The Vietnam Anti-War Movement and Draft Resistance in Australia

Why was the popular protest movement of the late 1960's and 1970's so strong? Attitudes were changing; popular music, fashion, attitudes towards drugs and swearing were all shifting rapidly. The feminist and environmentalist movements were also gaining momentum. Peter Cochrane suggests that the Vietnam War was a catalyst and central to the social upheaval of the time[i]. In this essay I will look closely at the anti-war movement, who participated and why. I will also look at the conscription debate and how the issue of conscription affected and propelled the anti-war movement, and vice-versa.

The issue of conscription was not a new one when it was re-introduced in 1964 by the Menzies government. Conscription was first introduced in 1911, in the form of a military training program for boys aged 12-16.[ii] During the First World War, in an attempt to conscript all single males aged 21-34 for overseas service, the government held two referenda, however they were both defeated.[iii] Conscription was reintroduced during the Second World War, when all unmarried males were called up. Initially the conscripts did not have to serve outside Australian territories, but the boundaries were extended in 1942 to include the whole Southwest Pacific. It ended when the war did.[iv] The government again initiated a training scheme that called up all 18 year olds for three to six months. This occurred during the Korean War, but no conscripts were sent overseas.[v] The only time conscription was a conscientious issue within the Australian community during these times, was during the First World War. The wider Australian community the rest of the time supported conscription, as long as it is restricted to the training of young men within Australia. It would take another unpopular war and the sending of conscripted troops overseas, to make it an issue again and even then it was not opposed to at first.

Australia's involvement in Vietnam began in 1962, with the sending of thirty military instructors to South Vietnam. The Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies made this announcement in Parliament in November 1964:

'...we have decided that young men will be required to register in the calendar year in which they reach the age of 20 years. The first actual call-up will take place about the middle of next year. During the second half of 1965 a total of about 4,200 will be required. Thereafter there will be annual call-ups of about 6,900. This will, by December 1966, give an Army of a total strength of about 37,500...which will mean an effective force of 33,000...'[vi]

The Government began to send large numbers of troops to South Vietnam in 1965.[vii] The first protests against the war began even before then, and seem to have been organised by the Communist Party of Australia, however they were soon being organised and attended by a wider audience.[viii] Horne cites the Vietnam Action Committee, which only had one communist party member on its board, as organising a large number of demonstrations.[ix] Chris Guyatt states that the anti-conscription movement in regards to the Vietnam era was born five days after Menzies made his announcement, on 15 November 1964 with the meeting of six members of the Conscription Protest Meeting Committee.[x] Also the Save Our Sons and Youth Against Conscription movements were starting to come into action. In the year from March 1965 to March 1966, there were approximately eighty reported demonstrations, strikes, vigils, marches, folk concerts, sit-downs and teach-ins.[xi]

Conscription was a major motivator in people's participation in the protest against the war, and then the protests against conscription itself. Conscription brought the war home to many people. It affected people's sons, brothers, relatives, boyfriends and friends in ways it would not have if the government had not implemented conscription. Public opinion with regards to conscription alone was usually strongly favoured, with the Gallup Polls, always recording around about two thirds of those surveyed in favour of conscription, with a high of seventy-three per cent in June 1961, and a low of fifty-five per cent in April 1970.[xii] The figures were quite different though, when asked about sending conscripts to Vietnam. Then around half of respondents wanted conscripts kept in Australia, while about a third thought they should be sent to Vietnam. Around about ten percent were undecided. When asked whether Australia should continue to fight in Vietnam, or bring the forces back home, the results varied greatly over the course of the war, as the tide of public opinion turned against the war. The first poll conducted in September 1965, recorded fifty-six percent of respondents wishing Australia to continue to fight, with only twenty-eight percent wanting the troops to be brought back. Sixteen percent were undecided. Favour for the war reached its height in May 1967 with sixty-two percent in favour of fighting, and only twenty-four percent wanting to stop. Fourteen percent were still undecided. Public favour for the war reached a low in August 1969, when for the first time, over half of the respondents voted in favour of pulling out of Vietnam, with forty percent in favour of staying, and a low of only six percent still undecided. Even when public opinion for staying in Vietnam was at it's highest, almost half (49%) of respondents still did not want conscripts to be sent to join the war.[xiii]

So it would seem that if the Gallup Polls represented an accurate portrayal of Australian society, then during the sixties, most Australians were not against conscription in principle, but they were against the conscripts being sent overseas to fight. Also, many Australians who were not against the war in Vietnam, and not against conscription in general, were opposed to the sending of conscripts to Vietnam.

Conscription in its incarnation during the Vietnam War worked according to the National Service Act. All males turning twenty that year were required to register. They would then be liable to be called up until they were twenty-six. Exempt from registering were Aboriginals, non-naturalised migrants, employees of a foreign government and members of the permanent military forces.[xiv] There were two registration periods a year, and the Department of Labour and National Service attempted to check on those failing to register by checking the records of the Department of Social Service and the Electoral Office. Employers were expected to refuse employment to young men who were unable to provide evidence that they had registered.[xv] Despite this, as of February 1971, almost twelve thousand eligible men had not registered.[xvi] If a young man was found guilty of not registering, he could be fined and conscripted whether or not his birthday came up in the ballot. Out of the twelve thousand though, not many were caught. Jordens cites an annual average of 202 prosecutions for failure to register between 1965 and 1971, however it increased in the final year when 723 men were prosecuted.[xvii]

The way the men were chosen, was through a random 'birthday ballot'. There were 761, 854 men who turned twenty from 1965 to 1971 and only 4200 a year were required at first, increasing to 8400 a year in 1966. Ballot draws were held twice a year where 184 marbles with birth dates on them were in a barrel, and each marble was drawn our singly. The numbers of marbles drawn out varied; in the first ballot, 96 marbles were drawn, while in September 1969 only 30 were.[xviii]

Indefinite Deferments were a provision for those with medical and psychological disabilities (1598 men), men married before the call-up for their age group (19,102 men), those who joined the Citizen Military Force (34,970) and those found by the courts to be conscientious objectors (1012).[xix] Limited Deferments were approved for university students and apprentices, for the duration of their course. They were also given to those able to prove that their conscription would cause 'exceptional hardship' to themselves, their parents or their dependents. Also those serving criminal sentences were granted deferments.[xx]

And then there were the 'non-compliers' or 'draft-dodgers'. They differed from conscientious objectors in that they refused to co-operate with the whole system of being registration and the ballot, and disagreed with not just fighting in the war, but in conscription as well.

The number of anti-war and anti-conscription organisations that were active and in existence during the course of the Vietnam War is estimated to be around 146. This figure does not include churches, trade unions or political parties, and Jordens makes it clear that it is impossible to really know how many there actually were for a variety of reasons. A number changed their names, others were very short lived, and some left little evidence of their existence. Nine were national, with branches in every, or almost every state.[xxi]

Jeffrey Grey divides the Anti-Vietnam movements into three chronological periods. The first from before April 1965; the second from April 1965 to the election on November 1966 when the ALP were rejected by a huge margin; and the third being the gradual resurgence of activity and organization that culminated in the 1970-71 Moratoriums.[xxii]

The Draft Resisters Union was formed in 1970 to encourage and support other non-compliers. They published a book 'Downdraft: A Draft resistance Manual' in 1971 as an information guide to young men who either were, or were considering to avoid military service in Vietnam. They defined non-compliance or draft resistance as 'the deliberate defiance of the laws requiring all twenty year olds to register for conscription, and also requiring those balloted in for service to attend medical examinations and obey call-up notices for the army.'[xxiii] They stress that it is not an action taken out of self-interest or cowardice. They point out that there are many other, easier ways to get out of the army.[xxiv] 'Non-compliers believe conscription can be smashed by building a movement so large that it will make conscription unworkable.'[xxv] The number of draft-resisters who had publicly declared themselves climbed from six in 1967 to over three hundred in 1971. That was not counting the 'silent' non-compliers - the over twelve thousand men who failed to register, but did not go public. Although the Draft Resisters Union would have preferred men not register and not comply with the National Service Act, they did give advice on how to fail your medical examination if you did decide to go. By 1970, forty-eight percent of conscripts were rejected on medical grounds.[xxvi] The manual also gave advice on how to become a conscientious objector.[xxvii] They noted that by 1971 it was quite easy to win conscientious objection cases, with about 8 out of 9 applications for exemption being granted.[xxviii]

While the Union did give this advice, it did draw a large distinction between themselves and men who got out through other 'legal' means. Bob Muntz, one of the contributors, states that 'to comply with the National Service Act by registering is to recognise the validity of the Act and what it represents - conscription of men to fight for an evil cause in Indo-China.'[xxix]

Brian Ross was one of the first, and most well known young men to be prosecuted and sent to gaol for failing to register, and to comply with the National Service Act. He was sentenced in October 1969 to two years imprisonment for failing to answer a call-up notice. He spent ten months in gaol before being found to be a conscientious objector due to new national service regulations that enabled young men to be referred to a magistrate as conscientious objectors without any application on the part of the man concerned, and was released.[xxx]

This new bit of legislation was an interesting one. It allowed the government to deal with dissenters like Ross, without turning them into martyrs, and at the same time, discrediting them in the eyes of the movement. The Draft Resistance Manual advised men who were being subjected to a conscientious objection referral to go to court, but not testify, in the hopes that it would be dismissed with the lack of any evidence.[xxxi] This tactic did not always work as Jo Erftemeyer, a Monash student, found out. Erftemeyer did not consider himself to be a conscientious objector as he was not opposed to all wars and was not a pacifist. Yet:

'I refused to lead any evidence before the magistrate. The Crown produced one or two letters which I was supposed to have written to the Minister. There was a lot of muttering between the prosecution and the magistrate during which the SM read some document which I was not allowed to see. After a few minutes the SM declared that because of what I had written I was definitely a pacifist and he then signed some release. I was amazed! The case before mine had seen a bloke declared a C.O. but only after his local priest and family friends testified at length. There was a double standard. I tried to protest at the whole farce but was quickly removed.'[xxxii]

Conscription really started to fall into disrepute when the unfairness of the ballot and the inconsistency of the granting of exemptions came to light. Ronald Valentine Blundell, a pig farmer, applied for a one year deferment on the grounds that his pigs needed him. If he was conscripted he would have to sell his pigs and pig prices were low at the time. He also had a mortgage to pay. His claim was rejected, with the magistrate saying that this would cause 'hardship', but not 'exceptional hardship'. On the other hand a boxer, Rocky Gattelari was exempt for two years to pursue his career, as was a dancer from les Girls who reportedly arrived for his medical in a dress.[xxxiii]

Save Our Sons (SOS) was an independent non-sectarian and non-party organisation founded in Sydney on May 13, 1965 by Joyce Golgerth. It opposed the conscription of youth for overseas service. Their statement of aims reads:

'SOS is organised by mothers who stand in opposition to the present National Service Act for any one or all of the following reasons:
They oppose conscription of youth into the armed services to serve in overseas wars.

They object to conscription for such war service, either on humanitarian, religious or pacifist grounds.'[xxxiv]

The group didn't have an official policy or stand on the Vietnam War, although it did state that war was an ineffectual way of settling international disputes. Their objective was officially stated as: 'The amendment or repeal of the present National Service Act, particularly with regard to objectionable clauses providing for long periods of compulsory service, engagement in military action abroad, and severe penalties for infringements.'[xxxv]

The majority of members or Save Our Sons were middle-aged women - 'women with sons of conscript able age, ex-servicewomen, war widows and others who had lost relatives in the Second World War.'[xxxvi] Most of the group's male supporters were ex-servicemen. The group was noted for its characteristic silent vigils and quiet marches.[xxxvii] The group got a lot of publicity when, in April 1971, five members of SOS were charged with trespass for handing out leaflets outside the National Service Centre. The women were sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment at Fairlea Women's Prison, and were subsequently known as the 'Fairlea Five'. The women were released six days into their sentence after a massive outcry of support, including a twenty-four hour work strike by waterside workers in Port Melbourne and a strike by the Seamen's Union of Australia.[xxxviii] The SOS represents a group that was not the stereotypical longhaired, pot-smoking hippie student radical.

Project Vietnam was launched in 1966, where fifty-eight Australian writers issued a statement saying that it was morally wrong to send conscripts to Vietnam since the war was not decisively supported by the Australian community.[xxxix] The qualification that many people put on their opposition to conscription came under fire by some, including James McAuley and Brian Buckley. Buckley says,

'A lot has been made of the votelessness of the conscripts. Would the moral question alter if they became enfranchised? Probably not...Bishop Moyes, the Anglican Bishop from Armidale says "It is unethical of the Government to take young people who have no vote and send them overseas where no war has been declared" Presumably, it may be ethical if they are granted a formal declaration and a vote. Strange ethics.'[xl]

Findlay writes that the Communist Party began to worry about the fact that the anti-conscription movement was gaining much more attention from the public than the anti-war movement. He puts this down to the fact that the Youth Campaign Against Conscription was made up of young people and that 'being young, were given to larger and noisier demonstrations and to actions with some degree of sensation value such as that of draft-card burning.'[xli]

While public memory remembers the antri-war organisations clearly, there were some pro-war organisations. The Returned Services League (R.S.L) was strongly in favour of the war and conscription. The R.S.L ran the Australian Forces Overseas Fund, launched on January 26, 1966. Various individuals and businesses contributed and their names were often published in the newspapers. The money raised usually went towards sending entertainers to Vietnam. The Find operated on an annual budget of $200,000.[xlii] The R.S.L. also launched an appeal that collected 50 tons of household utensils, clothing, carpentry and gardening tools for the Army's civic action work in Vietnam.[xliii]

It is interesting to note that while some unions strongly supported the anti-war movement, the majority did not. The Seamen's Union was a strong supporter of the anti-war movement, and in 1966, they initially refused to supply a crew for the Boonaroo which was to go to Vietnam with supplies. They reluctantly relented when it was found they had barely any support from the other maritime unions.[xliv]

The social makeup of the different groups is interesting to note. The protesters were largely middle-class although many were university students, who were the first in their family to attend a tertiary institute. The unionists who were involved in the anti-war movement were obviously working-class, however Curthoys points out that they were in relatively isolated occupations run by communist-led unions which were politically and often socially distinct from the rest of the union movement.[xlv] It was not until 1970 that the Australian Council of Trade Unions endorsed the Moratorium, which was by that time just following the trend, rather than leading it.[xlvi]The soldiers on the other hand were often from rural working class, or lower middle class and often from families without an active tradition of political engagement.[xlvii]

The activism in universities took perhaps the most dramatic turns. The Monash Labor Club attempted to raise funds and send aid to the National Liberation Front, the political arm of the Viet Cong.[xlviii] This was banned by the Vice-Chancellor and much fuss was made in the newspapers, about the issue. Findlay states that the whole idea of collecting aid for an enemy against whom Australian troops were engaged was overwhelmingly regarded by majority of Australians as treasonable and 'utterly repugnant'.[xlix] He goes on to say that 'students came to be seen as the spoiled darlings of an affluent society, in need of nothing so much as a good spanking!'[l] Of course, not all university students supported the anti-war or anti-conscription movements, as various letters to student newspapers such as Lot's Wife show. One student wrote that the movement was 'converting Australian Society from a hardened Anglo-Saxon stock to a bunch of weak livered homo-sexual "conscientious" objectors' and that 'we must never forget our heritage of the Magnificent British Empire'.[li]

The universities became major centres for the organisation of the Moratoriums. The Moratoriums had been a huge success in America, with 250,000 attending in New York, and 100,000 in Washington.[lii] These inspired the Australians to organise something similar. In Victoria, the student newspapers at Monash, Melbourne University and La Trobe all combined to bring out a special edition on the Moratorium on May 6. This was the first time a large number of Monash students were involved in organising anti-war activities.[liii]

The first Moratorium held on 8-9 May 1970 was the most successful one. The turnout in Melbourne was the largest, with somewhere between eighty to a hundred thousand people turning up.[liv] The second and third Moratoriums weren't as successful as the first. Attendance was halved at the Moratorium held in September 1970, while the third Moratorium in June 1971 was parodied on a television program as if it were an Anzac Day march.[lv]

The views of the protesters versus the returning soldiers were often very different. While there is an image in public memory of protesters jeering and booing at returned soldiers, Ann Curthoys challenges whether it actually happened very often. Curthoys was involved in the anti-war protests and does not recall any protesters attending welcome home marches, or being told that they should. She also notes that such incidents do not appear in the newspapers, apart from the well known incident in June 1966 when a paint smeared women stood in the line of the returning soldiers who were marching in Sydney.[lvi] Greg Langley notes that on the whole, the anti-war movement was largely sympathetic to the soldiers, and thought of them as victims and pawns of the government.[lvii] There were however some eye-witness accounts like this one:

"We touched down and taxied to the terminal, doors opened - we were home. Guys were kissing the gangway; it was wild. Going through customs I still couldn't believe I was back in Aussie, not until I was through the customs door and into the terminal and there was my brother, I burst into tears and nearly hugged him to death, I was really home.
You wouldn't believe what happened next. Into the terminal came, you guessed it, shitwitted protesters. Hundreds of people in the terminal that night were cheering and clapping their families' home and then these motherfuckers come bursting in carrying placards. One I'll never forget as long as I live, this poxy excuse for a female, screeching and carrying a placard saying 'CHILD KILLERS'."[lviii]

Also, Barry Pedrana reported being verbally attacked by a group of woman, who called him and his companions' murderers and rapists while he and a group of soldiers were at the Shrine of Remembrance.[lix] Evidently, abuse did happen, although perhaps not as often as is thought.

So with all this protest, how did the major political parties respond? Horne thinks that it had very little effect on the policies of the Menzies, Holt, Gorton and McMahon governments. They simply followed the United States policy. 'All the way with LBJ', was Holt's catchcry. 'They went into Vietnam with the United States; then they went out of Vietnam with the United States. In 1970 when President Nixon announced a policy for withdrawal from Vietnam, John Gorton announced one too.'[lx] In the 1966 election, the ALP under Arthur Calwell, the ALP campaigned heavily on the conscription and Vietnam issues but was soundly defeated. Things started to turn around for the ALP in the 1967 Senate election, where the Liberal-Country parties' first preference vote dropped by seven percent, and the ALP's grew by five percent. In America, President Johnson abdicated from the candidacy of the next election due to the American public response to the Tet offensive.[lxi] Whitlam became leader of the ALP in February 1967. Members of Parliament like Jim Cairns, who were passionately opposed to the war and conscription, found that they expressed their opposition to the government policies more effectively, outside of parliament than in it.[lxii]

The last Australian troops left Vietnam on the 8^th of December 1971. Conscription was not abolished though, until the ALP under Whitlam came into power in 1972. [lxiii] This undoubtedly saved more men from being prosecuted.

'...in December 1972, I received a letter from the relevant department asking me to ring them urgently. I did so and still remember the response at the other end: if the Coalition had been re-elected in 1972, they had a list of non-respondents who were to be rounded up by the Federal Police. I was on that list.'[lxiv]

A strong part of the anti-Vietnam War protests was the anti-conscription protest. One wonders if the anti-war movement would have had as much support as it did, if it weren't for the issue of conscription. The Vietnam War itself was a highly contentious issue for many Australians, but it was brought home by conscription - young people who may not have otherwise thought much about the war or protesting were forced to think about it when they were conscripted, or someone they knew was conscripted. Parallels can be drawn between the public reaction to the Vietnam War and the public's lack of reaction to the Iraq War. Would today's largely apathetic and apolitical student body rise up in protest like they did in the early 70's if they were actually threatened with conscription? One assumes that the reaction to the war in Iraq would be quite a bit different if conscription was in practise today. Conscription by itself has shown not to be a contentious issue, and war by itself rarely provokes mass demonstrations, but when combined, like they were in the First World War and during the Vietnam War, they become a formidable and contentious issue.

[i] Peter Cochrane, 'At War and Home: Australian Attitudes during the Vietnam Years', in Gregory Pemberton (ed.), Vietnam Remembered, (Sydney: Weldon, 1990) p. 171

[ii] M. Hamel-Green, 'A history of the anti-conscription movement 1964-1972', in King, Peter (ed.), Australia's Vietnam (Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1983) p. 100

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Ibid

[v] Ibid, p. 101

[vi]Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 10 November 1964, Vol. 44, pp. 2717-8.

[vii] Peter Cook & Corinne Manning, Australia's Vietnam war in history and memory, (Melbourne: La Trobe University, 2002) p. 6

[viii] Donald Horne, Time of Hope: Australia 1966-1972, (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1980) p. 52

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Chris Guyatt, 'The Anti-Conscription Movement', in Roy Forward & Bob Reece (eds.), Conscription in Australia, (Brisbane, University of Queensland Press, 1968) p. 178

[xi] Horne, Time of Hope, p. 52

[xii] Melbourne Draft Resisters Union, Downdraft: A draft resistance manual, (Melbourne: Melbourne Draft Resisters Union, 1971) p. 85

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ann-Mari Jordens, 'Conscription & dissent', in Gregory Pemberton (ed.), Vietnam Remembered, (Sydney: Weldon, 1990) p. 67

[xv] Ibid, p. 68

[xvi]Downdraft, p. 79

[xvii] Jordens, 'Conscription & dissent' p. 68

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Ibid, p. 69

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Jordens, 'Conscription & dissent', p. 74

[xxii] Jeffrey Grey, 'Protest and Dissent: Anti-Vietnam War Activism in Australia', in Doyle, J., Grey, J., & Pierce, P. (eds.), Australia's Vietnam War, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002) p. 60

[xxiii]Downdraft, p. 8

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] Ibid, p. 20

[xxvii] Ibid, p. 16

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Ibid, p. 17

[xxx] J.M. Main, Conscription: The Australian Debate, 1901 - 1970, (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1978) p. 160

[xxxi]Downdraft, p. 19

[xxxii] Bob Scates, Draftmen go free: a history of the anti-conscription movement in Australia (Richmond, Vic: B. Scates, 1988) p. 76

[xxxiii] Cochrane, 'At War and Home', p. 177

[xxxiv] Guyatt, 'The Anti-Conscription Movement' p. 181

[xxxv] Ibid.

[xxxvi] Jordens, 'Conscription & dissent', p. 79

[xxxvii] Guyatt, 'The Anti-Conscription Movement', p. 181

[xxxviii]Tony Duras, 'Trade Unions and the Vietnam War',http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/workers.htm.

[xxxix] Horne, Time of Hope, p. 52

[xl] Brian Buckley, 'To the Last American', in James McAuley, et al, The case for conscription and Australian commitment to Vietnam, (Sydney: The Bulletin, 1966) p. 3

[xli] P.T. Findlay, Protest politics and psychological warfare: the communist role in the Anti-Vietnam War and anti-conscription movement in Australia, (Melbourne: Hawthorn Press, 1968) p. 26

[xlii] Jordens, 'Conscription & dissent', p. 74

[xliii] Ibid.

[xliv]The Seamen's Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1966, p. 3

[xlv] Ann Curthoys, 'Vietnam: Public memory of an anti-war movement' in Hamilton, Paula & Darian-Smith, Kate (eds.), Memory and History in twentieth-century Australia, (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1994) p. 130

[xlvi] Grey, 'Protest and Dissent', p. 62

[xlvii] Curthoys, 'Vietnam: Public memory of an anti-war movement', p. 130

[xlviii]The Age, 26 July 1967

[xlix] Findlay, Protest politics and psychological warfare, p. 51

[l] Ibid.

[li] Letter from Richard Pullar, Lot's Wife, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1967, p. 3

[lii] Ann Curthoys, 'Mobilising Dissent: The Later stages of Protest', in Gregory Pemberton (ed.), Vietnam Remembered, (Sydney: Weldon, 1990) p. 153

[liii] Ibid, p. 155

[liv] Horne, Time of Hope, p. 56

[lv] Ibid. p. 57

[lvi] Curthoys, 'Vietnam: Public memory of an anti-war movement', p. 124

[lvii] Ibid, p. 126

[lviii] Curthoys, 'Vietnam: Public memory of an anti-war movement', p. 116.

[lix] Ibid, p. 127

[lx] Horne, Time of Hope, p. 58-9

[lxi] Ibid, p. 55

[lxii] Grey, 'Protest and Dissent', p. 61

[lxiii] Curthoys, 'Mobilising Dissent', p. 162

[lxiv] Interview by the author with John McQuilten, 9/5/2007

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Albinski, Henry, Politics and foreign policy in Australia: The impact of Vietnam and conscription (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1970).

Albinski, Henry, 'Vietnamese Protest & the Australian Political Protest', Polity, Vol 1, No. 3, 1969, pp. 359-375

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates

Findlay, P.T., Protest politics and psychological warfare: the communist role in the Anti-Vietnam War and anti-conscription movement in Australia, (Melbourne: Hawthorn Press, 1968).

Forward, Roy (ed.), Conscription in Australia (Brisbane, University of Queensland Press, 1968)

Hansard

Lot's Wife

McAuley, James et al, The case for conscription and Australian commitment to Vietnam, (Sydney: The Bulletin, 1966) From Monash University Rare Books Collection.

Melbourne Draft Resisters Union, Downdraft: A draft resistance manual, (Melbourne: Melbourne Draft Resisters Union, 1971) From Monash University Rare Books Collection.

Miller, J.D.B., 'An Australian View', International Affairs, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1966, pp. 230-240.

National Anti-War Conference, Vietnam Moratorium Campaign, National Anti-War Conference, Sydney, February 17-21, 1971, (Sydney, 1971)

The Age

The Herald

The Sun

The Seamen's Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1966

"Why is Brian Ross in Gaol?" (Melbourne, 1970) From the Monash University Rare Books Collection.

Secondary Sources

Burgmann, Verity, Power, Profit and Protest: Australian Social Movements and Globalisation, (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2003)

Cochrane, Peter, 'At War and Home: Australian Attitudes during the Vietnam Years', in Gregory Pemberton (ed.), Vietnam Remembered, (Sydney: Weldon, 1990) pp. 165-185.

Cook, Peter & Manning, Corinne, Australia's Vietnam war in history and memory, (Melbourne: La Trobe University, 2002)

Curthoys, Ann, 'Vietnam: Public memory of an anti-war movement' in Hamilton, Paula & Darian-Smith, Kate (eds.), Memory and History in twentieth-century Australia, (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1994) pp. 113-134

Curthoys, Ann, 'Mobilising Dissent: The Later stages of Protest', in Gregory Pemberton (ed.), Vietnam Remembered, (Sydney: Weldon, 1990) pp.

Duras, Tony, 'Trade Unions and the Vietnam War', http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/workers.htm. Accessed 10 May 2007.

Gerster, Robin & Basset, Jan, Seizures of Youth: The Sixties and Australia, (Melbourne: Hyland House, 1991)

Grey, Jeffrey, 'Protest and Dissent: Anti-Vietnam War Activism in Australia', in Doyle, J., Grey, J., & Pierce, P. (eds.), Australia's Vietnam War, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002) pp. 55-63.

Hamel-Green, Michael E., 'A history of the anti-conscription movement 1964-1972', in King, Peter (ed.), Australia's Vietnam (Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1983) pp. 100-128

Hirst, J., 'Australian defence and conscription: a re-assessment Part 1' Australian Historical Studies, vol. 25, no. 101, 1993, pp. 608-627.

Horne, Donald, Time of Hope: Australia 1966-1972, (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1980)

Jordens, Ann-Mari, 'Conscription & dissent', in Gregory Pemberton (ed.), Vietnam Remembered, (Sydney: Weldon, 1990) pp. 61-81

Levi, Margaret, 'The Institution of Conscription', Social Science History, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1996, pp. 133- 167

Main, J.M., Conscription: The Australian Debate, 1901 - 1970, (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1978).

Moddell, John & Haggerty, Timothy, 'The Social Impact of War', Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 17, 1991, pp. 205- 224

Parry, Ann, Conscription, (South Yarra: Macmillan Education Australia Pty. Ltd, 2006)

Saunders, Malcolm, 'Law and order and the anti-Vietnam War movement: 1965-72', Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 28, No. 3, 1982, pp. 367-379.

Saunders, Malcolm & Summy, Ralph, The Australian Peace Movement: A Short History, (Canberra: Australian National University, 1986)

Scates, Bob, Draftmen go free: a history of the anti-conscription movement in Australia (Richmond, Vic: B. Scates, 1988).

Useem, Michael, Conscription, protest, and social conflict : the life and death of a draft resistance movement, (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1973)