Troy Bramston and The Family File
Response to the false accusations against Arthur Gietzelt
By Lee Gietzelt - October 2016
Response to the false accusations against Arthur Gietzelt
By Lee Gietzelt - October 2016
During a long and distinguished career, the late Hon Arthur Gietzelt AO had to endure accusations of being a dual member of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) and the Australian Labor Party (ALP).
Like many left-minded Australians, he fell under the incompetent, paranoid surveillance of ASIO.
Any creditable person who knew of Arthur, his commitment to the ALP and his outstanding achievements, has paid scant regard to the claims of ASIO and others.
There is no finer example than the words of former Australian Prime Minister, the Hon Bob Hawke AC, who was provided with so-called ASIO intelligence on Arthurin 1983, just days before including Arthur as a minister in his first government.
Like many left-minded Australians, he fell under the incompetent, paranoid surveillance of ASIO.
Any creditable person who knew of Arthur, his commitment to the ALP and his outstanding achievements, has paid scant regard to the claims of ASIO and others.
There is no finer example than the words of former Australian Prime Minister, the Hon Bob Hawke AC, who was provided with so-called ASIO intelligence on Arthurin 1983, just days before including Arthur as a minister in his first government.
I had no problem with any of my ministers in terms of their complete commitment to the Australian Labor Party. I had heard there was scuttlebutt about [Arthur] Gietzelt, there was scuttlebutt about Tom Uren. But as far as I was concerned they were totally committed to the Labor Party and that was their only commitment (Australian, 5 Jan 2013).
|
Yet some of Arthur’s political adversaries clutch at unsubstantiated ASIO claims, attempting to discredit his forty-plus years of outstanding service and achievements for his local community, the ALP and his country.
Troy Bramston, a failed politician cum unscrupulous journalist, is one such person.
Bramston published numerous articles about Arthur that relied on speculative ASIO information and supposed ‘corroborating evidence’ in Mark Aarons’ The Family File, in an effort to rubbish his reputation.
Bramston’s bias and poor,subjective writing and scholarly skills are well known:
Troy Bramston, a failed politician cum unscrupulous journalist, is one such person.
Bramston published numerous articles about Arthur that relied on speculative ASIO information and supposed ‘corroborating evidence’ in Mark Aarons’ The Family File, in an effort to rubbish his reputation.
Bramston’s bias and poor,subjective writing and scholarly skills are well known:
"Troy Bramston is a failed factional operative who’s now become a writer of fiction."
(Anthony Albanese, MP, Sky News interview transcript, 23 Jun 2014)
“an incompetent writer”
(Tom Westland, Academic, Public Policy, ANU, The Monthly 3 Nov 2015)
(Anthony Albanese, MP, Sky News interview transcript, 23 Jun 2014)
“an incompetent writer”
(Tom Westland, Academic, Public Policy, ANU, The Monthly 3 Nov 2015)
Bramston alleges that The Family File, written by former communist Mark Aarons, providesthe “corroborating evidence” he needed to confirm the weak assertions made in an ASIO file that Arthur Gietzelt was a dualmember of the ALP/CPA.
This article demonstrates why Aarons’ book cannot possibly provide corroborating evidence to Bramston’s false accusations that Gietzelt was a member of the CPA
No Corroboration While Bramston refers to “interviews”, “recordings” and the like in Aarons’ book, not one single reference in the book substantiates Bramston’s attack on Arthur Gietzelt’s integrity.
In fact, there is not one piece of independent evidence in The Family File that links Gietzelt to CPA membership.It merely makes one thing clear – there was negligible interaction between Gietzelt and Laurie Aarons.
The only references to Arthur Gietzelt in Aaron’s book are on pages 106,266, 298, 299-300 and 304.Let’s examine them in detail:
This article demonstrates why Aarons’ book cannot possibly provide corroborating evidence to Bramston’s false accusations that Gietzelt was a member of the CPA
No Corroboration While Bramston refers to “interviews”, “recordings” and the like in Aarons’ book, not one single reference in the book substantiates Bramston’s attack on Arthur Gietzelt’s integrity.
In fact, there is not one piece of independent evidence in The Family File that links Gietzelt to CPA membership.It merely makes one thing clear – there was negligible interaction between Gietzelt and Laurie Aarons.
The only references to Arthur Gietzelt in Aaron’s book are on pages 106,266, 298, 299-300 and 304.Let’s examine them in detail:
Page 106 – Aarons claims that in September 1945, Laurie Aarons “was replaced by Ray Gietzelt’s brother, Arthur, who persisted with the CPA’s work among ex-service personnel for some years ...”. Fact: At that time, Arthur Gietzelt was in the Australian Army. He was sent overseas in August 1945, and didn’t return until 1946 (as his discharge papers in the National Archives confirm).
It was impossible for Gietzelt to “replace” Laurie Aarons in September 1945. Who knows where this fantasy comes from? The ‘family file’? Page 266 – The reference to Gietzelt comes from an ASIO file. It provides no corroboration. Page 298 – A repeat of the error on p.106, followed by a reference to Gietzelt from an ASIO file. No corroboration. Pages 299-300 – All references to Gietzelt here come from ASIO files. No corroboration. Page 304 – A statement that Gietzelt was a Minister in the Hawke Government. This is true. |
So where’s the corroborating evidence?
Aaron’s Shoddy Work
It is important to note here that Bramston himself has privately stated that Aarons’ work is“shoddy”. It is typical of Bramston’s bias to say one thing in private, and another in public.
For example, Senator John Wheeldon was another senior left-wing Labor parliamentarian falsely accused by ASIO of being a communist. His son, James Wheeldon, has provided the Gietzelts with a copy of an email he sent to Bramston:
Aaron’s Shoddy Work
It is important to note here that Bramston himself has privately stated that Aarons’ work is“shoddy”. It is typical of Bramston’s bias to say one thing in private, and another in public.
For example, Senator John Wheeldon was another senior left-wing Labor parliamentarian falsely accused by ASIO of being a communist. His son, James Wheeldon, has provided the Gietzelts with a copy of an email he sent to Bramston:
I note that your public position – that Aarons is reliable –s in stark contrast to the position you have taken in emails to me, where you agreed with me that Aarons’ work was ‘indeed very shoddy’.
In my opinion, you are not being honest with your readers. You know that there are very significant flaws in Aarons’ methodologies and conclusions, and yet you cherry pick the evidence to support your position that Aarons’ claims about ALP / CPA links are reliable and that Aarons can be trusted to ‘verify’ and ‘corroborate’ such claims (emphasis added). |
Examples of Aaron’s shoddy work can be seen in his claim that Arthur’s brother Ray was a member of the bootmakers’ union in December 1941 (p.99 The Family File).
This is incorrect. Ray Gietzelt was an industrial chemist, not a bootmaker. Prior to the war, he worked for the chemical company Incorporated Laboratories Pty Ltd, thenlater in the family business which made paints and varnish.
Ray states on page 19 of his book Worth Fighting For (published in 2004, well before Aaron’s book) that “I joined the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union, NSW Branch in 1940 because it was the only union I could find whose constitution covered chemical manufacture, including paints and varnish”. Ray continued his membership of the “Missos” up until his passing in 2012.
Clearly, Ray was never a member of the bootmakers’ union.
Reliance on ASIO Files
Another example of Aaron’s poor methodology is his reliance on the factual accuracy of the information contained in ASIO’s files.
While I could outline in detail here the many factual errors contained in such files (which I will publish in a future article), for now it suffices to say that the source of ASIO’s information implicitly casts doubt on its accuracy.
In particular, it is common knowledge that ASIO relied on paid political informants (a system that promotes‘cash for comment and gossip’), whose primary source of information was scuttlebutt provided by politically motivated persons on the opposite side of politics, such as ALP right-wing hard-liners – the great majority of whom had an axe to grind re their interaction with Gietzelt – see Endnote 1.
Even Aarons notes the absurdity of assertions contained in ASIO files–for example, that his father, Laurie Aarons was an agent of the CIA, and an assassin who ‘bumped off’ his close friend Eddie Robertson, when in fact, Laurie Aarons was in Indonesia when Robertson died of a heart attack (see page 234 of The Family File).
Aarons’ Motivation
And Aarons’ motivation? Given that even ASIO makes scant reference to any interaction between Laurie Aarons and Gietzelt, Mark Aarons’ claims appear to be nothing more than an attempt to big-note his family, and to denigrate Arthur Gietzelt, who actually achieved so much for the labor movement.
I ask you this – what did any member of the Aarons’ family actually do, which improved the lives of the Australian people?
Gietzelt’s record
In stark contrast, Arthur Gietzelt’s integrity and outstanding contribution to Australian society is irrefutable. This website contains further information that demonstrates this and is in the process of being continually updated.
Liaising with communists over common ground
Gietzelt was strongly opposed to the concept of a one-party state (communism),and on many occasions publicly advocated proportional representation, so that the views of many people were part of the political process. (See the background paper on proportional representation on this website.)
That is, Arthur Gietzelt publicly advocated the importance of including diverse views in the decision-making process so that democracy was strengthened.
That he supported a one-party state is not only complete folly, but it is notsubstantiated at any level by right-wing hacks. There is not the slightest hint of evidencethat he did. In fact, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion:
In contrast, Arthur Gietzelt never denied dealing with communists when there was common ground.In Australia, the CPA advocated women’s rights, recognition of indigenous Australians,was strongly opposed to Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War and having US bases built on Australian soil. The communists were opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and supported groups advocating world peace. For example, CPA activist Jack Mundey’s environmental credentials are indisputable.
It wasn’t wrong for Gietzelt to liaise with CPA members regarding issues like these (see Endnote 2). Few would deny the validity of these,now mainstream, ideals that came from the Left.
In fact, one of Gietzelt’s roles in the NSW ALP Steering Committee (now known as the Socialist Left) was to liaise with members of the CPA. Such liaisons produced positive results. For example, in the 1960’s the ALP’s position changed from supporting Australian troops going to Vietnam, to being opposed. This resulted from changing public opinion regarding Vietnam as a result of campaigns initiating public meetings, demonstrations etc. organised by the ALP, CPA members, the clergy, unionists, student groups, and numerous others in the community – including many Liberals.
However, even though there was sometimes common ground with theCPA and the ALP, it did not follow that CPA union officials sent their full delegation to ALPconferences. Some of the hard-liners disagreed with supporting the ALP. The ALP was notfar enough to the left for them. Gietzelt’s role was to convince such types that diggingtheir heels in was not in the interests of the broader labour movement; hence his interaction with the communists. And as Gietzelt once commented:
This is incorrect. Ray Gietzelt was an industrial chemist, not a bootmaker. Prior to the war, he worked for the chemical company Incorporated Laboratories Pty Ltd, thenlater in the family business which made paints and varnish.
Ray states on page 19 of his book Worth Fighting For (published in 2004, well before Aaron’s book) that “I joined the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union, NSW Branch in 1940 because it was the only union I could find whose constitution covered chemical manufacture, including paints and varnish”. Ray continued his membership of the “Missos” up until his passing in 2012.
Clearly, Ray was never a member of the bootmakers’ union.
Reliance on ASIO Files
Another example of Aaron’s poor methodology is his reliance on the factual accuracy of the information contained in ASIO’s files.
While I could outline in detail here the many factual errors contained in such files (which I will publish in a future article), for now it suffices to say that the source of ASIO’s information implicitly casts doubt on its accuracy.
In particular, it is common knowledge that ASIO relied on paid political informants (a system that promotes‘cash for comment and gossip’), whose primary source of information was scuttlebutt provided by politically motivated persons on the opposite side of politics, such as ALP right-wing hard-liners – the great majority of whom had an axe to grind re their interaction with Gietzelt – see Endnote 1.
Even Aarons notes the absurdity of assertions contained in ASIO files–for example, that his father, Laurie Aarons was an agent of the CIA, and an assassin who ‘bumped off’ his close friend Eddie Robertson, when in fact, Laurie Aarons was in Indonesia when Robertson died of a heart attack (see page 234 of The Family File).
Aarons’ Motivation
And Aarons’ motivation? Given that even ASIO makes scant reference to any interaction between Laurie Aarons and Gietzelt, Mark Aarons’ claims appear to be nothing more than an attempt to big-note his family, and to denigrate Arthur Gietzelt, who actually achieved so much for the labor movement.
I ask you this – what did any member of the Aarons’ family actually do, which improved the lives of the Australian people?
Gietzelt’s record
In stark contrast, Arthur Gietzelt’s integrity and outstanding contribution to Australian society is irrefutable. This website contains further information that demonstrates this and is in the process of being continually updated.
Liaising with communists over common ground
Gietzelt was strongly opposed to the concept of a one-party state (communism),and on many occasions publicly advocated proportional representation, so that the views of many people were part of the political process. (See the background paper on proportional representation on this website.)
That is, Arthur Gietzelt publicly advocated the importance of including diverse views in the decision-making process so that democracy was strengthened.
That he supported a one-party state is not only complete folly, but it is notsubstantiated at any level by right-wing hacks. There is not the slightest hint of evidencethat he did. In fact, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion:
- Gietzelt was publicly opposed to the brutal, totalitarian regime in the USSR.
- “Arthur played a very significant role in the broader Left in this country by strongly denouncing the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia [in 1968].” (Laurie Ferguson, MHR Werriwa, Hansard 12 Feb 2014).
- Arthur Gietzelt's public speeches over the decades demonstrate that he advocated the importance of democracy, human rights and grassroots participation.
In contrast, Arthur Gietzelt never denied dealing with communists when there was common ground.In Australia, the CPA advocated women’s rights, recognition of indigenous Australians,was strongly opposed to Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War and having US bases built on Australian soil. The communists were opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and supported groups advocating world peace. For example, CPA activist Jack Mundey’s environmental credentials are indisputable.
It wasn’t wrong for Gietzelt to liaise with CPA members regarding issues like these (see Endnote 2). Few would deny the validity of these,now mainstream, ideals that came from the Left.
In fact, one of Gietzelt’s roles in the NSW ALP Steering Committee (now known as the Socialist Left) was to liaise with members of the CPA. Such liaisons produced positive results. For example, in the 1960’s the ALP’s position changed from supporting Australian troops going to Vietnam, to being opposed. This resulted from changing public opinion regarding Vietnam as a result of campaigns initiating public meetings, demonstrations etc. organised by the ALP, CPA members, the clergy, unionists, student groups, and numerous others in the community – including many Liberals.
However, even though there was sometimes common ground with theCPA and the ALP, it did not follow that CPA union officials sent their full delegation to ALPconferences. Some of the hard-liners disagreed with supporting the ALP. The ALP was notfar enough to the left for them. Gietzelt’s role was to convince such types that diggingtheir heels in was not in the interests of the broader labour movement; hence his interaction with the communists. And as Gietzelt once commented:
If speak to a friend who's a priest, that doesn't make me a Catholic
|
Why doesn’t Bramston attack accused dual ticket holder Tom Uren?
Tom Uren has also been accused by ASIO as being a dual CPA/ALP member.
My personal opinion is that Uren was not a dual card carrier, a view also expressed to me by my father. But ASIO and Mark Aarons paint a completely different picture:
We see here that Mark Aarons provides much stronger so-called “corroborating evidence” of the ASIO claim about Uren. Uren fits in to Bramston’s superficial analysis regarding the CPA and the ALP.
So why hasn’t Bramston written numerous articles accusing Uren of subversion, infiltrating the ALP, being a dual card carrier, or leading a double life?
Can anyone on the Left tell me why Uren would dump on Arthur Gietzelt to a hard-line right-wing apologist like Bramston, who writes for the Murdoch press?
According to Bramston, Uren told him that Gietzelt “… ‘regularly’ visited CPA headquarters.” (Weekend Australian, July18-19, 2015). How would Uren know? Even ASIO has provided no evidence to support Uren’s disgraceful claim.
This suggests to me that Uren wanted to ‘cover his backside’ at Gietzelt’s expense.
It also adds to the argument that Bramston is on a personal crusade to attack Arthur Gietzelt’s wonderful contribution to Australian society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Bramston’s references to “corroborating evidence” against Arthur Gietzelt provide nothing more than further proof that he and Aarons share one thing in common – that they are happy to rely on pure speculation for the purpose of denigrating Gietzelt’s reputation for their own ulterior motivations – whatever they may be.
It is also clear that Arthur Gietzelt’s integrity and achievements rise far higher than the likes of Aarons and Bramston.
Endnote 1
Many ALP right-wing hard-liners had an axe to grind with Arthur Gietzelt because he defeated them on many occasions, despite being in the minority numbers wise. Examples include:
Endnote 2
I refer you to a statement from Mr Frank Bongiorno, Associate Professor of History at ANU, in the recent ALP magazine Challenge (Summer 2014-15, p.16)...“One of the things that had separated the NSW Left from the Right was the former’s willingness to work with Communists when there was a common cause.”
Over the decades, there were literally thousands of Left-wing ALP members who liaised with the communists. It was about policy, but it was also about votes at ALP Conferences. Again I refer to the Vietnam War. In the early 1960s, ALP policy supported Australia’s involvement in that war. Votes were taken at ALP Conferences determining the ALP’s position. But the ALP’s policy changed. Policy changed because of votes on the floor of ALP Conferences.
But notwithstanding any of this, the right of association is fundamental to democracy. Arthur Gietzelt had every right to meet with whomever he chose. If that involved breaking the law, then he would have been charged. But as you know, he wasn’t.
Tom Uren has also been accused by ASIO as being a dual CPA/ALP member.
My personal opinion is that Uren was not a dual card carrier, a view also expressed to me by my father. But ASIO and Mark Aarons paint a completely different picture:
- ASIO: “... Arthur Gietzelt, Tom Uren and Dick Scott are still financial members of the CPA. ... Tom Uren is the key for any enquiries of a delicate nature in the Government area” (ASIO file - 17.5.83). Note the key contact WAS NOT Arthur Gietzelt!
- Aarons: “... He [Uren] came regularly [to Laurie Aarons’ home] to ask [Laurie’s] opinion on various matters and they often had long talks. ... When this happened,Laurie sometimes seized my radio and turned it up full bore, ... and they would sit cheek by jowl and talk so that ASIO could not hear them”(p.9 The Family File).
We see here that Mark Aarons provides much stronger so-called “corroborating evidence” of the ASIO claim about Uren. Uren fits in to Bramston’s superficial analysis regarding the CPA and the ALP.
So why hasn’t Bramston written numerous articles accusing Uren of subversion, infiltrating the ALP, being a dual card carrier, or leading a double life?
Can anyone on the Left tell me why Uren would dump on Arthur Gietzelt to a hard-line right-wing apologist like Bramston, who writes for the Murdoch press?
According to Bramston, Uren told him that Gietzelt “… ‘regularly’ visited CPA headquarters.” (Weekend Australian, July18-19, 2015). How would Uren know? Even ASIO has provided no evidence to support Uren’s disgraceful claim.
This suggests to me that Uren wanted to ‘cover his backside’ at Gietzelt’s expense.
It also adds to the argument that Bramston is on a personal crusade to attack Arthur Gietzelt’s wonderful contribution to Australian society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Bramston’s references to “corroborating evidence” against Arthur Gietzelt provide nothing more than further proof that he and Aarons share one thing in common – that they are happy to rely on pure speculation for the purpose of denigrating Gietzelt’s reputation for their own ulterior motivations – whatever they may be.
It is also clear that Arthur Gietzelt’s integrity and achievements rise far higher than the likes of Aarons and Bramston.
Endnote 1
Many ALP right-wing hard-liners had an axe to grind with Arthur Gietzelt because he defeated them on many occasions, despite being in the minority numbers wise. Examples include:
- defeating the right-wing "machine" to get Lionel Murphy and Doug McClelland preselected for for the Senate in the early 1960s (both of whom made outstanding contributions to the labour movement)
- replacing Peter Westerway as a NSW delegate to the National Executive
- defeating Ducker and Westerway in the Shortland preselection where the National Executive had to intervene because the rorting by the right-wing was so extensive. Indeed, as Jane Cadzow notes in The Good Weekend (17 September 2016), p.18, the NSW ALP Branch was riddled with "... cronyism and corruption for which the branch - dominated by [the] Right faction - was notorious."
Endnote 2
I refer you to a statement from Mr Frank Bongiorno, Associate Professor of History at ANU, in the recent ALP magazine Challenge (Summer 2014-15, p.16)...“One of the things that had separated the NSW Left from the Right was the former’s willingness to work with Communists when there was a common cause.”
Over the decades, there were literally thousands of Left-wing ALP members who liaised with the communists. It was about policy, but it was also about votes at ALP Conferences. Again I refer to the Vietnam War. In the early 1960s, ALP policy supported Australia’s involvement in that war. Votes were taken at ALP Conferences determining the ALP’s position. But the ALP’s policy changed. Policy changed because of votes on the floor of ALP Conferences.
But notwithstanding any of this, the right of association is fundamental to democracy. Arthur Gietzelt had every right to meet with whomever he chose. If that involved breaking the law, then he would have been charged. But as you know, he wasn’t.