned by the Victorian Employers Federation as they handed out anti-conscription, anti-Vietnam
War leaflets.54 The 10th
floor housed the offices of the Department of Labour and National Service. The five women were charged under the State Governments' recent amendments to the Summary Offences Act, and they were released to appear in court on April 9, Holy Thursday.
Their hearing was the last one conducted on the day before Good Friday and they were all sentenced to 14 days imprisonment at Fairlea Women's prison, without being given
the option of a fine.55 This sparked public outcry in support of the 'Fairlea Five' as
they came to be known. A 24-hour vigil was organised in the City Square and
demonstrations were organised at the entrance to Fairlea. Industrial action by maritime workers was taken in support of the women and public anger at their incarceration led to further shows' of support for their release. A demonstration organised early on the morning of April 11, Easter Sunday, drew a crowd of 400 people, eager to express solidarity with the 'Fairlea Five' and to oppose the unjust laws that had seen them
incarcerated. 56
Whilst the Victorian Branch of the party was prepared to take a progressive stance, federally the ALP was reluctant to be seen to be supporting actions which were clearly illegal and could be used against them with a subsequent electoral backlash.