The Left and Vietnam

Sir: The events of 1975 which Hal Colebatch analyses (June 2014), still reverberate in at least two respects.

First, leftists in Australia have yet to face up to their racism in supporting the imposition of neo-Stalinism on the Vietnamese people. They themselves would not tolerate the thought of living under a dictatorship which denied them basic rights such as freedom of expression and assembly, but decided in their wisdom that it was the best system for benighted Asians who wouldn’t know how to appreciate liberal democracy. Today, far from trying to expose the human rights abuses practised by the Hanoi regime and call for its reform, they treat Vietnam as a cheap and trendy holiday destination.

There was a case at the time for thinking that the continuation of the war, with the seemingly endless suffering which it entailed for the Vietnamese population, was worse than a communist victory, and on that basis I demonstrated against it myself. However, there was never any doubt that even if he was the lesser of two evils, the thuggish Ho Chi Minh and his myrmidon cadres were a tragic evil for Vietnam. To imagine otherwise, in view of communism’s record in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and elsewhere, was sheer obscurantism.

Second, for a couple of decades now the Australian Left has been wallowing in an orgy of “compassion” over refugees. There are genuine issues surrounding Australia’s asylum-seeker policy, and they deserve a thorough national debate. It is impossible, though, to take seriously any contribution to that debate from a Left with such a despicable historical record of vilifying boat people when it suited them to do so. This victimisation of vulnerable outsiders, as Colebatch shows, extended right up to Whitlam himself.

The Left’s volte-face on the refugee question was obviously caused not by compassion, but by the realisation that it was a useful stick with which to beat fashionable enemies such as Howard and Abbott.

Bill James
Bayswater, Vic

The Nonexistent Preamble

Sir: I agree with the views of Barry Maley (May 2014). I am not sure if he is a constitutional expert. Few people have read the Constitution, and even fewer understand it.

The Constitution is section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (CAC Act) of the British parliament. The Constitution does not have a preamble, so it cannot be amended. My view is that many people when talking of the preamble are referring to the first eight sections of the CAC Act. Those sections are not part of the Constitution and cannot be amended by referendum. Referenda can only be used to amend the Constitution. It is doubtful if the federal parliament has the power to amend the CAC Act, and since the passing of the Australia Act 1986 the British parliament has no power to legislate for Australia. Australia could amend that Act to enable the British parliament to make the amendment, but I doubt Britain would want to be involved, and I doubt any Australian government would want to go down that path.

That leaves putting recognition of Aborigines in the Constitution. That would entrench racism in the Constitution—if only one group is recognised, then that group must have preference over other citizens.

Brian Hatch
Red Hill, Vic