View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
1 October 1947

18^th Parliament · 1^st Session

BANKING
- Nationalization : Petitions
WOODVILLE YOUNG WOMEN’S HOSTEL
QUESTION
- ATOMIC ENERGY
QUESTION
- UNITED NATIONS
IMMIGRATION
- Housing- Rural Workers
QUESTION
- ANTARCTICA
QUESTION
- INCOME TAX
QUESTION
- RENT CONTROL
AUSTRALIAN LABOUR PARTY
- Katoomba Branch
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE SERVICES
QUESTION
- WARGRAVES:
COMMONWEALTH DISPOSALS COMMISSION
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
WAR SERVICE HOMES
- War Widows
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- WAR WIDOWS’ PENSIONS
QUESTION
- ARMED FORCES
QUESTION
- ESTIMATES 1947-48
AUSTRALIA INVITES IRISH IMMIGRANTS
- Views of Senator
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
QUESTION
- THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Civil Aviation : Trans- Australia Airlines
- Banking: Volume of Operations, Dividends
- Immigration : British Migrants

Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 335

BANKING

Nationalization : Petitions

Petitions in relation to banking in Australia were presented as follows: -

By Mr. HARRISON, from certain electors of the division of Wentworth.

By Sir EARLE PAGE, from- certain electors pf the division of Cowper.

By Mr. ABBOTT, from certain electors of the division of New England.

By Mr. ARCHIE CAMERON, from certain electors of South Australia.

Petitions received and read.

page 335

WOODVILLE YOUNG WOMEN’S HOSTEL

Mr THOMPSON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– This morning I received letters from 62 young women who reside at the Young Women’s Christian Association Hostel, Woodville, South Australia, a building which was purchased by the Commonwealth Government and extended during the war and ‘ has since been conducted by the Young .Women’s Christian Association as a hostel for young women, including a number of ex-servicewomen, university students, and workers in factories in the district.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has sufficiently explained the nature of the building. He must now proceed with his question.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Can the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction say whether it is correct, as reported, that the Government intends to dispose of the building? If so, will he endeavour to make arrangements to provide these young women, with suitable accommodation.! -

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not know anything about the hostel to which the honorable member has referred, but I assume that it was conducted by the Young Women’s Christian Association on behalf of the Department of Munitions during the war. I cannot see that this matter is connected in any way with the Department of Post-war ^Reconstruction, but as I represent the Minister for Munitions in this House, I shall ascertain the true position from him and let’ the honorable member know as soon as possible.

page 335

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of a report that the president of the Scientific Research Board in the United State’s of America has emphasized that “American science must be geared for another, war, can the Prime Minister confirm or deny, a report that Australia faces a long ‘delay in the construction of atomic power plants? If the report be correct, what is the reason for the delay? Will the Prime Minister comment upon a. London report that the cheeseparing policy of the British Ministry of Supply in regard. to scientists’ salaries has brought disaster to the British rocket project ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not debate the issue by quoting a London report.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– Then I should content myself by asking whether the Commonwealth Government is in touch .with the British Government in regard to this matter, and whether he can confirm or deny the report?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The development of atomic energy is a different matter from tho construction of atomic bombs. The honorable member must know that the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America entered into thi agreement regarding the manufacture -of atomic bombs, but I do not think, the -agreement extended to the development of atomic energy. The scientist’s who are engaged in this branch .of research say that it is a matter for political decision tbv the nations of the world whether this great new power is to be used for offensive and destructive purposes in the form of bombs, or in the development of atomic energy. The scientists with whom I have discussed the matter gave me to understand that the Government of the United States of America has made considerable progress in the development of atomic energy - just how much progress I do not know, but I believe that lie work involves very complicated industrial technique. I do not think that I am at liberty to discuss the activities of the British Government in this respect, but I can say it has played a very important part in the development of certain aspects of this branch of physical science. Just what oan be ultimately done in the way of developing atomic energy as a source of power for industrial purposes is a matter for further investigation. We have been kept informed of developments in the United Kingdom, but we are not informed of the progress which has been made in the United States of America. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, through his department, has kept in close touch with the British authorities, and when Professor Oliphant was in this country he discussed the subject with members of Cabinet.

page 336

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a cablegram from New York published in’ the Melbourne Age of’ Friday last purporting to outline the views of the Australian delegation on matters now before the General Assembly of the United Nations ? The cablegram contains the following statement : -

The Australian delegation is said to think that, in any circumstances, the nain burden of carrying the Palestinian solution will fall on the British Forces, and it is not outside the realm of possibility that even Australia may he asked to contribute troops.

Does that statement represent the considered view of the Government? Have’ any instructions been issued to the Australian delegation regarding the attitude it is to adopt in the event of the General Assembly deciding to send troops to Palestine ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not seen the article mentioned by the honorable member. The statement he has quoted has no foundation in fact. No such instructions have been given to the, Australian delegation. I and the Minister for External Affairs, who’ is the leader of the delegation, understand quite clearly what the views of this Government are regarding Palestine. As the honorable member knows, this is a very delicate and difficult subject. Great Britain has been carrying the burden in the policing of Palestine. For that it has received little thanks; in fact, it has received considerable abuse. Although a great deal of advice has been tendered to the United Kingdom as to how’ it should do the job nobody else has been anxious to provide either men, or money, to carry out the task. I have discussed with the Minister for External Affairs the position in Palestine as it affects Australia, and the committee of the United Nations which is now considering this problem will, I presume, give consideration to all suggestions that may b< made to the Assembly. One thing that I can tell the honorable member is that, so far as this Government is concerned, no Australian troops will b( sent to Palestine. Of that, the honor able member can be completely confident and, in addition, he can rest assured that we will be making no contribution to the work of administration in Palestine.

page 337

IMMIGRATION

Housing- Rural Workers

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I draw the atten tion of the Minister for Immigration to the following statement attributed to him in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 24th September last: - “ For Mr. Randolph Churchill to take a brief look at Australia and then tell us we could not house 70,000migrants to-morrow is a foolish evasion of other relevant factors.”

I am not saying whether I agree with that statement or not. Can the Minister tell the House how many migrants, approximately, he expects to arrive in Australia before the end of this year, and from what countries? In view of the Government’s inability to house thousands of Australians, many of whom are exservice men and women who have been waiting for homes for many months, will he state specifically how it is proposed to house the migrants coming to Australia?

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I appreciate the tacit agreement of the honorable member with at least some phases of the Government’s migration policy, because he declined to indicate whether he agreed, or disagreed, with Mr. Randolph Churchill’s observation. I shall obtain as accurately as I can the number of expected arrivals in Australia for the remainder of this year and the total that has already arrived. I shall give as clearly as I can a picture of the migration position for the whole of 1947. I shall also indicate the countries from which such people are coming, and the numbers from each country. I am not the Minister for “Works and Housing and therefore I cannot give any figures in regard to the housing programme of the Commonwealth. Housing is primarily a State responsibility and I am not in a position to say just now how the State governments are proceeding with their programmes. We have, by arrangement with the British Government, and indeed as a condition to the provision of certain ships, made Fremantle the terminal port for the arrival of many people in this country. Asturias arrived a few days ago. Before I left

London I arranged that as many intending settlers for Western Australia as possible should be taken on Asturias in order to reduce the numbers of persons to be sent to the eastern States by rail, air or sea transport. In that action I was I believe, benefiting Western Australia and not harming it. If the honorable member thinks that the Commonwealth’s immigration programme is militating against the housing of the Australian people all I can say is that we have to take some risks to break the vicious circle in regard to housing in order to provide some workers to go into foundries and other distasteful forms of employment to supply the baths, sinks and stoves necessary for the housing programme. Finally, the immigration scheme which I have the honour to be carrying out has been approved by several conferences of Commonwealth and State Ministers. All States and all Commonwealth departments are associated in this co-ordinated effort to do something for Australia’s labour problems and for the future defence of this country.

Mr DAVIDSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister for Immigrationbeen drawn to the fact that the Federal Council of the Graziers Association, and other bodies interested in primary production, have advocated the inclusion of rural workers in the official list of approved migrants and suggested that they be given preference in transportation? Can the Minister inform the House of the position of rural workers whom it is desired to bring to this country, and of any plans the Government has made?

Mr CALWELL:

– The method by which the Commonwealth and State authorities discharge their joint responsibility in regard to the selection, transportation and settlement of desirable immigrants has long since been settled and has been in operation for some time. The State authorities are responsible in the first place for receiving nominations from employers, groups of employers or individuals for persons whom it is desired to bring to this country. The State authorities determine the order of priority to be accorded each nomination, and the applications are then submitted by the States to the Commonwealth authorities, within the appropriate priority indicated in each case. The Department of Immigration then transmits the lists to London, for attention by selection officers and the officers responsible for the provision of shipping facilities. The policy of the Government is to carry out the desires of the State3 in their entirety. If a State government intimates that it requires nurses as a number one priority, nurses are accorded first priority in the migrants transported to that particular State. I shall be glad to assist graziers and individual farmers to secure the services of rural workers because I realize that there is an acute shortage. I suggest to the honorable gentleman that he advise the Graziers Association and other bodies interested to communicate with the appropriate State authorities and ascertain what priority is accorded to rural workers. If the State governments intimate that they desire the immigration of farm workers the Government will do its best to secure them. In any event I shall be glad to receive representations from the Graziers Association indicating exactly what type of migrants it desires, at what times their arrival would be of most value, and any other information which the association thinks will be of assistance to immigration authorities. In the meantime my officers will discuss the matter with State immigration officers to ascertain whether anything can be done to obtain the services of additional rural workers, because the Government appreciates that the country’s greatest need to-day is increased production.

page 338

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

’ “Wyatt Earp “ Expedition.

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– In response to representations I made to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department regarding the inclusion of a film unit of the Department of Information on the Wyatt Earp expedition to the Antarctic I was informed that there was insufficient space on the vessel. A photographer appointed by the Government of Tasmania, Mr. Laird, is, however, going as far as Macquarie Island. In view of the importance of this expedition and the value of a comprehensive film of the activities of the party to schools, libraries, and the patrons of picture theatres, will the Minister for Information indicate whether there is still any likelihood of such a unit going south with the expedition?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I shall discuss with the officers of my department the suggestion of the honorable member that the matter of sending a film unit to the Antarctic be re-opened. I am sure that if space can be found on the vessel - and space is one of the great difficulties surrounding an expedition of this kind - my department will be sufficiently enterprising and its officers sufficiently adventurous to take part in the expedition.

page 338

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

Exemption of Scholarship Allowances

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In the last sessional period, during the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Bill, I raised the question of exempting travelling scholarship allowances from income tax and was successful in obtaining a promise from the Treasurer that he would look into the matter to ascertain what could be done to lift this burden. I have now ascertained that in certain cases the Deputy Commissioners of Taxation will make substantial exemptions, which has the satisfactory result of reducing the incomes of certain students below the taxable limit. These exemptions apply particularly to scholarships from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Sydney University, and. by previous decisions, the Nuffield, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Rhodes scholarships. As many other scholarships besides those that I have mentioned are involved, will the Prime Minister in his capacity as Treasurer ensure that a statement shall be issued by him or by the Commissioner of Taxation extending this concession to all travelling scholarships?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Following the discussion on this matter during the last period of the present session, I examined the whole question fully. As the honorable member has said, certain relaxations were found possible. Further concessions, however, would involve considerable difficulties, and so far I have not been able to see my way clear to recommend to the Government any additional relaxation. I assure the honorable member that the matter will be given further consideration, and that I will provide him with a full statement of the reasons for the Government’s decision not to extend the concession.

page 339

QUESTION

RENT CONTROL

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime

Minister aware that the Prices Commissioner has been approached in order to have room rents paid by about 280 persons living in premises at Surry Hills, New South Wales, raised by 3s. and 2s. 6d. a week ? If so, does the right honorable gentleman know that many of the persons involved are old people and pensioners who cannot afford these extra impositions? As I have had a number of urgent appeals on this matter, last week and again this week, will the Prime Minister authorize a stay of proceedings pending an invastigation of the proposed increases ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

-Thematterreferred to by the honorable member for Bourke has not been brought to my notice, but if she will supply me with the details I shall arrange to have an investigation made. I gather from what has been said that shared accommodation is involved in some cases, and that, of course, presents great difficulties. I shall endeavour to have the matter examined as early as possible.

page 339

AUSTRALIAN LABOUR PARTY

Katoomba Branch

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As. Dr. E. P. Dark was recently elected vice-president of the reconstituted branch of the Australian Labour Party, will the Prime Minister say-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The constitution of a branch of the Australian Labour party has nothing whatever to do with the Prime Minister or his Ministry. Consequently, the question is out of order.

Mr. ABBOTT.Thereisanadditional portion of the question that is in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have ruled that the question is out of order. Does the honorable member understand that?

Mr ABBOTT:

– I think it is grossly unfair.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member will withdraw that statement and apologize to the Chair. I am carrying out the Standing Orders.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I withdraw and apologize.

page 339

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Marine Engineers’ Strike

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime

Minister whether the Government proposes to take any action to bring about a settlement of the marine engineers’ dispute which is reported in to-day’s press to be responsible for the tying up of 101 coastal ships within the next ten days. As a dislocation of shipping would seriously affect the supply of goods to Queensland, will the Prime Minister take some steps to provide alternative forms of transport in the event of the dispute lasting indefinitely? Is the Prime Minister aware that a breakdown in shipping services between the southern States and Queensland would cause acute shortages in Queensland of salt, matches, dried fruits, pickles, breakfast foods, tea, toilet soap and soap powders, wire and wire-netting, galvanized iron and other building materials, thus leading to further unemployment in that State?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Every effort has been made to prevent the dispute as it affects fie Marine Engineers Institute. The difficulty has existed for months concerning which discussions have been proceeding. Quite recently the matter was referred to the Arbitration Court. Judge Kelly made no order on the ground, I understand, that it did not involve a dispute between employer and employee. No doubt His Honour was correct in taking that view. As the honorable member is undoubtedly aware, the tie-up is the outcome of a direction given by the Maritime Industry Commission. In the last five or six days discussions have been proceeding continuously with various people in search for some way out of the deadlock. The Minister for Supply and Shipping has gone to Melbourne this morning for further discussions. The Government fully realizes the interruption of the economic affairs of the nation that can result from the tie-up. The latterpartofthehonorablegentleman’s questionrelatedtowhatcouldbedone toensuretheavailabilityofsuppliesin theeventofthedisputecontinuing. Everythingpossiblewillbedonetomeet thesituation.Ihope,however,that common sense will prevail and that a solution will be found at a reasonably earlydate.Thehonorablemembermay rest assured that the matter is being giventheclosestattention.

page 340

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

-IasktheMinister representingthePostmaster-General whetherthereisanylikelihoodofthe Postmaster-General’sDepartmentsoon overcomingtheshortageoftelephones, whichisallegedtobeduetolackof parts?

Mr. CALWELL. ThereisnolikelihoodofthePostmasterGeneral’sDepartmentbeingabletomeetthedesiresofall personsinthecommunitywhohave appliedfortelephones.IthinkIsetout thepositioninawrittenreplyonbehalf ofthePostmasterGeneraltothehonorablememberforMoretonyesterday.

Mr.Francis.-Lastweek.

Mr. CALWELL. ThelatestinformationinthehandsofthePostmasterGeneral’sDepartmentwillbesuppliedto thehonorablememberforBatman. Everythingthedepartmentcandoto supplytheneedsofthepeopleintelephonicservicesisbeingandwillbedone. ThefactisthattherearephysicaldifficultieswhichevenabrilliantPostmaster General cannotovercomeveryquickly.

page 340

QUESTION

WARGRAVES:

UnveilingofTobrukMemorial.

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-AstheMinister fortheInteriorknows;thereisgreat uneasinessonthepartofex-servicemen’s organizations,particularlytheRatsof TobrukAssociation,owingtothe reportthattheunveilingceremonyatthe TobrukMemorialnextJanuarywillbe performedbytheAustralianHighCommissionerinLondon;Mr.Beasley.The Ministerdisagreedwiththatstatement whenitwasmadeyesterday,butInow directhisattentiontoalettersentby his department to the general secretary of theReturnedSailors,Soldiersand

Airmen’sImperialLeagueofAustralia, Mr.Neagle,whichdoesnotagreewith hisstatement.Mr.Neagleinformsmethat onMondayhereceivedaletterfromthe DepartmentoftheInteriorstatingthat CabinetdidnotfavourtheoriginalproposaloftheRatsofTobrukAssociation tthatadelegationoffiveshouldattend theceremonyandthattherewouldbea delegaionofthreeconsistingoftheAustralianHighCommissionerinLondon,a representativeoftheAustralianBattlefieldsMemorialCommitteeandajoint representativeoftheReturnedSailors, SoldiersandAirmensImperialLeague. ofAustraliaandtheRatsofTobruk Association.Inviewofthatletterfrom anofficeofhisdepartment,willthe Ministerhaveafullinvestigationmadeof thematterandgiveanassurancethatthe variousorganizationsconcernedwillbe consultedbeforeadecisionismadeasto whoshallperformtheunveiling ceremony?

Mr JOHNSON:
Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-TheanswerthatI gavetoaquestionaskedofmeyesterday inconnexionwiththismatterwastrue ineverydetail.Thepositionisthata proposalwassubmittedtoCabinetatits lastmeetingastheresultofarecommendationfromtheAustralianBattlefields MemorialCommittee.Theproposalwas discussedbyCabinet,anditwas suggestedthatitmightbepossible tomakearrangementsfortheunveiling of thememorialatTobruk on the lines set out in the letter whichwassenttoMr.Neaglebymydepartment.AsIexplainedtotheHouse yesterday,Cabinetdidnotarriveata decisionbutrecommendedthatIhavea furtherdiscussionwiththeBattlefields MemorialCommitteewithaviewtohavinganewrecommendationprepared.The factsarethattheGovernmenthasnot madeadecision,andthatthecommittee willre-examinetheposition;havingthe viewsofCabinetbeforeit,andwillsubmitafurtherrecommendationtoCabinet.

Mr.Francis.-WilltheMinistersay thathehadavisitfromthepresidentof theRatsofTobrukAssociation?

Mr JOHNSON:

-Ireceivedavisit fromthepresidentoftheassociationlast night,andheistomeetmeagainto-day. Ibelievethatmyexplanationofthe matterwasacceptedbyhim,althoughhe mentionedthatheandhisorganization favouramuchlargerdelegationeven thanthatrecommendedbythecommittee.

page 341

COMMONWEALTH DISPOSALS COMMISSION

AuctionSales.

Mr.SHEEHAN.-IasktheMinister representing the Ministerfor Supply and Shipping whether it is a fact that officers ofCommonwealthandStatedepartments areattendingauctionsalesconductedby theCommonwealthDisposalsCommission forthepurposeofbiddingforequipment andmaterials.Isitafactthatgovernmentdepartmentshaveapriorclaim onallmaterialsandequipmentwhich are available for disposal? If so, can he saywhetherpublichospitalsalsoenjoy thatpriority?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

-I do not know whetheritisafactthatofficersofthe CommonwealthandStateGovernments attendtheseauctionsales,butitwas alwaysunderstood,fromthebeginning oftheworkoftheCommonwealthDisposalsCommission,thattheCommonwealthandStateGovernmentswould haveapriorrighttomakeanapplication foranymaterialswhichthecommission offeredforsale.Ifhospitalauthorities desire to make application for certain materialswhichtheCommonwealthDisposals. Commission proposes to sell, they shouldmakerepresentationstotheState authority which controls them, and I amquitesurethattheStateauthority will ensure that a bid is submitted on their behalf.

page 341

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Departmentalaccommodation at Henty House Melbourne.

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

-Yesterday, I asked the Minister for Civil Aviation whether the Governmentintendedtoacquirecom pulsorily the warehouse of Parbury HentyandCompanyProprietaryLimited asofficesfortheDepartmentofCivil Aviation,andifso,whatwastheprice thattheGovernmentproposedtopayfor thepremises.Thehonorablegentleman supplied some information, butomitted to mentionthe price. I ask him again tosupply the figure, or to inform me whetherthedepartmentproposestorent the building? In addition, willhealso explainwhatwillhappentothenumerous tenantsofthebuilding?WilltheGovernmentfindforthemotheroffice accomodationinMelbourne?

Mr.DRAKEFORD. -The acquisition of Henty House will be undertaken by the Department of the Interior, which performs this function on behalf of Commonwealth departments.

Mr White:

-The Department of the Interior is acquiring Henty House on behalf of the Department of Civil Aviation.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

-The position is that we have made a request that the premises be acquired inorder to accommodate in one building all the activities of the Department of Civil Aviation. At present, those activities are conducted in three buildings. I named them yesterday. The amount which will be paid for the premises is a matter for negotiation, which is being conducted, not by the Department of Civil Aviation, but by the Department of the Interior. I hope that we shall be able to obtain Henty House at a reasonable price. If the Department of Civil Aviation vacates three separate buildings, some accommodation will become available for the present tenants of Henty House. As I explained previously, the department has not sufficient accommodation, in the three places which it now occupies, to cover its increasing activities.

page 341

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

War-timesurcharge.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

-I do not remember having received a specific requestfrom the Graziers Association for any postal concessions, but no doubt I have received one, because that organization is continually making requests for concessions. The Government has received representations from a number of sources for the abolition of the halfpenny surcharge, but to date, has not considered the matter.

page 342

WAR SERVICE HOMES

War Widows

Dame ENID LYONS.WilltheMiniser for Works and Housing inform me whether it is a fact, as has been represented to me, that a war widow, although able to provide the necessary deposit, is ineligible to obtain a war service home unless she is in receipt of an income in excess of her war widow’s pension?

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The statement is not, necessarily correct. Under the War Service Homes Act, the director must assure himself that a widow has an opportunity to fulfil the contract into which she may enter. However, the act also contains a provision applying to a widow who has a war service home or was occupying one during the life of her husband. We allow many of these widows to continue their occupancy of the premises. They have complete security of tenure, and some are asked to pay as little as1s. a week. The department is at present considering the possibility of designing a house suitable for occupation by a widow and one child, the cost of which would be such that the widow would eventually be able to purchase it.

page 342

ARMED FORCES

Rabaul Garrison

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– During the last sessional period, I asked the Minister for the Army a question concerning the payment of certain allowances to members of the Rabaul garrison. The Minister decided that certain of these allowances should be paid. It is understood that permanent military force members ofthe heavy artillery made superannuation payments throughout their period of service, whereas other members of the permanent military forces had their payments made by the Government. Further, the friendly society dues of servicemen were not collected except in respect of the Rabaul garrison. Will the Minister undertake to investigate and rectify these injustices?

Mr CHAMBERS:
ALP

– I shall have the matter investigated, and shall advise the honorable member of the result as early as possible.

page 343

QUESTION

ESTIMATES 1947-48

In Committee of Supply: Considera tion resumed from the 30th September, (vide page 331).

Department of External Affairs

Proposed vote, £1,032,000.

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

.- I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) say last night that he was reviewing the position in regard to Australian legations overseas, in order to determine whether the cost could be reduced. I agree that personal contact with representatives of other countries is probably more essential to-day than it has ever been previously. By this means, we can establish a tremendous amount of goodwill which, as the right honorable gentleman said, cannot be measured in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. But the expenditure on three of the legations is outstandingly heavy, and we can query whether the goodwill that we are building up can be held to justify it. The total expenditure has been: £26,000 on the legation in Brazil, £31,000 on the legation in Chile and £39,000 on the legation in Russia. I have selected those three countries because our trade with them is small, in some instances almost negligible; yet on them we are expending £96,600 a year. The Department of Commerce and Agriculture has trade representatives in Brazil and Chile. Surely those officers could build up and foster the goodwill which we all agree is necessary, probably as effectively and at considerably less cost than is involved in the maintenance of large legations ! Those three legations are glaring examples of heavy expenditure which is not warranted.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– I support some of the remarks that have been made in regard to expenditure by the Department of External Affairs in countries such as Brazil and Chile. However, I wish it to be understood that I do not agree that our representatives overseas, in important areas which affect Australia, should be asked to “ make do “ on a small sum. In places where it is important to have representation I believe that it is equally important that our representatives should be well provided for, so that they can move easily in the diplomatic colony to which they are accredited ; but, in respect of such places as Brazil and Chile, I find it difficult to understand why any money at all should be expended there at the present time. I have an idea that a job was found in one of those countries for a certain man, but that is not a justification for expending public money. If we had any real trade with those countries it could be done through consuls or trade representatives. I do not know on what basis it is contended that Australia has diplomatic interests in Brazil or Chile at the present time.

Considerable sums have been expended by the Department of External Affairs to cover the cost of trips overseas by Australians. On page 50 of the budget papers there is mention of £38,000 to cover the cost of representation at the International Labour Conference, £36,000 contribution to the International Labour Organization, £10,000 for representation at minor conferences, and £40,000 to meet the expenses of representatives at the International Conference on Trade and Employment. Those items constitute only a small part of the total cost of sending people overseas, or of meeting the expenses of Australians while overseas, whether they are doing anything for Australia or not. The Parliament is entitled to a detailed statement of the expenses incurred in connexion with various trips overseas by Australians. I agree that there are occasions when substantia] delegations should go abroad, but I am convinced that many of the items of expenditure which have been incurred are unjustified. One matter which I hesitate to mention - and yet I believe that it ought to be mentioned - is the growing practice of persons sent abroad on behalf of the Government taking their wives or members of their families with them, at the taxpayers’ expense. Previous governments would not have dreamed of saying that a man should not go overseas unless accompanied by his wife or some other member of his family. This growing practice should be stopped. The public is entitled to know the cost of sending delegations abroad.

Mr Menzies:

– And the reason why some of them went abroad at all.

Mr SPENDER:

– Yes. If we know what these visits cost, we may then ascertain why the delegations were sent, and the functions that they discharged. No detailed information concerning these* matters can be gleaned from the Budget Papers. They are grouped under some general heading such as “Representation Abroad “. To get a complete picture honorable members must study miscellaneous items under the various departments. On other occasions I have drawn attention to the fact that the Parliament no longer controls the country’s finances. Honorable members may criticize what is done, but their criticism has no effect. Indeed, even criticism by the AuditorGeneral is ignored by the Government. Some of these items may not represent large sums, but in the aggregate they amount to a great deal. One significant aspect of this expenditure is that it has a tendency to increase, rather than diminish. I ask the Treasurer to supply to the committee before the debate closes a statement’ of the cost of sending representatives abroad during the last twelve months, and the cost in each case.

Mr Chifley:

– Does the honorable member desire information regarding departmental officers as well as Ministers and members of the Parliament?

Mr SPENDER:

– Yes.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– For a. number of years the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) has been spoken of as the defender of human rights and liberties of the peoples of the world. When the Atlantic Charter was drafted, the right honorable gentleman was one of the most brilliant exponents of the inherent rights of the peoples of the world to enjoy the “Four Freedoms” which were incorporated in the Charter. In his advocacy of a court of human rights he spoke of the necessity of defending the rights of the people in all nations. At the present time we see liberty and freedom being denied to many millions of human beings without the Australian Government making any protest. I refer particularly to a happening which must be abhorrent to every believer in a free democracy, namely, the recent execution of the great peasant leader of Bulgaria, Nikola Petkov. I have not read anything sadder than an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 27th September, written by Ivan Orlov, a Russian-born Australian journalist who was a personal friend of Nikola Petkov. In it the writer said -

The following day Nikola Petkov published an article entitled “Australia - ^Democracy of the South”. The same night he was arrested, and warned that any future articles “disparaging “ to Bulgarian State affairs would be punished by deregistration as a journalist.

Nikola Petkov was without fear. In spite of police persecution, he resolutely defended the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in a country ruled by arrogant petty tyrants. . . .

Nikola Petkov was the idol of the Bulgarian common mini. Wherever he went in pre-war days he was acclaimed by crowds of the peasantry. . . . Petkov had been arrested for conspiracy against the Reich in Bulgaria.

The arrest was for conspiracy against the German occupation army in Bulgaria. Orlov goes on to say that Petkov escaped in 1944 and joined the Bulgarian underground movement against the Gormans, and that months later he wrote to Petkov complimenting him: on his courageous stand for freedom of the press in Bulgaria, and asking him for a brief statement of his policy. He added that Petkov replied to him - “. . . I can but echo the words of G’oethe: I can do no other ‘, I see my duty and I shall do it to the end.”

His letter continues and. it is almost as if it was his last Testament to the- free people of the world -

All that I ask is this -

That Soviet Russia cease its policy of dominating the Bulgarian people and. subjecting it to a terrible tyranny, unheard of in its infamy. 2; That the concentration camps: throughout Bulgaria be emptied of their thousands, whose only crime it is to resent communist tyranny.

That a non-party police force be set up in place of the Communist party’s People’s Militia. 4.. That a democratic parliamentary regime be established.

That freedom of speech and of the press be allowed, as granted by the constitution. (i. That an independent judiciary be restored.

That elections be honest and not tampered with.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It is significant that no other Labour man succeeded Mr. Maloney in Moscow.

Mr McEWEN:

Mr BEALE:

– Yes. We ought to be clear. I make no reflection on Mr. Slater any more than the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) did. All 1 say is that people with reasonable common sense ure entitled to their own contusions when two Ministers in quick succession found it necessary to resign. [ rose primarily to comment on the inflated expenditure of the Department of External Affairs which in 1946-47 reached the very high figure for this country of 7,000,000 people of £S66,000odd. In the Estimates for 1947-48, which we are now discussing, the provision is for more than £1,000,000.

Mr McBride:

– That is only a part of it.

Mr BEALE:

– Yes, as I am reminded, that is only a part of it. With the exception of Canada, and, perhaps, one or two other countries where we have representatives, there has been a striking rise in expenditure on our representation. It is said that that is necessity because living expenses are higher and are increasing. That is partly true, certainly, but it seems to be regarded by the Government as the entire excuse for ignoring the very high figure. In Russia we have diplomatic representation of the status of a minister with a counsellor, an attache, a first and a third secretary and so forth. I believe that it is good for Australia to have a Minister in Russia. It may be thought that he can do very little good in the present state of

Soviet opinion, but at the same time, it is wise for Australia to have diplomatic representation at the seat of government of one of the most powerful nations in the world - & nation with a population of about 200,000,000. The Minister’s salary in 1947-4S is to be £2,500. I do not quarrel with that, or with the Prime Minister’s statement that it is very hard for a representative to live in a foreign country, especially a country such as Russia, without adequate pay and allowances. I therefore agree with the allowance that is granted to him to carry out his important duties. I take the view that the present representative in Russia is probably the best man that we have sent there. With him, as with every other officer who is worthy of his post, I believe heartily in paying a substantial salary and proper allowances. Our representatives overseas should be enabled to live without fear or anxiety and in a way which permits them to uphold the dignity of their positions. However, when we turn from Russia, a country to which in my view we ought to send a diplomatic representative, we find that we are represented in many countries where there is no possible justification, on any ground of commonsense, for the establishment of diplomatic offices. Two of these countries in particular have been mentioned by other honorable members. One is Brazil and the other is Chile. In Brazil we have a Minister with the same diplomatic status as our representative in Russia and who receives the same salary of £2,500 a year. Our representative in Chile is on a similar basis. We are asked to believe that these positions are just as important as that of our representative in Russia and deserve the same status and the same remuneration. The proposition is ridiculous. There could never have been any valid reason for sending diplomatic representatives to Brazil and Chile. Most of us on this side of the House thought that the appointments had something to do with nuts or coffee. However, the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag by saying, very vaguely and mysteriously, that there was a special reason having regard to the United Nations why Australia should send plenipotentiaries to Brazil and Chile.

Mr McBride:

– The appointments did not work out too well.

Mr BEALE:

– I agree with the honorable member. We are asked to believe that the Government sent Ministers to those countries at great public expense in order to “ square-off “ with the Governments of Brazil and Chile and make us appear as good fellows in their eyes at the United Nations. Because of this policy, Australian representatives were hobnobbing very enthusiastically with representatives of several of the South American republics a year or two ago, when this Government was busily engaged at the United Nations in throwing stones at some of the major countries of the world, including our own Mother Country and ally, Great Britain. However, things have not worked out well, and the warmth of the Government’s enthusiasm for the South American republics seems to have cooled since then. The change has been so marked that I gather, from a hint dropped by the Prime Minister, that the Government may even reconsider the positions of our representatives among the nuts and coffee in Brazil and Chile. If that is the basis upon which Australia sends representatives to other countries, the situation is both ridiculous and shameful. There is no justification for the Government to try to “ square-off “ with other governments by sending diplomatic representatives to places where they are not needed. I want to know whether, if the Government wants to “square off” with Patagonia, Guatemala, Venezuela, Peru, Haiti or Portugal, it will send representatives to those countries too. Is this a proper basis for diplomatic representation abroad ? It is so silly and cynical that I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister even suggest it. Where is this policy to end? I suppose next we will hear that we are to send a Minister plenipotentiary to Liberia, or perhaps to Monaco where, after his diplomatic duties end each day,, he can adjourn to the casino and supplement the income provided for him by the Australian public, if he is able to do so. The conclusion to which we are driven, in view of the extraordinary number .of diplomatic representatives that we have abroad and the countries- to which they have been sent, is that the Government, is not concerned so much with keeping peace in other parts of the world and promoting international goodwill as with a policy of swelling a particular department, irrespective of Australia’s needs. That may suit the Minister for External Affairs, and it may suit the Labour Government, but it does not suit Australia and the taxpayers who have to foot the bill, and who see themselves being made ridiculous by this unnecessary representation abroad. . Certain officers associated with the Minister for External Affairs may suffer from delusions of grandeur and therefore be delighted to see their department swelling in this way. My comment is that, whatever they may think, the policy is not good for Australia, and that is the only issue that we in this Parliament ought to consider.

I also support the statements of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) about the representation of Australia on various international organizations. What I have . to say on this point is partly a personal matter, but it mast be said.. Recently I asked a wellintentioned and factual question concerning that amiable young gentleman who happens to be the representative in this Parliament of the electorate of Martin concerning his recent peregrinations. I was immediately assailed by members of the Labour party and accused of making a personal attack, although I had ‘ endeavoured to avoid doing so when I framed the question. The extraordinary proposition is that if a member of the Parliament, one of whose responsibilities to the electors is to act as a watchdog on public expenditure, ever asks a question which happens to involve another member of the Parliament, he is accused of being personal. All that I wanted to know, as I and my colleagues still want to know, was why the trip abroad by the honorable member for Martin was justified. If justification be given to us, well and’ good ! I wanted also to know what public money was spent on the honorable member’s trip and what countries were visited by him and by other honorable members who have been abroad.

Mr Daly:

– Those chickens will come home to roost.

Air. BEALE. - They will come home to roost at the next elections. I am positive that Australians have had enough of this sort of thing and will no longer tolerate the spectacle of unlimited trips abroad by members of the Parliament. I believe in the dignity of the Parliament and therefore in maintaining the dignity and standing of its members. I consider that they should be properly treated and looked after in, all matters pertaining to their office and that their work should be made not only tolerable to them but also as easy as possible. If that involves public expenditure, I shall support it, because unless we maintain the high quality of our representation and make it so attractive that the best men will be anxious to serve their country the quality of the Parliament will progressively decline. I am entirely in favour of Ministers going abroad, when necessary. In the long run, the cost will be justified, because foreign travel and personal contact with the representatives of other countries will assist them in performing their duties. If the Government can justify sending private members abroad for the purpose of attending conferences, I shall ako be in favour of it; but I want to know, and the people want to know whether private members are sent abroad to benefit Australia or whether their trips are in the nature of consolation prizes to keep them “sweet” with the party. That is the whole issue.

Mr Falstein:

– That is nonsense.

Mr BEALE:

– If this trip can be justified, then I shall enthusiastically agree with the decision of the Government. But I am obliged to ask questions in order to find out what the justification is. E most enthusiastically hope that it will be proved that the honorable member for Martin was doing his country a service when he was sent abroad and that his trip was of great benefit to Australia.

Mr Daly:

– Why does not the honorable member for Parramatta be honest and say that he would not believe any report which I submitted?

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member makes it difficult for me to believe him, but I do hope that his trip will be found to have justified itself. However, I want to know about not only his trip but also the trips of other honorable members. There is a cynical attitude on this mat.er. Even expensive trips are justified if they serve the interests of Australia. But if the trips are only made, as some of us suspect, to placate particular honorable members, the principle ‘ is wrong and should .be denounced.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I, in common with other honorable members on this side of the chamber, and, I am sure, the community generally, will be worried at. the reply which the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) gave to our requests for an expression of the Government’s opinion about matters such as the murder of the leader of the Bulgarian Peasant party, Petkov, and the general attitude of the Communist party in countries which Russian troops have overrun. The Prime Minister again seemed to adopt the pose, which has become rather common with him, of side-stepping any direct question referring to the activities of the Soviet, particularly when those activities art against the interests of the British Empire, including Australia. On this occasion, he did not say that .Petkov was not all that had been claimed and that he was not the leader of the Bulgarian Peasant party. What he did say was that many people sometimes claim to be the leaders of particular groups, and to have the support of the peasants, when, in reality, they did not have it. I say, however, that Petkov was elected and proclaimed leader of the Peasant party in Bulgaria, and after his death he was mourned by the people of that country. His murder was deplored by the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and half-Communist France. He has been declared a martyr who died for the welfare of the poorer classes and those who were determined to establish democratic government within Bulgaria. I cannot understand, unless 1 come to certain conclusions, why the Prime Minister always makes excuses for the activities of the Communist party when they are opposed to our own interests. I do not desire to be unfair to the right honorable gentleman in this matter, but we know that the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, speaking in the House of Commons, strongly condemned the murder of Petkov and that the Leader of the Labour party in the House of Lords, Lord Pakenham, stated that the reply of the Soviet Foreign Minister, M. Molotov, to the representations of the British Ambassador on behalf of Petkov was that the British people were interfering in the internal affairs of Bulgaria. That was in answer to very early protests against his arrest and trial.

Sitting suspended from 12.J/.5 to 2.15 p.m.

I do not want to draw any unfair inferences from that meeting, but at the same time I must be fair to myself. On the front page of the issue of the Brisbane Telegraph of the 24th August, appears a statement by the person to whom I referred, to the effect, that his discussions with the Prime Minister at Mackay did not refer to waterside workers. The gentleman who met the Prime Minister in Mackay was Mr. J. Healy, secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, who is a wellknown Communist.

In the light of that personal explanation, it is unfair for the honorable member for Herbert to say that I apologized to the Prime Minister and withdrew my words. I have quoted my remarks from an uncorrected “ pull “ of Hansard.

Mr Dedman:

– Which the Standing Orders say shall not be done.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I have not apologized to the Prime Minister, nor have I withdrawn what I previously said.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- The cost of Australia’s representation at International Labour Conferences is set down as £38,000, for this year. The sum of £19,233 was expended for a similar purpose in 1945-46, and in the following year the expenditure under that heading was £31,338. It will be seen that last year’s increase over the vote for the previous year has been further increased by approximately £6,000 for the year 1947-48. Among those who went overseas was a gentleman to whom reference has been previously made in this House, but I shall confine my remarks to one aspect of his activities while abroad. The committee is entitled to know what kind of representation ofAustralia is given by those who are sent abroad at the taxpayers’ expense,. what they say in other countries, and, generally, what effect their representation has on people overseas. I refer to the recent visit to other countries of Senator Amour. I refuse to accept the proposition that no names should be mentioned in this connexion. I am concerned, not with the personal activities of Senator Amour whilst abroad, but only with his public pronouncement whilst he was in Eire. I have before me a newspaper published in Eire, dated the 2nd August, 1947, which purports to give a full report of an interview with Senator Amour. As his expenses were paid by the Australian taxpayers, the committee is entitled to know what he said in the interview.

Mr Menzies:

– Was the International Labour Conference meeting in Eire?

Mr SPENDER:

– A good many people Gould like to know why the honorable senator was in that country, whether he had any public duties to perform there and whether his views expressed the mind of the Government. I draw special attention to a statement which I regard as serious; and so that it may not be said that I have misrepresented the honorable senator’s remarks, I shall quote the exact words as printed in the newspaper report. No doubt it will be said that the honorable senator was incorrectly reported, but to enable the issue to be raised, I shall read the newspaper report. This is the statement of a man who can only be taken as representing the opinion of the Government and of the people of Australia. He is reported to have said -

Unlike the British, who are quite reserved with strangers, they readily enter into conversation with them. Strange to say, although our people are mostly of British descent, they have no particular liking for the British or Americans. The Irish are popular with us and make good citizens.

I desire to cast no reflections upon the Irish, whether they come from the south or from the north, but I am concerned that a man on public duty overseas should reflect uponthe British people, and misrepresent the opinion of Australians in regard to them. The statement is renowned for a number of peculiar features. However, I am persuaded that there maybe some misstatement in the report, because, referring to the honorable senator, the article states -

All this ran through my mind when I was introduced to Senator L’ Amour, a Labour member of the Australian Upper House, who has just been paying us a visit. Were it not for that strongly marked Australian accent of his, he would easily pass in one of our towns or cities as a native of the soil, a sturdily built, genial man in the middle-fifties, but vigorous as befits one who has travelled far o’er land and sea and by air also in his time.

I have not time to go through all the misstatements, but I pick out some of them here and there. Take this one for instance - “ The population of Sydney is- “ and the

Senator stopped for a moment while his eyes flashed me a question.

A million “, said I, hazarding a guess. “ Two million “, said he. “ That is the present population of Sydney “.

I must confess that I was astounded.

We oan almost see that flash of his eyes all the way from here.

The CHAIRMAN:

– With what item of the Estimates has all this to do ?

Mr SPENDER:

– The committee is Considering the vote for the Department of External Affairs. On the bottom of page 17 of the Estimates there appears a statement showing the actual cost of the Department of External Affairs. In the Widget papers there is shown an amount of £31,000, which includes the cost of Senator Amour’s trip overseas. Therefore, I am entitled to draw attention to the way in which the money was expended. The article goes on -

I must confess that I was astounded when I reflected on two million of a population in a city that, according to books, had only a few thousand inhabitants a hundred and fifty years ago. Ennis in six centuries had not grown at that rate. Will it now? 1 wondered.

Discussing the famous battle of Sydney Harbour, he is further reported as having made this statement, which appears in bold black type -

The Jap submarines got into Sydney Harhour and left it almost without a ship.

I do not know how much a word this cost the Commonwealth. The statement continues -

There was quite a hullabaloo in Parliament sifting the means to be used in the defence of Australia from then on, and Australians were more determined than ever to fight with greater tenacity.

That was when the Labour party took over, he points out. I cannot see what purpose is served by spending money to send a man overseas to make statements quite inconsistent with those of the Prime Minister he supports. In the budget speech it was pointed out that there was a grave shortage of dollars, and that we in Australia, like others overseas, were suffering as a result. On this subject, however, Senator “L’ Amour” said -

Australia does not face a ‘’ Dollar Question “ through having its own monetary system-

I think he probably obtained a few notes from the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction before he left. However, the continued - and being self supporting as regards the necessities of life.

Now listen to this one -

During the waT they paid off quite a considerable amount of the loan owed to Britain and would have paid it off in full but the British for some reason of their own preferred that a portion of it should remain outstanding.

Of course, if the honorable senator was correctly reported - and ho will have an opportunity to say whether he was or not - the statement contains the obvious implication that Great Britain, for reasons of its own, wanted to keep Australia in financial bondage. The statement admits of no other interpretation. But Ave have not yet finished with this extraordinary pronouncement of Marco Polo. He spoke of motor cars that were to be manufactured in Australia, and sold on the market here for £350. I let that one go, because it is of little consequence, but referring to the. textile industry he said -

Take the Australian textile industry, which lacks only additional workers and more machinery to supply all their wants. As things stand it is doing quite well. A good suit of clothes can be sold in Australia as low as £5 10s.

It is fantastic that a man should issue a report of that kind. I assume that, as lie went overseas as the representative of the Government to the meeting of the International Labour Organization, he must realize that, as a government nominee, what he says is of supreme importance in conveying to the people of other countries, a picture of what is happening in this country. The honorable senator also had something to say about our agricultural development, something which I am sure will be of great interest to country representatives on the other side of the House. He is reported to have stated -

The position of agriculture in Australia is quite favorable. Owing to irrigation the produce of the soil -has improved beyond expectation. Where it took. 10 acres of land to feed a single sheep, more than forty sheep can now be supported by a single acre.

I happen to know that that statement is wrong.

Mr Johnson:

– It is not wrong.

Mr SPENDER:

– It is not wrong that land which formerly fed one sheep to 10 acres can now carry 40 sheep to 1 acre? Well, Ave will assume that the honorable senator was correct in that statement. If so, it is the first correct statement so far. Here is another one -

The Australian farmers have learned how to tin the fruit growing on their own farms., rendering possible the development of the fruit industry on a much larger scale . . There is electricity in almost every home in Australia.

Now for our social outlook -

The social programme of the Government gives special attention to the youth. They have a scheme in operation-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted?

Government Members. - No

Leave not granted.

Opposition Members. - Read it all.

Mr SPENDER:

– I shall read all of the article, because I shall not have it said that I am quoting things out of their context. This is the article-

Mr Dedman:

– I rise to order. In what way is this article related to any item appearing in the Estimates under consideration ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I myself raised that point earlier and, after hearing the honorable member’s explanation, ruled that it is connected with one of the items before the Chair.

Mr SPENDER:

– I table the document.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not entitled to table a newspaper.

Mr SPENDER:

– I have not sufficient time left to read the whole of the article. I shall ask another honorable member to read it.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) having been prevented from incorporating in Ilansard this momentous statement made by Senator Amour in Eire, I believe that it is my duty, as the next speaker, to ensure that it does appear in Hansard. Although I have more important matters to discuss, I shall take up the first few minutes of my time by reading what the honorable senator said in Eire. The journal is named the Clare Champion, and the date of this issue is the 2nd August, 1947. The article reads -

page 362

AUSTRALIA INVITES IRISH IMMIGRANTS

Views of Senator

Progress Unimpeded by War Crisis. Most Clare people have a warm corner in their hearts for Australia. Ties of blood bind them to it as there was a considerable tide of emigration from our County to Australia half a century ago. Different Australian governments of the time gave assisted passages to emigrants, and for a number of years a good many of our young people, who otherwise would have gone to America, went to Australia instead.

We welcomed one or two of them to this chamber, I believe. Under the subheading “ A Legislator “ the article continues -

All this ran through my mind when I was introduced to Senator L’Amour, a Labour member of the Australian Upper House, who has just been paying us a visit. Were it not for that strongly marked Australian accent of his, he would easily pass in one of our towns or cities as a native of the soil, a sturdily build, genial man in the middle fifties, but vigorous as befits one who has travelledfar over land and sea and by air also in his time.

Mr ANTHONY:

– That is so. The article continues -

I took to him at once, as who would not. given the opportunity of meeting him. Taking advantage of the occasion I asked him many a question about how things fared with the people living beneath the “ Southern Cross “. As memory serves me, 1 write of them as he told me. This great big land, he told me, is scarcely a tenth populated as yet. Australians number but a bare eight millions at the moment. In spite of that, the cities have large populations, more particularly Sydney and Melbourne. “ The population of Sydney is “ - and the Senator stopped for a moment while his eyes flashed me a question. “A million” said I, hazarding a guess. “Two million “ said he, “ That is the present population of Sydney. “

I must confess that I was astounded when I reflected on two million of a population in a city that, according to books, had only a few thousand inhabitants a hundred and fifty years ago. Ennis in six centuries had not grown at that rate. Will it now? I wondered, but Senator L’Amour continued: “ That will show you how we have made progress, though we would have wished for a wider distribution of our population. As you know, geographical and other factors determine such matters and we have to put up with them whether we like it or not. Our land is going ahead all the time, that is the thing that matters: going ahead with accelerated pace every decade that passes over us “.

The next sub-heading is “ Wartime Problems “, under which the article proceeds -

Asked if the war halted progress, he said no. That war, he said, was a war the people of Australia did not want to get entangled in for they are a peace-loving people, but once in the war there was no way out, the Australians realized, but to fight it through to the bitter end.

The Jap submarines got into Sydney Harbour and left it almost without a ship. There was quite a hullabaloo in Parliament sifting the means to be used in the defence of Australia from that on, and Australians were more determined than ever to fight with greater tenacity. Then, in a political change, the Labour party took over control in the Federal Parliament under the late Mr. Curtin. There was a threat of the Japanese landing at Port Darwin and it took some tremendous work to make roads and airfields and to rush troops to positions in the north to its defence.

There was no conscription in Australia because Parliament reflected the views of the average Australian to respect the rights of the individual citizen to act as he sees fit. Did Australia lose by that? No, not one bit. The Australians are a patriotic people and they answered the call to arms like men. The women did their share nobly and well, too.

The senator proceeded to illustrate that Australia had come well out in the post-war period in more ways than one. The war was followed in a short time by an extension of Australian status internationally. Up to then the British Government had reserved the right to appoint the Governor-General of Australia, and recently, on the nomination of the Australian Government, a native-born Australian was appointed to the position.

I hope I am not on tender ground here -

This leads to Australia appointing diplomatic representatives abroad, which is a very important step. These things mean much to a people conscious of their importance in the world order of affairs.

The next subject he touched upon was sound finance in respect of which he is reported to have said -

Australia does not face a “ Dollar question “ through having its own monetary system and being self-supporting as regards the necessities of life. They fi iia need the war by raising internal loans. During the war they paid off quite a considerable amount of the loan owed to Britain and would have paid it off in full but the British, for some reason of their own, preferred that a portion of it should remain outstanding. Recently they gave to Britain a present of £23,000,000 to help them out of the “ fix “ they arc in. Only a country in sound financial condition could afford to do a thing of the kind. Australia preserves a balanced economy as the industrial position is quite good.

As an example of the progress being made industrially, Senator L’Amour pointed to the recent agreement made by the Australian Government with the American General Motor Company, by which this particular firm binds itself to manufacture in Australia full motor requirements. As Australia has one of the biggest steel plants in the world, there will he no difficulty in regard to supplies. Outside competition can be placed at a discount inasmuch as Australian-made cars will be put on the market as low as £350.

The black marketeers of second-hand motor cars are surely due for a slump in their activities -

Again, take the Australian textile industry, which lacks only additional workers and more machinery to supply all their wants. As things stand, it is doing quite well. A good suit of clothes can be sold in Australia as low as £5 10s.

The next subject dealt with was agricultural development. The article proceeds -

The position of agriculture in Australia is quite favorable. Owing to irrigation, the produce of the soil has improved beyond expectation. Where it took ten acres of land to feed a single sheep, more than 40 sheep can now be supported by a single acre. The growth of clover and lucerne has completely transformed the situation as far as the sheep industry is concerned.

The Australian farmers have learned how to tb the fruit growing on their own farms, rendering possible the development of the fruit industry on a much larger scale. Such butter as is exported is the very best. The Government has taken steps to increase still further all agricultural production. They are promoting legislation to break up the larger ranches, a policy initiated away back in 1884 by the New South Wales Government of that time.

That was before the Australian Labour party was born -

Increasing population demands ever greater agricultural productiveness. In many things they are somewhat ahead of Ireland and Britain. There is electricity in almost every home in Australia.

He should go to some of the country districts in Australia to see how false is that statement -

The social programme of the Government gives special attention to the youth. They have a scheme in operation by which children from the interior are given a holiday each year at the seaside. Parents get 7s. 6d. a week for the second and each subsequent child born to them, and it is the intention of the Government to extend the grant to the first child also. “We are “ striking oil “ as we proceed. The report continues -

They have a good pension scheme for workers, the sums received varying with the amounts contributed by the workers themselves.

A graduated contributory scheme I take it - a good idea and one about which I believe I have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) say something in this chamber.’ The article proceeds -

On the whole, the social legislation com- pares favorably with that in operation in other countries. “ One of the charms of Australian life is the friendliness of the people,” Senator L’Amour went on. “ Unlike the British, who are quite reserved with strangers, they readily enter into conversation with them. Strange to say, although our people ;are mostly of British descent, they have no ^particular liking for the British or Americans. The Irish are popular with us and make good citizens.

I hear no comment from honorable mem.bers on the -other side of the chamber on that statement -

We have now an infant Australian literature native to the soil. Formerly we were dependent on British-born writers who had settled in Australia, such as Nat Gould and Adam Lindsay Gordon, for hooks dealing with Australian’ life”.

The interview concludes -

This genial man was emphatic that Australia is coming along and will cut a much bigger figure in the world in the years to come. They have certain problems at the moment, including certain shortages of coal and of shipping. There is no doubt but they would welcome additional workers from Great Britain and also from Ireland; more particularly textile workers, and once the shipping difficulty has been got over, little doubt is felt but that (hey will come along to Australia. - S.O’H.

Last night, I pointed out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) - I did not get a reply from him - that all our high commissioners with the exception of one, come under the Department of External Affairs. The exception is the High Commissioner accredited to His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, and he comes under the Prime Minister’s Department. I should like to know why such a distinction should be drawn between the activities of our High Commissioner in the United Kingdom, and our high commissioners in South Africa, India or Canada. Why is one responsible to the

Prime Minister and the others- to the Minister for External Affairs? These are questions which, to my mind, require sorting out. To date, we have been singularly uninformed about them. The Minister for External Affairs is absent from Australia, fixing up the affairs of this world, and probably of the next world if he can arrange inter-planetary travel. However, his department has a man-sized job to explain to this Parliament the matters which I have raised. Personally, I believe that the department is hopelessly overgrown and overstaffed, and it is becoming the greatest “Meddlesome Mattie “ and mischief-maker that the Commonwealth has ever produced. That is saying a good deal.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) directed attention to the utterances of Senator Amour in Eire. The honorable member pointed out that while the honorable senator was abroad, he is alleged to have made public statements which are untrue and damaging to Australia. He made those statements in his capacity as a representative of Australia, and he made them in Eire, a country in which Australia is represented by a Minister, whose expenses and emoluments of office appear in the Estimates. What I want to know is, what control does the Minister exercise, or purport to exercise, over statements made by visiting supporters of the Government when they reflect on the people of Australia - as they did in this case - and create, a false and damaging impression of this country?

That leads me to inquire, what is the function of a diplomatic representative abroad, and, in particular, of one in Eire? As the honorable member for Warringah pointed out, our representation in Eire has nothing to do wilh trade. All the Ministers who have been mentioned- are holding diplomatic positions, and their functions do not concern trade. For the purpose of promoting trade we maintain consuls and trade commissioners in certain countries. However, the gentleman who occupies the position of Australian High Commissioner in Eire is not a commercial agent, nor are his functions of a commercial nature. I should have thought that one of his functions was to effect an exchange of views between the two governments on matters of high importance, to preserve peace when peace between the two countries is endangered, and, generally, to represent Australia on matters of high political importance in the best possible way. The country to which he is accredited is a comparatively small one, having an area of only 17,000,000 acres, compared with Australia’s area of about 2/100,000,000 acres. Its population is less than 3,000,000 which is considerably smaller than our limited population of 7,500,000. It has an industrial potential which is trifling compared with that of Australia, although even our potential is small by some world standards. Eire is, in fact, a small country, and is, in world affairs, a very unimportant one. No doubt, in the eyes of the people who live there it is very important, just as Australia appears important in the eyes of Australians. Eire must be ranked as one of the least important countries of the world, and yet Australia has sent there a representative who costs the taxpayers of this country approximately £10,000 a year. The salary paid to our representatives in the United States of America, Russia, France, and Canada, is £2,500 per annum each. I mention those countries to indicate a few of the more important ones in which we are represented. They are all large and powerful nations, and yet it costs us no more in salary to be represented in those countries than it does to be represented in Eire. I suggest that this proposed vote is altogether out of proportion, and that the ambition which some people have to expand Australia’s representation abroad, irrespective of its needs, is quite unjustifiable. The gentleman who occupies the position of High Commissioner to Eire is one who might be said to- be quite undistinguished, but he was, of course, a very good and faithful member of the Australian Labour party. He receives a salary of £2.500 a year, he has an expense allowance of an additional £2,500, entirely tax free, and he occupies a mansion which cost the taxpayers of this country approximately £9,000 to purchase. All this expenditure is incurred for representation in a country which I have endeavoured to explain, without any offence to it, is a very small and unimportant one. I said previously that T believe .that a diplomatic representative has nothing to do with trade, but is mainly concerned with the preservation of peace “between the countries concerned. Is peace endangered between Eire and Australia? I should have thought not; I should have thought that notwithstanding the traditional temperament of the Irish people there is no danger to peace. On the contrary, good relations have always existed between the two countries - indeed, if one is to believe the newspaper account which was read in this House a short time ago, the happiest relations exist between the two countries. Needless to say, I hope, and we all hope, that that relationship will continue. What I am pointing out, however, is that on no reasonable basis can this appointment be justified. Another purpose of a diplomatic representative abroad is to effect the exchange of communications on matters of vital importance to the countries concerned. What are the vital issues affecting Eire and Australia? What are the matters on which the two countries desire to exchange views on a high political level? The maintenance of a diplomatic representative in Eire costs this country more than £10,000 a year, but I can ascertain no reason to justify that expenditure. Certainly, since I have been a member of this House I have not seen, heard, or read of anything which could justify it. I say that there are no matters likely to arise between the two countries which require the presence- in Eire of a diplomatic representative, and that if any should arise communication could be effected by telegram, or - unless it is repugnant to Kiri - by correspondence between the United Kingdom, Eire and this country.

Mr Bowden:

– It is only a job !

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member says that it is only a job, and that is no doubt partly true. I have tried to express myself temperately, and I say that the real reason for these appointments is the desire to create jobs, coupled with the fetish for expanding a department and affording its representation overseas, whether that be necessary or not, so as to blow ourselves up and make ourselves appear big when we are. in fact, really only small. How is the public to regard this matter? “Will they say, and we, as their representatives, say, “ It is a good thing to send people to Eire and elsewhere, whether we need them or not”? If they, and we, do accept that viewpoint the Government will take advantage of it to make appointments to all sorts of tinpot places abroad, countries at which Australia has no real reason to be represented. I believe that the whole matter of foreign representation should be scrutinized, not from the point of view of what pleases the vanity of Australians, or from the standpoint that it might be a very nice thing to have a big department costing £75,000 a year and employing 100 representatives abroad, but from consideration of the actual number of people needed to preserve peace and to afford dignified representation abroad. For the reasons I have indicated, I believe that the appointment of a High Commissioner to Eire is utterly unjustifiable, that the expenditure of £10,000 a year which is involved is unwarranted, and that the same criticism applies to two other appointments abroad which involve the expenditure of £13,000 and £25,000 a year respectively.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

.- I agree completely with the idea of preserving friendly relations with other countries, particularly as I believe that our public relations generally in the past have been notably bad. Much has been said about the excessive costs of the legation staffs in Brazil and Chile, and with that I thoroughly agree. I can see no real justification for maintaining staffs in Brazil and Chile while getting no results from them. The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Howse) was quite right when he said that we should cut down those staffs. But I also agree with the statement of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), that where the legations and trade representatives are producing effective results they should not be beggared for finance. The real objection is that nothing whatsoever is being done in Argentina, which is one of our great trade competitors. It produces a vast quantity of meat and wheat, and is now threatening to become a competitor of ours in the realm of fruit. That is a country in which we should establish a legation, as well as, definitely, a trade representative, so that we may be kept closely informed on those matters. The money that is being expended in Brazil and Chile might well be expended in Argentina.

I certainly agree with the principle of sending members of Parliament overseas, because I believe that in many instances those members are afterwards better people f or having travelled abroad. The travel broadens their minds, and in the long run has a most beneficial effect on the country. But I cannot quite agree with the idea of Ministers and members being accompanied by their families.

Mr Dedman:

– What Minister was accompanied by his family?

Mr FALKINDER:

– The Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford).

Mr Dedman:

– One member of his family was a part of his staff.

Mr FALKINDER:

– That member of his family was appointed to his staff only just before he left. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) should give us the details of those visits; they might be very interesting.

My last point relates to the Bulgarian Peasant party leader, Petkov. The Prime Minister has said that he has no details of this case upon which he could justify a statement to the country, but that the British Government has them. Why can he not get them from the British Government, and then make a statement to the world in general, showing exactly where Australia stands in this matter?

Mr Bernard Corser:

– Or where Britain gets its information from.

Mr FALKINDER:

– Exactly.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- I rise at this stage of the debate only to stress an aspect which I believe has not been mentioned so freely by honorable members who have spoken, as has been the matter of undue expenditure on legations and consular establishments in various countries throughout the world. We all are troubled by the growth of the expenditure of this department, and members have rightly asked whether Australia is securing results commensurate with the increased costs. But that aspect is not the one which concerns me most. The aspect pf the ^conduct of the Department of

External Affairs which troubles me is the dissipation of effort by ,the Minister (Dr. Evatt), and by those who ,are closely associated with him in the work of the department, because of Australia’s membership of so many international organizations. I had something to say on (his subject last week, when we were debating the statement on foreign affairs that had been tabled by the Minister. I desire now to add a few words to what I.’ then said.

The Minister has shown a great deal of energy, which might ,be described as commendable had his vision gone somewhat further beyond the work of creation and had extended to the objectives of the task, of which the establishment of “legations and the appointment of representatives to those various organizations represent only the first steps. In the result, I believe that Australia, which, prior to 1940, had a very meagre representation abroad, now has, in terms of mechanics, a very complete representation Abroad. We are represented in seventeen countries by consular or diplomatic officials, and I understand that we have representation in four countries to deal with the special post-war problems that are arising there. I refer to Japan, Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies, and Germany. In addition, we are represented on at least 21 international organizations. As I mentioned last week, the objectives of those organizations are eminently worthy. One does not quarrel with their objectives, with their titles, or with the principles to which they subscribe. But in the result, we are finding that many really serious problems, which are of great concern to Australia and to the British Commonwealth generally, are being ignored, because of the concentration of effort on what are, in the main, matters of debate and procedural content rather than matters of great principle.

The closest and gravest problem which faces Australia, at any time is the maintenance of our trade and diplomatic relations with Great Britain. No one could fairly claim that our trade or diplomatic relations with Great Britain have been, assisted in recent years by the work of the Department of External Affairs. There has been a great deal of work. Tn- evitably, a tremendous volume .of detailed and organizational work .must .be associated with those international conferences. There has ,been recognition by .the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Frazer- reported, I believe, only last week, or certainly in very recent times - pf the fact that there are far too many conferences, and that they are becoming a burden which cannot indefinitely be carried. Work is being done in those conferences; but the results - with which, after all, we are primarily concerned - are not, I believe, such as can be said to justify all the effort and expense that are being put into them. If we consider, for example, the situation which exists between Australia and Great Britain we shall realize that vast possibilities for trade are not being fully developedGreat Britain is maintaining trade barriers against Australia, just as Australia is maintaining similar barriers against Great Britain. Those barriers have not been erected as the result of debate in this Parliament, or in the House of Commons; they are arbitrary barriers set up for various purposes by government departments. I believe that far better resultS would be achieved from one conference between the various members of the British Commonwealth of Nations than from a number of international gatherings. The menace implicit in the present situation is that, instead of dealing with problems as they arise between ourselves and other parts of the Empire, and our trade friends such as the United States of America and France, we are relying upon international agencies to find solutions for us. Instead of acting for ourselves, we are hoping that out of this welter of discussion solutions will evolve. I do not believe that the results of the negotiations in respect of diplomatic and trade issues which have taken place during the last few years can inspire the hope that we may look with confidence for a solution of our problems in that way. M.7 prime criticism of the work of the Department of External Affairs, and of the Minister for External Affairs is that, instead of dealing closely and immediately with the problems which directly affect Australia - and the Indonesian situation is typical of them - we are looking to others to solve those problems for us.

Although we should give such support as we conveniently” can give to the various international organizations which have been established, our prime concern must be the solution of our own problems and the maintenance of the closest relations with those countries whose welfare is so intimately wrapped up with our own.

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

– I rise mainly to voice the protests of in any electors who have asked me to insist, on the floor of the Parliament, that details of the expenditure associated with the visits of members of Parliament overseas shall be supplied. I am aware that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has given an assurance that the information will be forthcoming, and I appreciate that in the aftermath of war more visits overseas are necessary than in prewar years, and, therefore, I do not quibble about visits being made by Australian,? to vital conferences. I also realize that the expenditure of the department must be higher than it was. Nevertheless, I voice the protests of those who demand details of the costs incurred in connexion with such visits, particularly by private members. I am reminded of the story of the dog which was being consigned from one place to another, but had chewed its label so that no one knew its destination. The analogy between that dog and some members who have been overseas is rather, striking. I have in mind particularly the meanderings of the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly). For five months he was absent from Australia, and no one seemed to know where he was. Australia did not know, the House did not know, and apparently the honorable member himself did not know. Detailed information concerning his movements should be given to the commit’tee. To what conferences was he a delegate; why was he away for five months? It would appear that the honorable member for Martin had chewed his label, and as a result wandered around the world at the expense of the taxpayers of Australia.

– These Estimates are in respect of the Department of External Affairs. If the Minister who controls the department is not prepared to exercise his right through the Parliament to implement Government policy, but allows some outside body to determine the Government’s policy, the committee should refuse to agree to the proposed vote of £22,100 in respect of our representation in the Netherlands EastIndies. It must be obvious that if we are expending money in the Netherlands East Indies to preserve peaceful relations with that country, we should not allow anybody who is not responsible to the Australian people to impose military sanctions on that nation. The right to apply military sanctions, or sanctions of any kind, is the very essence of the foreign policy of any government. However, military sanctions have been applied against the Netherlands East Indies and honorable members opposite who have spoken in this debate have made it quite obvious that the Government is prepared to abdicate that field. One cannot wonder at that, when the arch-priest, the Minister for External Affairs himself, has gone so far to contribute to the unrest of the world as to challenge directly the major powers and set one against the other by supporting other countries who may, or may not, be in any other bloc, and who do not play any important part in the maintenance of world peace. When we find the Minister so recreant to his trust, and not prepared to foster the peace of the world, but preferring to seek limelight out of some new venture and sacrificing those who speak on behalf of the Empire, whilst at the same time under pressure from a band of militants, the Government abdicates its right to determine foreign policy, all of the money sought under these Estimates should bo refused by the Parliament until the Minister explains of what value this expenditure will be to Australia.

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

.- As previous speakers have pointed out, the cost of maintaining the Department of External Affairs has skyrocketed to fantastic heights. I do not believe that Australia is receiving any worthwhile return for the money being expended under this heading. The Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt), who has gone overseas on so many occasions that we are almost inclined to forget that he is a member of this Parliament, has used his opportunities as our representative overseas merely to try to put himself on the map as a world figure. He has not been prepared to consider the interests of this country, or those of the Empire as a whole. Before attending overseas conferences, the Minister should have consulted with the British Government and the governments of other dominions, with a view to coming to agreement” with respect to policy. Instead, he has endeavoured to be the leader of the small nations. He has endeavoured to be the leader of some of those South America]) “ shows “. I would not call them anything else. Their representatives are only showmen, and very poor showmen at that. They are of the type one sees at circus sideshows. The Minister for External Affairs has used those people for his own personal aggrandizement, and in some cases to defeat proposals put forward by the British Government, supported by the major dominions.

The Government’s policy in relation to Indonesia has been determined at the behest of certain communistic members of the Waterside Workers Union. It is a disgrace for any country to support the Indonesian republicans. It is doubly a disgrace that Australia should do so when we consider that but for the protection of a section of the Dutch fleet, supported by a very small number of Australian vessels, a force of Japanese would have landed in Australia in the recent war. That Dutch fleet, which was led by a Dutch admiral, sank half a dozen Japanese transports, each of which carried not 300 or 400, but from 3,000 to 4,000 Japanese troops. That Dutch admiral went into battle knowing that he was going to his death and that his force would be destroyed; but he thought the cost worth while. Every Dutch ship engaged was sunk. On the other hand, how did these brave Indonesians treat our servicemen who managed to reach their shore? They murdered them in cold blood, or tortured them ; and handed over survivors to the master torturers, the Japanese. When some of our service nurses struggled ashore after their hospital ship had been torpedoed on the coast of Java, what did these brave Indonesians do to them. They ravished and murdered about half of them, and handed over the remainder to the Japanese for even worse treatment. Those are the people whom Healy and his waterside workers are defending to-day. Those are the people whose part this Government has taken, and whose case it has brought before the United Nations. The Government practically ordered FlightLieu.tenant MacDonald, of Victoria, to go back to Java, where he had carried ou,t a very fine job in trying to discover what had become of certain members of our Army, Navy and Air Force and a number of our Army nurses. Two other gallant officers, Captain McKenzie, of the infantry, and Squadron Leader Burchell, were sent back to endeavour to find out what had happened to those personnel. They knew there would be very little chance of finding any of them alive, but they did their best to ascertain what had happened to them and if possible to bring the criminals to justice. They were promised safe conduct by the Indonesians, but were ambushed, murdered and torn to pieces, as no Malayan tiger would tear its kill, by the people upon whose behalf this Government is so solicitous. These are the people who, to-day are described by honorable members opposite as members of a wonderful race. If Dutch troops were withdrawn from Indonesia .tomorrow there would be as great a bloodbath in that country as is now taking place in India. The Minister for External Affairs urged the British Government to withdraw its troops from India and Egypt, and I have no doubt he is now doing his utmost to encourage it to withdraw British troops from Palestine. If the British Government and the people have ever done anything to merit their destruction it has been the withdrawal of British protection from India, leaving the millions of innocent people there to be slain by the murder gangs operating throughout that country. Some 60,000,000 “untouchables “ who have never carried arms have been left as helpless as sheep handed over to the slaughterer. The Minister for External Affairs has allied himself with men like Lasky, the Austrian-Jewish president of the British Labour party, and other Polish professors in demanding the withdrawal of British troops from. India. God knows we ha;ve had enough of professors.

Mr Pollard:

– God did not stand for racial discrimination.

Mr RANKIN:

– The Minister has always preached the White Australia policy, and if there be any greater racial discrimination than that I do not knowit. In common with other British nations we have a responsibility for the plight in which India now finds itself. We should have played no part in this cowardly withdrawal.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the vote for the Department of External Affairs.

Mr RANKIN:

– I should think that any one would understand that this matter of the withdrawal of British troops from India and Egypt touches the administration of the Department of External Affairs. Mr. Winston Churchill, the greatest statesman the Empire has seen in the last generation, said that he was not prepared to take any part in the liquidation of the British Empire. Notwithstanding the fact that many a good Australian and many a brave Britisher has given his life to uphold British rule in India and Palestine, the people of those countries are being abandoned by the United Kingdom Government with the full approval of the Minister for External Affairs. That men like Laski and Shinwell are traitors to their country is evidenced by the statements they made during the war of 1914-18 and since.

I cannot understand the need to establish legations in countries like Brazil and Chile, little “ one-horse shows “, whore Australia’s interests could very well be served by a trade representative. Very soon we shall find similar legations established in Honduras and Panama. Undoubtedly a great portion of the tremendous cost of Australian representation aboard is being incurred in an attempt to build up the Minister for External Affairs as a world figure.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– No one would question the soldierly valour of the honorable member for

Bendigo (Mr. Rankin). For his soldierly qualities we all respect and admire him, but his reckless and foul attacks this afternoon, not only on the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt), but also on the people of many countries in the world, can only be described as of the lowest and most contemptible nature. The honorable member asks why did not the Minister for External Affairs consult with the British Government in regard to the attitude he has taken on important international problems.

Mr Rankin:

– And with the representatives of the other dominions.

Mr POLLARD:

– I inform the honorable member, and I am sure the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) will concur, that at the conference of the United Nations at Ran Francisco in 1945 the right, honorable gentleman’s discussions with representatives of the British Government and ‘of the governments of the British dominions were not only frequent but also most friendly. The practice of free consultation has been followed throughout. The honorable member stands condemned as a purveyor of falsehoods and an instigator of foul attacks on a man who in the sphere of interRational affairs has distinguished himself as greatly as has the honorable member for Bendigo on the field of battle. The honorable member referred to Brazil and Chile as “ one-horse shows “, apparently regarding the inhabitants of those countries as beneath his contempt. The Australian Government has sent its Minister for External Affairs to the general assemblies of nations, not because of any particular desire on the part of the Minister, but as the result of the statesmanship of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, who, realizing the tremendous sacrifices that were being made on the battlefield, were determined that a gigantic effort should be made ‘ to save the youth of future generations from a similar catastrophe. To this end, there have been conferences of representatives of all nations regardless of their size or their responsibility in world affairs. As such gatherings were conceived in the brilliant minds of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, surely it is only fitting that Australia should be represented. I have never before heard. such an outburst of unchristian platitudes - and I have listened to a good many - as that indulged in by the honorable member for Bendigo to-day. To those members of this Parliament who may be inclined to laugh at such serious matters, I say that if a world war should again break out, a contributing factor will have been the intolerant utterances and stupidity of individuals like the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) and the honorable member for Bendigo.

The honorable member for Bendigo referred to Australia’s attitude to the Indonesian problem. The fact is that the best efforts of this Government and of the Minister for External Affairs have been directed towards reaching a solution of the differences between the Indonesians and the Dutch. I assume that the honorable member for Bendigo, in World War I., and the honorable member for Henty, in World War II., believed that they were fighting for the principles for which the Churchills, the Roosevelts and the Stalins stood and amongst which was the right of smaller nations to guide their own destinies. The efforts of the Minister for Externa] Affairs and of the Government to bring peace to Indonesia are to be applauded. I could repeat what, was told to me about the Indonesian situation and the background of the contending parties by a man who visited the Netherlands East Indies and who unfortunately has since lost his life, but it is wiser, at this stage, that I should not do so. We can only hope that the efforts of the Minister for External Affairs and this Government to bring about peace in that country will be successful and that honorable members opposite will show evidence of a greater sense of responsibility than they have exhibited in the making of reckless statements in the past. I trust that the Indonesian problem will be solved, not only to the satisfaction of the native inhabitants, but also of the race that has co-operated with the Indonesians and developed their country in the past 300 years. I feel that my remarks on this matter are fully justified in reply to the intemperate utterances of the honorable member for Bendigo.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) has worked himself up into a frenzy, but I am sure that he himself does not believe one iota of the unrealistic nonsense that he has uttered. He is fully aware that in the event of a war the small nations, on whose behalf he made a plea, would be protected once again by the Anglo-Saxons as they have been since time immemorial. From the point of view of defence, they are not worth a “ bumper “. The Anglo-Saxon race has held its place in the universe, not only because of its sound ideology, but also because of its ability to keep its powder dry and to protect the small peoples against the inroads of powerful nations that have endeavoured to dominate world affairs. I hope that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who I am sure is world-minded, because of his visits abroad, will be able to exert his influence upon other members of the Government.

I wish to refer now, in a geographical sense, to the allocations of money that are being made for Australian representation overseas. First, there is South Africa. Undoubtedly we have a right to representation in that country. To our far north lies China, and I am pleased to see that the sum of £60,500 has been provided for the Australian Legation at Chungking. I regard our diplomatic representation in China as being second in importance to that in the English-speaking countries. I do not think anyone will quarrel with the proposal to maintain our contacts with the Chinese people, and I congratulate the Government upon taking this matter seriously. For Shanghai, the lesser sum of £4,000 is being provided. I am pleased also that Australia is to have representation in the Netherlands East Indies, which to-day is a most troubled land. Conflicting ideologies are creating serious problems, and unfortunately the Australian “ commos “ have alined themselves with the more violent faction. It is deplorable that Government supporters have so little geographical sense that they have participated in this debate only when a member of the Opposition has lifted a scab or dug down to a fistula: ls this a robot government? Are the measures that have been advocated by the Opposition for the defence of Australia and for the preservation of peace in the

Far East generally not worthy of consideration? Have we been speaking in an un-Australian manner or is the robot government too ashamed to reply, or too intent upon vote-cadging for the next elections? Is the Government afraid of the Opposition?

Great Britain has walked out of Egypt and transferred its interest to South Africa. That is an example that we could well follow from a defence point of view. Our silly external policy is hunting good Australians out of New Guinea. They are going to Tanganyika to help to establish the defence quadrilateral from Africa across to China and down to the Netherlands East Indies to Darwin and across to the Solomons. ‘ Australia will not be able to go down on its knees to the United States of America next time as it did last time for help. As 1 see it Australia will have to look after itself. So we should seriously consider what the Government’s ideas are about. Japan. Honorable members on this side have exposed the variance between the Minister for External Affairs and some senior members of his department like Mr. Macmahon Ball and Mr. Paul Hasluck, whose disagreement with him has led them to resign. There is no need for me to recapitulate that story, for it is known all over Australia. I do not wish to be unduly critical of the Minister for External Affairs. I pay him the compliment that he entered the Commonwealth Parliament with an idealistic outlook, but his ideals have now run away with him, and he does not know what ideology he sponsors. The disagreements he has had with senior officers of the department and the way he is acting generally, compel me to say that the only word that describes him is “ enigma “. We do not know what he is going to do next. The Parliament is not consulted. It is paradoxical that this man of high attainment and education is putting his genius to such queer use. The young representatives that we send to Japan come back with mixed views. No wonder I They have never been under the Japanese. They were sent to Japan after the war to form their opinions. To learn the opinions of the Japanese one must be taught by those who have been under them. I fear that we are on the wrong course if we treat the Japanese as civilized. They are barbarians. It will be 200 years before they will have been able to assimilate our way of life, our democracy. No white man can. get inside the Japanese mind. Not even the Indians could, and they got nearer to it than we did.

It disturbed me to see the photographs produced by the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann). Our friend Dr. Soekarno is a mongrel. He collaborated with the Japanese. Yet he is the man that the Australian “ commos “ are supporting. But he is not the man that the Australian Parliament - should support. He and his Indonesian gangsters are trying to hunt the white man out of the Netherlands East Indies. It does not make sense that he should receive the least encouragement from any Australian. That he has been allowed to receive encouragement is a reflection on the Government. It lacks intestinal fortitude. The photographs that the honorable member for Maranoa produced prove that the wise course for the Australian Government to follow lies in supporting the Dutch, certainly not the Indonesians, who murdered our men captured in Java. It was announced recently that Judge Kirby was to go to the Netherlands East Indies to try to influence a settlement between Mie Dutch and the Indonesians. He is to be a member of a committee appointed for that purpose. That committee will not be complete unless a former prisoner of the Japanese accompanies it. Brigadier Blackburn should be chosen. Let Dr. Soekarno, the collaborator, be confronted by him. The former prisoners of war will be insulted if they are not represented. I know that their numbers are small, and that their cause is apt to be overlooked, but it is high time that it was espoused in the Commonwealth Parliament and taken seriously by the Government. Brigadier Blackburn was a prisoner in Java and it is the duty of the Government to send him back there with Judge Kirby. If it does not it will be ever to its shame. There are 70,000,000 Asiatics in the Netherlands East Indies. That is the area to which our foreign policy should pay closest attention. We should not wander all round the Pacific sending representatives to countries like Chile that are more or less foreign to us. I hope that the Prime Minister will see fit to send Brigadier Blackburn to Java with Judge Kirby to confront the man who collaborated with the Japanese against us and murdered our “ cobbers

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I donot intend to go over the ground, already covered, but the Estimatespresent our annual opportunity of directing attention to what we regard asextravagances and mistakes in policy. A great deal of heat has been engendered in the discussion of the proposed vote for the Department of External Affairs. Brickbacks are as numerous as bouquets, naturally. There is a lot to admire in the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt), but many things happen that we cannot admire. I consider that the Department of External Affairs is on the right ground in training young men so well for the Australian Diplomatic Service, but a survey is needed of the number of legations that we have dotted around the world like post offices in capital cities. Some, particularly those in Brazil and Chile, are of questionable importance. If there is no trade for us in those parts, there is little diplomatic activity. Had a committee been set up as we have suggested time and time again, representing all political parties and both Houses of the Parliament, the External Affairs policy would not have got into such a state of unbalance as it has. The Government ought to give definite instructions to the Minister for External Affairs as to its policy in respect, of the Netherlands East Indies, because, within a day’s flight of Australia, misery, murder and torture are rampant. It is not so much the miseries of India and Europe that should concern ns as the situation in a country close to Australia’s shore. The attitude taken up by the Government has given great hurt to the Dutch. Australian waterside Communists, during the war, consorted with Indonesian Communists, and, suddenly, they brought their power to bear upon the Government, which has utterly failed to take proper action against them. I have seen Dutch ships sail from Australia without pilots. Dutch ships have had to be loaded and unloaded by Dutch evacuee children. In Java, Indians and

Chinese are being. tortured and slaughtered. T.he Dutch authorities aase trying to give a form, of selfgovernment to the. Indonesians, the majority of whom are loyal to the Dutch. They are striving to keep order., but lawless bands are creating disorder. The Dutch are the nearest white foreign friends that we have in the Pacific. They are our neighbours. They have been in the Netherlands East Indies for 350 years. Their record in colonization is as good as our own, or better if placed side by side with the way we treated the aborigines. They should not be treated in this scurvy fashion. While the Minister for External Affairs is attending the world’s councils there is work for him nearer home. There are some matters for him to investigate and some too for the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson). Australian officers sent to Java to make investigations some time ago were murdered by the Indonesians. I do not know that their dependants have even been compensated. That matter was raised by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McE’wen).

Mr McEwen:

– They have not been.

Mr WHITE:

– Those officers had splendid war records. They were murdered by the Indonesians. The Government seems, to have more considera- tion for the disloyal Indonesians than for the dependants of Australian officers murdered by them. Does the Minister for the Interior know that a ship called at Wyndham recently and that Indonesian members of its crew remained in that vicinity for nearly a month and helped themselves to whatever they wanted before they left ? I want to know all about that incident.. I have heard echoes of it and I know some of the facts, but I may not have heard all of them. lt seems that Indonesians have found that they can do just as they like in north-western Australia. I warn honorable members of the possibilities of this situation. The Minister should investigate the report immediately and obtain full information about it. There are teeming millions of people in Java,, but in New Guinea, the great rich territory which is our charge and which is being sadly mismanaged by this Government, there are only a few thousand white resi dents, about 2,000^.000 natives, in Australian, territory and an approximately equal number - no census has been taken there - in Dutch territory. There is nothing to prevent the Javanese from swarming into New Guinea and overflowing into Australian territory. These are problems which the Government should face. Instead of doing so, however, it audaciously sends its representatives to the other side of the world to say what ought to be done in Spain or in Brazil. There is more urgent work nearer home.

I am sure that the Minister for External Affairs believes that, in dotting Australian legations all over the globe, he is enhancing Australia’s- prestige. Nothing could be further from the truth. Older nations are mot impressed by such window dressing. Until recently, Great Britain carried out consular work in other countries on behalf of Australia without charge. If this Government is setting out to show other nations that it does, not admire Great Britain and that there is no close tie between it and Great Britain, then it- is succeeding only in injuring Great Britain and Australia and. far from gaining prestige,, is losing it. Here is a definite task for the Minister for External Affairs.. Let him salvage Australian! prestige with the Dutch in the Netherlands’ East Indies.. The headquarters of the Dutch Empire was trampled underfoot during- the- war. The heart was bombed out of Rotterdam, and Dutch colonies were occupied by enemy forces. Dutch women and children all know the effect of war. Nevertheless, this, Government has collaborated with Communist waterside workers in holding up ships carrying medical supplies and food that would have been distributed to both Indonesian and Dutch had the vessels been allowed to proceed. It. has allowed the. boycott to continue for about two years.. Honorable members should look at this matter apart from party politics. There should be no party limitations in respect of matters, of external policy. Australia should have continuity of foreign affairs policy such as exists in Great Britain. In the Mother Country, Conservative governments have given way to national governments, and national governments have given way to Labour governments, but the nation’s foreign policy has continued more or less unaltered. That should be so in Australia. We should consider Australia’s prestige above everything else. The prestige of some political party should not be allowed to dominate our policies.

The Minister for External Affairs should investigate Australian legations overseas and eliminate all those that are not necessary. He should send our best men to the most important places and confer with, the British Government on all matters of foreign policy so as to ensure a united Empire front in international affairs. If he does so, the Empire will be strengthened, Australia will be strengthened, and the whole world will benefit.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- 1. believe that Australia should have full diplomatic representation abroad so long as we get full value for our money and full information from our representatives. It is necessary for us to have the most informed sources of information at our disposal for the benefit of our Ministers and our public servants. This situation can be brought about and a traditional foreign policy for Australia established only if we have continuity of service in our diplomatic corps. What is the situation within the Department of Externa] Affairs to-day? An examination shows that many representatives sent overseas by this Government remain at their posts for only a short time and then resign. Many of our representatives have not been appointed from the Public Service; they are not career diplomats, and frequently they disappear suddenly from the stage. Having done so, they make no reports to the Parliament or to the public at large. For instance, Mr. Slater returned after representing the Commonwealth in Russia, but made no statement to the general public. Mr. Maloney also failed to report to the Parliament on his return from Russia. I asked several times that he be allowed to report to all members of the Parliament because of his intimate knowledge of Russia and because of the circumstances of his return from that country, but he was allowed only to address caucus. That was not right. Surely the Parliament was entitled to hear what information he had to offer!

The taxpayers of Australia provide themoney for our diplomatic services, and therefore they are entitled to have all available information on international affairs. I object to the present policy of sending a man to a diplomatic post and then placing him in such an impossiblesituation, by means of contradictory orders, as happened with Mr. Paul’ Hasluck and Mr. Macmahon Ball, that he retires and returns to private life, with the result that his experience and knowledge are lost to the country. We have not the slightest chance of securing continuity of policy on international affairs while such administrative procedure ispermitted. It is of vital importance for the Government and the country to havethe full benefit of the services of such experienced officers. How can they supply us with the information to which we are entitled if they are not allowed to communicate with members of the Parliament or with the general public, either through the Government by means of reports or through public expressions of opinion? The Government would be well advised to canalize the activities of its external affairs authorities. It is more important to secure first-class information from a few important sources than to acquire virtually valueless information from unimportant places in all parts of the world. Owing to the way in which the Government is acting at present, a great deal of money is being wastefully expended on representation overseas.

The estimates of the Department of.” External Affairs for 1947-48 provide f oran expenditure of £1;032,000, which exceeds expenditure in 1946 by £270,000. We are to have diplomatic representation in the Philippines, Siam, New Caledonia, Portuguese Timor and Shanghai. The Department of Commerce and Agriculture is sending representatives to all of the places mentioned in the estimatesfor the Department of External Affairs,, but the whole cost of this service is estimated at only £150,000 for this year. I know that the Department of External’ Affairs is anxious that all of its representatives abroad should have special status and important titles. Nevertheless, I believe that Australia would be better served if the Government concentrated on combining diplomatic and commercial representation in places like

Siam, the Philippines and New Caledonia. Should we have a commercial representative or a diplomatic representative in New Caledonia? Is there a sovereign government there to which a diplomatic representative can be accredited ? Surely trade is of greater importance than diplomacy in such places!

Our commercial relations with the Philippines, for example, have not been properly developed. The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) has repeatedly asked the Government why we do not send Australian cattle to the Philippines. However, despite our failure to take advantage of commercial opportunities in such territories, I find that the Government has wiped out all provision for commercial representation in the Philippines. The amount allotted for this purpose last year was £500. This year- the only allotment in respect of the Philippines is an amount of £4,000 for diplomatic representation. Which would give us a greater return - diplomatic representation or commercial representation? The diplomatic and trade representation abroad should be amalgamated in the interests of economy and efficiency. The majority of the commercial representatives of Australia overseas have been specially trained for their task. They have a thorough knowledge of Commonwealth departments, and the experience which they acquired abroad is invaluable to Australia in its dealing with other nations. Therefore, I am amazed to discover, for example, that no provision has been made for our commercial representation in Portuguese Timor. What country controls Portuguese Timor? Obviously, it is Portugal! What is the use of Australia having a diplomatic representative in Portuguese Timor? A better idea would be to have a diplomatic representative in Lisbon, where he could get the ear of the Prime Minister of Portugal. What our diplomatic representative in Portuguese Timor can do towards determining high matters of policy is almost worthless. During the war, high matters of policy affecting Portugese Timor were determined in Lisbon.

If we are to have efficient and adequate representation abroad, we must be prepared to pay reasonable salaries which will attract first-class men. When we send those representatives abroad, we should not starve them in the matter of allowances. They should not be asked to accept a grade inferior to that of other diplomatic entourages. If we concentrate upon being represented in the places that really matter, we should be able to manage that. What are the places that really matter? They are in the other British Dominions, the United States of America and certain other countries such as France. The most important of all are in the other British Dominions and the United States of America. Between the United Kingdom, the United States of America, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand, we should have a constant exchange of officers. The prospects of preserving peace during the next 50 years will not be bright if there is discord between the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America. Therefore, we must devise a policy upon which we all can agree. Various aspects of that policy should be discussed when the policy is still fluid. As the Prime Minister stated, we were not consulted about the decision of the British to leave Palestine. We were merely informed of it. I believed that Australia had emerged from this “swaddling clothes” stage.

For many years we have asked to be consulted before decisions were made, and our requests were successful during World War II. Our opinions were sought at a stage when the policy was still fluid. That is the only time when our voice can really carry any weight. All our efforts should be devoted to putting into operation the system which 1 have advocated. During World War II. we were obliged to consolidate the whole of our resources, reserves and forces. In the United States of America, various authorities, such as the War Production Board, were established to make decisions regarding supplies of food and war materials. Australian representatives in America were in constant contact with Commonwealth Departments here, and we were able to influence decisions. If we were to adopt a similar policy in peace-time, the proposed huge expenditure, which is set down under “Miscellaneous” for the Department of

External Affairs to meet the cost of Australia’s representation on the International Trade organisation, would not he required. The present problems would have been ironed out in early discussions. There would only have been need for ministerial -consultation on five or six major matters of policy on which agreement ha9 not been obtained. Our representatives have attended the International Conference on Trade and Employment for approximately eight, months. “When they originally left Australia, we prophesied that their mission would not succeed. In the interval, they have stated that they were not able to give to us .any information about the discussions because nothing of any importance had happened. The present deadlocks will not be overcome unless the interested parties meet in conference at a time policy is being moulded. If we are unable to do that we shall not be able to agree upon a common policy.

Time is running against us. The longer the world remains in its present chaotic condition, food is withheld from Europe and war-disorganized countries are not rehabilitated, the stronger will grow the menace of communism. The difficulties of the democratic countries in fighting a war against those controlled by Communist despotism will be increased. For these reasons, I urge the Government, to examine this matter of co-ordinating, wherever possible, our diplomatic and commercial representation, especially in smaller countries where there is no sovereign government. In the other British dominions and the United States of America, every opportunity should be grasped to obtain a continual interchange of public servants who will know about policy proposals in the fluid stage. These men would enjoy the confidence of the Government, One of the public servants whom Australia sent abroad during “World “War II. is Mr. McCarthy, the permanent head of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. He is held in the highest respect in America. His judgment and counsel are trusted absolutely by American officials, simply because they know him from his constant contact with them. That system must be expanded.

– No. Because if the establishment of legations abroad is to depend on the receipt of requests from other countries we shall be committed to the establishment of legations anywhere and everywhere ; and, in any event, we must retain our own- right to decide where legations shall be established.

I said something about the expenditure involved in diplomatic representation. I should like to amend my remarks, because E do not think that expenditure is by any means the biggest factor. The most important factor in establishing diplomatic relationships is the difficulty of securing the right men for the right jobs. After all, the Department of External Affairs is, relatively speaking, a very young department. It contains a number of young men of ability and promise, but it can hardly be said that it has yet, in the course of the few years in which it has been in existence, been able to produce in the few legations established overseas, any great number of men with sufficient training and experience to fit them for appointments as ministers or consuls at legations. Those posts require very long training, as any officer of any diplomatic service can testify. So, in my opinion, we are spreading ourselves too thinly and we are putting too great a strain on our limited resources of trained, competent man-power by attempting to do too much. As I say, that is a more important aspect than the mere expenditure of large sums of money.

The only other matter on which I wish to touch is the establishment of legations in Europe. Europe is immeasurably more important to us from the point of view of diplomatic relationships than the republics of South America. We have had ample experience, even in our own lifetimes, of the way in which wars emanate from European countries. For myself, I have always entertained the belief that, having a high commissioner in London, we might have done very well in the European theatre by making an arrangement with the British Foreign Office whereby Australian diplomatic officers could be attached to British embassies and legations in Europe for training. By that means we should have had, in addition, the benefit of a continuous source of valuable information . through the British intelligence organization. In other words, we should do well in Europe were we to fit into the British diplomatic structure rather than to set up one of our own. But it has been decided, as we know, that we shall have a legation in Paris and at The HagueI suppose that that inevitably means that in due course we shall have a legation or an embassy in Berlin and Rome. And if we had a legation at The Hague as well as our direct representation in the Netherlands East Indies, what would be the answer to requests from Denmark. Norway, Sweden and Belgium that we should establish legations in those countries? They are quite comparable countries. And going beyond that again : If we are to establish in all of those countries our own legations, completely independent, having no connexion with the “ firm next door “, are we in due course to refuse to establish legations in places like Turkey, Irak or Iran, which have an immediate significance for us, mark you, far outweighing the significance of some of the countries to which already we have accredited representatives? In other words, if we just drift along in this process we shall find ourselves endeavouring to maintain a diplomatic structure all over the civilized world, in every country that is perceptible, if one may use that expression, on a map of the world. I believe that that would be extremely foolish and unnecessary. Let us concentrate our resources of trained and competent men for diplomatic work upon those countries with which our diplomatic association is essentia] from our point of view, and let us, as far as possible, fit ourselves into the general British structure in other countries, so that we may have sources of information open to us. The British would co-operate with us with the greatest willingness in the world, and we should not be going into this business of trying to maintain an independent establishment in a country in which our best interests would, in reality, be served - as the right honorable member for Cowper has just said - by establishing an effective trade representation upon the trade representation level.

I venture to say that this country can afford to establish diplomatic representation abroad only for reasons of utility, for reasons which are vital to our security, and not merely for reasons of prestige; because reasons of prestige could lead us into a perfectly mad career of establishing diplomats all over the world, with results which would be imperceptible on the profit side, and might, in certain instances, prove extremely embarrassing to us. .

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

.- I intend to refer very briefly to one or two matters, and to reply to the attack that was made on me by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) who said that I had made “ foul and intemperate remarks “. I do not know whether that is parliamentary language; however, the Temporary Chairman saw fit to allow the honorable gentleman to proceed. I leave it to the judgment of the committee as to whether a more intemperate speech than that of the honorable gentleman has ever been heard in this chamber. He has the reputation of being rather a good fighting man. If he became as wild in the trenches when he was opposing the Germans, 1 can understand why they ran away, because he completely lost his temper, and was responsible for what I should describe as “a very poor show “ by a man who is a member of His Majesty’s Government.

raise again the matter of the report by Judge Kirby in regard to those men who were murdered by the famous Indonesians whom honorable members OPPO site are so anxious to assist and protect; people who still have in their ranks a large proportion of head-hunters, and who belong to a completely undisciplined race. I should like to know why that report has been suppressed. The people of this country are entitled to be told the reason. It would be a gracious act if the Government reduced by £15,000 the amount which it proposes to expend on this department, and paid £5,000’ apiece to the dependants of men who were murdered while engaged in the service of this country.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I do not oppose visits to overseas countries by members of this Parliament, but rather encourage them, because the experience increases their efficiency, and probably makes them more sympathetic in relation to our own requirements. Nor do I consider that any honorable member has reason to complain of the young intelligence officers who have returned to Australia after discharging duties of various kinds in foreign countries during, and particularly since the end of, the war. Probably, however, some comment is needed in regard to Government policy statements that have been made, and actions that have been taken, in connexion with major countries, such as the control of Japan and the activities in that regard of the United States of America. In view of the position that exists in Japan, and particularly that which is likely to arise when an attempt is made to finalize a peace treaty with that country, Australia should work in the closest collaboration with the control that is being exercised by General MacArthur. I am not giving away any secret when I express some dismay in regard to the agreement that was made at Yalta, concerning which statements have appeared in the press since the British Commonwealth conference was held at Canberra, as well as some of the statements that have been made by honorable members, in this chamber. I refer particularly to that section of the Yalta agreement, under which Russia was to be given important key positions, which enable it to control Japan’s destiny and its food supplies, as well as, particularly, the possibility of its again engaging in military operations even in self-defence. I mention, first, the important gift of Sakhalin and all the Japanese islands north of Japan, as well as the territory and the port of Port Arthur. We know that, as Britishers, we are prepared to honour agreements. Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the reports of protests by Great Britain and the United States of America against the activities of Russia in that part of Europe which is under its control at the present time. The Yalta agreement contained a number of conditions to be observed by the parties to it, but as Russia is not honoring its obligations itis for us to consider whether, in justice to Australia and other countries, the concessions to Russia under the agreement should be given effect. I am confident that when the people of the United States of America and China,as well as of Australia and other countries bordering the Pacific, realize the magnitude of the concessions granted to the Soviet Union, they will be amazed and disturbed. Russia has occupied large areas of country, and appears to be resolved not to carry out the terms of agreements it has entered into.

Russia’s actions in Korea are an outstanding example of that country’s lack of good faith. According to the intelligence authorities of the United States of America, Russia actually now has organized in that portion of Korea under its control, an army of 500,000 Koreans and others, with the object of preventing Korea from gaining the independence for which it had fought for 40 years. Russia’s administration of the northern portion of Korea compares most unfavorably with the actions of the American authorities of southern Korea. It is reported that last February officials of the United States of America State Department discovered aSoviet master plan to organize a Communist rebellion against the American military authorities who occupy southern Korea.Russia undertook to establish local government in the portion of Korea under its control ; but, instead, it has brought to Korea a dictator from Moscow, and in other ways has shown a determination not to carry out agreements entered into. Once theDutch have been driven out of Indonesia, as seems probable, Australia will have an even more vital interest in what happens in the Pacific. So serious is the position in Russian-occupied Korea that General Hodges, of the United States army, was recalled to Washington, where he is reported to have said that all attempts on the spot to carry out the mission entrusted to him had failed because of the refusal of the Russian authorities to establish local government in Korea. He went on to say that the matter would have to be discussed in the highest diplomatic circles. Since then, unsuccessful attempts have been made at the highest diplomatic levels to induce Russia to co-operate with the Koreans as the American authorities have done in southern Korea. Russia’s behaviour has forced the United States of America to raise and maintain an army in Korea to protect the local inhabitants. For that action the United States of America is in danger of being described as a warmonger. I could say a good deal more regarding Russia’s policy, as, for instance, Russian actions in Manchuria, and Russia’s dominance of certain waters absolutely necessary to Japan for supplies of fish for food, but I shall conclude by saying that in our own interests we should work in the closest co-operation with General MacArthur’s forces. Such matters as food supplies for Japan and Japanese whaling expeditions to Antarctica must be viewed in the light of possible Russian reactions. By cooperating with the American authorities we shall not only help ourselves, but we shall also influence the terms of the peace with Japan.

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LANG LAB; ALP from 1936; ALP (N-C) from 1940; ALP from 1941

.- The committee is considering the Estimates for the Department of External Affairs, and is exercising its time-honoured privilege of examining the proposed expenditure of the Government in order to determine whether supply should be granted to the Government. This gives all honorable members an opportunity to discuss its administration. I have noted, particularly during the discussion on the vote for the Department of External Affairs, that the occasion has been taken to attack a particular Minister with a degree of spleen which, E confess, I have not previously observed since I have been a member of this Parliament. We have listened to a verbal display by amateur international authorities who could, not, despite such control as they sought to exercise over their language, disguise the venom of their attack on the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt). This display of venom has been described as jealousy, but in my opinion real jealousy is an emotion that can properly be felt only by people who feel that they have been displaced ; in other words, having regard- to the matter under discussion, by people who feel that they are more capable than the Minister for External Affairs of filling the position which he holds to-day. However, as I listened to some of his critics, I wondered who among them would be capable of filling his shoes. It is true that a prophet is always without honour in his own country, but when I compare the achievements of the Minister for External Affairs with those of his critics I am convinced that he must appear as a whale among minnows. It has been said that the Department of External Affairs is a one-man show. That has been denied from time to time by responsible Ministers who have shown that when any matter is under consideration which affects their own department, a matter which must find its ultimate expression through the Department of External Affairs, they have always been fully consulted. But even if we accept the view that the foreign policy of this Government is determined by one man, I put forward the proposition that such a state of affairs is preferable to the babel of tongues from the ill-informed critics who are attempting to pull him down.

We claim with some justification that, as a result of the 1914-18 war, we won the right to nationhood. I ask the critics of the Minister for External Affairs what they did, during their long term of office, to establish necessary diplomatic contact with other countries. We now witness the spectacle of tie Minister being acclaimed throughout the world in diplomatic circles, and only in our own country do we find men of lesser political stature trying to pull him down. He lias sought to establish in the councils of the nations the right of Australia to be consulted in world affairs, and even his most carping critics will not say that he has failed in this. These critics have sought to defame him whenever he has tried to advance the position of Australia among the nations. In fact, their view is, apparently, that Australia should be relegated to the position of a crown colony. This criticism of the Minister for External Affairs, under the guise of criticism of the expenditure incurred by his department, could not be more illtimed than now. Whether or not we agree with the views of the Minister on international affairs, the fact is that to-day he is the sole representative of hi3 native country in the councils of the nations. Critical discussions are taking place in the Assembly of the United Nations, and the present meetings may well determine whether the United Nations organization will survive. Nevertheless, we have the sorry spectacle in this National Parliament, of men, who claim to be the responsible representatives of the people, trying to belittle our representative overseas - and let us make no mistake that even in the councils of the nations our representative will have his opponents. His critics here are feeding to the enemies of peace abroad propaganda to defeat the spokesman of Australia.

It has been claimed by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) that they established diplomatic contacts abroad. That is true, but the Department of External Affairs, under their regimes, was a very minor portfolio. It is true that they established diplomatic relations with Canada, United States of America, China and Japan, but I remind honorable members that the eminent ex-politician who represented Australia in Japan did not stay there very long, and when he came hack to Australia he gave us an assurance that there was no possibility of war with Japan. That was the kind of representative which was sent overseas in those days.

Mr McEwen:

– It is not true that he gave such an assurance.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I say that it is true, and those who know u9 both can assess where the truth lies. The right honorable member for Cowper said that we should make a choice of countries in which we are to be represented. Is there any evidence that such a choice was not made? What argument is there to support the suggestion that we appointed diplomatic representatives willy-nilly without any regard to the countries to which they were sent? The right honorable member for Cowper emphasized the importance of food in relation to the politics of Europe, and I emphasize it also. Food will determine the politics of Europe, whether we like it or not. Pump what money you like into Europe, and send there what armed forces you will, but the stomachs of the people of Europe will, in the final analysis, determine their politics, and the issue will not be resolved to our liking by wheat at 16s. a bushel. The Leader of the Opposition discussed the subject of diplomatic appointments in a very temperate way, .although I take leave to disagree with his views and conclusions. He pointed out that diplomatic representation began during the regime of his Government. That is admitted; but as Uriah Heep said, “ Only in a very small way “. The right honorable gentleman wants some sort of a secretariat set up. I was not quite clear what kind qf secretariat he had in mind, but he made it clear that he did not want an Empire diplomatic secretariat. That seems to indicate that he is going a long way along the road which the Minister for External Affairs has taken in that, to a degree, he has discarded the diplomatic policy of Whitehall which previous governments adhered to without question. Previous governments in this country have been marionettes in diplomatic policy dangling at the ends of strings manipulated by the twiddling fingers of Whitehall; but, to-day, we have established ourselves as a nation, claiming the right for which the men of this country fought to be recognized as a nation in the councils of the world, and we are sending our representatives far and wide. I should like to know, in the absence of an Empire diplomatic secretariat, what kind of secretariat could he set up, and what effect it would have in world diplomatic relations.

The Leader of the Opposition went further and said that we should establish legations in countries where we have a primary interest. Again, I entirely agree with him ; but on the basis of our primary interest in South .America he made a very unfortunate choice. He could not discover why we had fixed diplomatic representation in Chile and Brazil before we established it in Argentina.

Mr Menzies:

– I did not quite convey my point in that respect; I did not suggest diplomatic representation _ in Argentina. I suggested trade representation in that country.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LANG LAB; ALP from 1936; ALP (N-C) from 1940; ALP from 1941

– Let us have a look at the population aspect, because it is important. We cannot altogether dissociate our diplomatic relations from our trade relations. The Department of Commerce and Agriculture, I understand, nominates our trade representatives, whilst the Department of External Affairs chooses our diplomatic representatives; but they go forward hand in hand. Where would our primary interest be in South America? We have set up a delegation in Brazil, the population of which is 43,250,000, whereas the population of Argentina is less than 14,000,000. That is to say, we have set up trade and diplomatic representation in a country which has three times the population of the country to which the right honorable gentleman gave first preference.

Let us look at another aspect referred to by both the Leader of the Opposition and the right honorable member for Cowper, namely, the question of where our primary interest lies from the point of view of international trade. Argentina is one of our keenest world competitors in all the primary products upon which this country places so much reliance; and, in my view, our primary interest would be to try to establish trade relations not with that country, but with other countries, such as Brazil, which has a population of over 43,000,000, and competes with Argentina for the markets available. Those are two substantial reasons why the Department of External Affairs chose to establish representation in Brazil and Chile. Another very strong ‘reason is that in the mixed politics of South America the politics of Brazil and Chile are much more in tune with the democratic conceptions of the people of Australia. Thus, from the political point of view it was advantageous to us to prefer those countries, whilst from the trade point of view it was infinitely better to look for markets in a country with a population of over 43,000,000 than in a country with a population of less than 14,000,000, which also has for sale goods of the kind we wish to market. That is the position from the point of view of trade.

Let us look at the matter from the political point of view. There were substantial reasons why Australia should not appoint diplomatic representatives to Argentina at the time we appointed our representatives to Chile and Brazil. First, Argentina was a straight-out collaborator with our ex-enemies, the Axis powers. It was the main link through the Allied blockade of Germany, and it harboured Nazis after the war; I fear that we have them here. At the time we appointed our diplomatic representatives to Brazil and Chile relations were strained between Argentina on the one hand and the United States of America and Great Britain on the other; and it would have been an international affront to our primary allies, if we put it that way, to have appointed new diplomatic representatives to a country whose relations with Great Britain and the United States of America were strained. And last but not least, when the United Nations unanimously condemned the Franco regime in Spain, the very next day Argentina, in defiance of world opinion, appointed, for the first time, diplomatic representatives to Spain. Yet in spite of the fact that Argentina collaborated with the Axis powers, afforded to Germany a link through the Allied blockade, collaborated with the

– Is it then the Government’s policy to defame Great Britain?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member must not tempt the Chair.

Mi1. Menzies. - So it has come now to a matter of tempting the Chair.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I am not so sure that, since the reporter was writing from memory, the article was a correct interpretation of what was said. He might have given an Irish twist to what was said. At all events, it was rather refreshing that an Australian abroad representing the Australian Government should speak for his country in such eulogistic terms. Despite all its “ knockers “, Australia is still the best country in the world and it was refreshing to find that, although Senator Amour was 13,000 miles away from home, he spoke so well of his country when here, at the very centre of government, we have some of the greatest “ knockers “ in the world.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I confess to being a little disappointed. When Mr. Speaker (Mr. Rosevear) comes down from the Chair to take part in a debate in committee he usually breathes fire and brimstone.

Mr Rosevear:

– I did not come down; I was here in my place during the committee proceedings.

Mr MENZIES:

–! direct the attention of the honorable member to the fact that interjections are disorderly, and that if they are repeated he will be named. My disappointment arises entirely from the fact that there was so little fire and brimstone in his speech to-night. He criticized members of the Opposition for having directed a certain amount of their attention to the Minister in charge of the Department of External Affairs. As, in. the course of my extremely moderate and detached remarks this afternoon I had no occasion to refer to the right honorable gentleman, I can, perhaps, say something about, this in an equally detached way. I direct the attention of the. honorable member to the fact that if the Minister for External Affairs is noi, present when the annual Estimates are being debated that cannot involve the proposition that the right honorable gentleman and his administration are to be immune from criticism. I emphasize that this is the only opportunity which honorable members possess of discussing the Commonwealth departments, and they have seized this comparatively rare chance of discussing the Department of External Affairs and of making a series of extremely pertinent criticisms of its general set up. I shall not repeat what f said about these legations this afternoon except to say that I offered a perfectly fair and objective series of criticisms of what had been done. To say that in these circumstances strong criticism, indeed occasionally heated criticism, of the Minister or of his doings is out of order, is to deny the authority of this committee and the responsibility of Parliament. I shall not say ‘anything about Senator Amour, or “JJ Amour”, according to the name that was used from time to time this afternoon. What has been said on that matter has been said; but I must confess to a somewhat wry smile at hearing the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) rebuke honorable members on this side of the chamber for using Parliament as a coward’s castle from which to make attacks. I speak as one who can rightly say that he has never said anything in this chamber that he has not said outside of it ; but I have been on many occasions the victim of attacks in this chamber of a gross and personal kind, and I’ have seen Mr. Speaker sit silently by while these attacks have been made.

I turn now to the matter of substance dealt with by the honorable member for Dalley. He said that I, for one, had selected in my argument Argentina as a place where Australian diplomatic representation should be established. I took the opportunity of interjecting to correct that impression because, as honorable members who were present this afternoon know, I made no such suggestion; but the honorable member came back to it, and having discussed, apparently with some inside knowledge of the Australian mind, why Argentina was selected, he went on to indicate that, although Argentina had been an arch collaborator with the Axis countries during the war, the Leader of the Opposition had chosen that country for preferential treatment in the form of diplomatic representation. Therefore, it, becomes necessary for me to say that at no time did I suggest diplomatic representation in Argentina.

Mr Rosevear:

– Trade representation is not provided for in this vote.

Mr MENZIES:

– I shall come to that. I suggest that the honorable member forDalley should not look pleased too soon. The whole of my argument was directed to the proposition that there was no case for establishing diplomatic representation in South America at all. That case is either right or wrong, but it cannot be answered by falsifying it.

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable member did not say that.

Mr MENZIES:

– I did, and if the Minister had been present he would remember it. However, the record will stand. . The industrious scribes of Hansard recorded it all, and when the Minister reads the report in due course, ho will see exactly what I did say. My argument was directed to trade representation. I shall be asked, no doubt, “ What are we going to sell to them ? They are our competitors “. But surely there is a great ease for having commercial representation in a competitor country. In any event, what do honorable members opposite suggest that Australia will sell to Brazil in competition with Argentina? Meat, or fresh fruit? The whole point about Argentina is that that country is a competitor of ours - a very serious competitor in many lines. That is the strongest reason why we should have competent and skilled people on the spot so that we may know what our competitor is doing and how he is doing it, because that is a very good way of becoming effective competitors ourselves. But the honorable member for Dalley rejects this. He would not send trade agents to Argentina for a variety of reasons, and one of them, forsooth, is that Argentina was an arch collaborator during the war. I remind the honorable member that the Government of which he is a supporter has recently authorized an expedition of trade agents from Australia to Japan. “Was Japan not an arch-collaborator during the war? Apparently, it is all right to send business men to Japan - the very fount of our troubles in the Pacific - to solicit orders; but when one suggests sending a trade representative to one of the most active trading nations on the South American continent, whatever its population may be, the answer is to raise holy hands and say, “You can’t do that. They were collaborators during the war “. I shall be interested to see whether the colleagues of the honorable member for Dalley in the Government will maintain that point of view for very long. Perhaps on the occasion of the presentation of the next annual Estimates we shall have a few more words to say about this matter.

Mr FALSTEIN:
Watson

.- It is a long time since a committee of the House has had the benefit of two speeches by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) in connexion with one matter.

Mr Rosevear:

– We stung him to-day.

Mr FALSTEIN:

– Yes. He has been stung to the quick by the replies that he and his henchmen have been given by honorable members on this side of the chamber. It is not unusual for the right honorable gentleman to use his legal skill and verbal artistry to confuse the com mittee and the country. He has said that money is being provided in the Estimates for the Department of External Affairs for the establishment of trade relationships with Brazil. Of course, it is apparent to those who have studied the matter under discussion that two specific provisions are made for representation under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs. One is for diplomatic representation, which is the establishment, and maintenance of legations in various foreign countries, and of the offices of the high commissioners in the member States of the British Commonwealth of Nations ; the other, an entirely separate vote, is for consular representation, which is commercial representation besides the completion of necessary formalities in connexion with the witnessing of documents and the like. The reason for the right honorable gentleman’s attempt to confuse the committee is obvious. He sought to make some point out of the fact that Brazil trades in nuts, and said that it was undesirable for Australia to have representation of a commercial character in that country. I do not know what the department’s reason is, but one very good reason that occurs to me for representation in Brazil, a country which we are told by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has a population of 43,250,000, and in Chile, which has a population of 5,250,000, is that among the South American countries represented in the United Nations Assembly there is an extraordinarily strong diplomatic bloc. That is a bloc that I understand can wield a voting power of twenty in the deliberations of the United Nations Assembly. Provision for the expenditure of small amounts of £26,400 in Brazil and £31,000 in Chile, a total of less than £60,000, for diplomatic representation in countries that, with their neighbours, can wield a powerful voting weapon in the Assembly of the United Nations does not seem improper. The Leader of the Opposition, it is true, did not say in words that we should have either diplomatic or commercial representation in Argentina, but he did canvass the possibility. His anxiety to assist actively a nation whose object is the restoration of fascism shows that he is a person whose politics would not be welcome to the great majority of the

Australian people. The right honorable gentleman also referred to our sending trade representatives to Japan. I was in Japan recently. Any one who knows conditions in Japan, even setting aside the Allied Control Council, the Far Eastern Advisory Commission, General MacArthur or any other authority that has determination of Japan’s policy and will fix the levels to which Japanese trade may rise, would know that Japan is incapable of being a serious competitor. Japan is politically hamstrung and its political set-up is in no way comparable with that of Argentina or Spain. The right honorable gentleman punctuated his first speech - honorable members will appreciate the need for me to refer to his first speech and his second speech, because he made two - with a great deal more use of the pronoun “ I “ than usual. He projected his ego into the speech in such a manner that the only inference is that he was speaking in a way that exhibited his personal hatred and jealousy of the Minister for External Affairs.

Mr Bowden:

– Rubbish !

Mr FALSTEIN:

– The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) may regard it as rubbish, but I gave the Leader of the Opposition a second opportunity, and he again demonstrated his personal jealousy of the Minister for External Affairs. He said that the Minister could not expect immunity from criticism in “ this annual survey of the work of his department “ because he was physically absent from the Commonwealth.

Mr Abbott:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr FALSTEIN:

– Nothing. But we all know that not merely on the Estimates, but whenever the subject of foreign affairs has been debated, every opportunity has been seized by honorable members opposite to criticize the Minister for External Affairs, whether he has been here or not, and to say that the Estimates present the only opportunity annually for criticism of the Minister, from which he could not ask immunity, is to make a political manoeuvre of which the Leader of the Opposition is a past master.

Complaint has been made that the proposed vote of £1,032,000 for the Department of Externa] Affairs is excessive, but, if we examine the Estimates, we see straight away that it is less than £ per cent, of the proposed expenditure of the Commonwealth this financial year. That is to say that the budget provides for the receipt and expenditure of £400,000,000 and that the proposed expenditure on the Department of External Affairs is only about £1,000,000, of which at least one-third is to be expended for other departments. It must be r&membered that the Department of External Affairs is the sole channel of communication with governments overseas for all the departments. .So, if the Department of Civil Aviation wishes to communicate with the United Kingdom or elsewhere by cable or otherwise, it does so through the Department of External Affairs. So the proposed vote for that department must be reduced by £300,000 or £400,000 that it will spend on behalf of other departments. Moreover, the proposed expenditure on the Department of External Affairs of about £1,000,000 represents only about 2s. a head of the population of Australia. That is little enough to spend, having regard to the fact that many industries in this country have dealings, the value of which exceeds £1,000,000 a year. I could name a dozen of them. The proposed expenditure is little enough to maintain relations even inside the British Commonwealth of Nations, to say nothing of relations with other countries. Furthermore, the staff of various legations and consulates overseas is less than 100. So there is no great waste of man-power. In the legations in Chile and Brazil, the two most complained about foreign countries in which we have representation, I understand there are only a minister and a secretary to inform, the Commonwealth Government from time to time of effects of announcements by the governments of the United States of America and other countries on the rather phlegmatic governments of South American countries. So the proposed vote for the department is indeed reasonable.

In adding to the confusion generally on the matter of diplomatic representation as against commercial representation, not one speaker opposite whom I have heard to-day - and I have been here most of th*> time - correctly stated the amount provided in the Estimates for expenditure on the establishment of a consulate in Indonesia. The correct figure is £5,000. It appears in division 32 on page 23. The figure cited was that of £22,100 for the Australian legation in the Netherlands. That shows clearly that honorable gentlemen opposite are incapable of drawing a “ distinction between diplomatic representation and commercial representation and are incapable of reading with understanding the figures placed before them.

In his first speech, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a proposal that can only be described, from Australia’s viewpoint, as absolutely monstrous. He suggested that we should abandon our endeavours to establish our own representation in European countries and tie ourselves, lock, stock and barrel through the medium of liaison officers or some other such officials, to the British consulates in those countries. It has been made abundantly clear that Australia is a nation which, in its own interests and in the interests of many hundreds of its citizens who are located in other countries, should have a purely Australian service. Furthermore, to suggest that we tie ourselves to the British consulates would not earn us ‘the thanks of the British authorities. Those authorities have their hands full already with many problems which are quite distinct from those which Australia has to solve in other countries.

The proposal, of course, would involve reversion to the old system that was in force when the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister and under which Australia submerged its identity and accepted whatever was handed out from Whitehall. The whole of the first speech made by the Leader of the Opposition was devoted to what, in his opinion, ought to have been done in 1940. Acceptance of that speech would involve ignoring the great change that has since occurred throughout the world. We have successfully concluded a war since then, and the nations have once again established a virile international assembly. Indeed, if I wished to draw attention to any other factor in connexion with that change, I need merely say that the posi- tion of Great Britain itself in relation to the rest of the world has changed vastly. It would be an extremely bad move if the Minister for External Affairs were to accept the blueprint which the Leader of the Opposition claims to have drafted as long ago as 1940. At that time, although the Leader of the Opposition was not the Minister for External Affairs, he had two “ stooges “ who successively occupied the office. One was Sir Frederick S : .. a rt. the former representative of the electorate of Parramatta, and the other was the persent honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen). What these men knew about external ‘affairs could have been inscribed on the head of a pin. That fact makes apparent to me, as an impartial observer in these matters, that the whole field of external affairs was dominated by the then Leader of the Government who now, as Leader of the Opposition, charges the Minister for External Affairs with the same offence. The Estimates for the Department of External Affairs are conservative and proper, and I urge the committee to approve of them without delay.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- Like other honorable members, I very much enjoyed hearing the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) favour the committee with a speech this evening. It is not very often that he does so, and honorable members on this side of the chamber appreciate his addresses more than do his colleagues, because we know from experience that he seldom rises unless the Government lacks an answer to charges that have been laid against it by us. The scarcity of speakers on the government side of the chamber in this debate has been remarkable. One would have thought that, with all the fartravelled members on the government side of the chamber, there would have been no lack of speakers willing to rise in defence of the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) and the policy which he has continually advocated. After all, those honorable gentlemen have had the advantage of travelling abroad and seeing conditions in other countries. The fact that they have remained silent is not without a certain amount of significance. They have visited other countries; I think that the experience has changed their ideas. If not, why do they not speak? An extraordinary feature of the debate is that only one of the Government supporters who have returned from abroad recently has taken part in it. I refer to the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein), who, of course, went not ou government business, but on some mysterious private affair of his own. Whilst the others who have been abroad have refused to speak, so also have most of those who remained in Australia. Indeed, those who have so far failed to “ draw the marble “ have maintained a noticeably moody silence. It seems that their attitude could be summed up in these words, “ Well, we did not get a trip abroad. Let those who went overseas defend the Minister, if they can “. Not until this evening, which is an excellent broadcasting time as honorable members know, did any member of the Government, apart from one solitary Minister, take the trouble to join in the debate.

The thing that I want to accent is the responsibility of the Government for imposing some form of policy on those who go abroad and speak in its name. Recently many people have gone overseas in official capacities, and their public utterances outside Australia have done nothing but very considerable harm to this country. I refer first of all to the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward), who went to Geneva.

Mr White:

– Where is he now?

Mr GULLETT:

– I do not know. He went first to England, and his observations there are worth repeating. He said that conditions in Great Britain were disgraceful. Looking about him, he said that the hard conditions which the British people had been forced to accept, had weighed heavily only on those in the lower income groups, whereas those in privileged positions had merely taken advantage of severe post-war conditions in order to improve their own situation and live in greater luxury and ease than ever before. That is a very nice contribution for an Australian to make in Great Britain in the midst of that nation’s present troubles! We know that whereever the Minister goes in Australia he loses no opportunity to express this poisonous class doctrine, and we are accus tomed to his outbursts. But it a different matter for an official representative of the Government to go to Great Britain at this time and make such extremely unpleasant and untrue statements.

I turn now to some of things that the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) said during his recent tour abroad. This honorable gentleman -has returned to Australia bringing no promise, of a greatly increased flow of migrants,, despite the purpose of his journey. Howeve]1, few of us expected that he would; succeed. We ought to demand of representatives who go abroad with government sanction that they bc responsible for their statements while overseas. I refer honorable members to remarks which the Minister made while in Great Britain as they were reported in the Melbourne Herald. The item appeared under these headings : “ Calwell Tells the British. Not Using Their Land Well. Flays Australian Press Too.” The report then stated -

In an astonishing conference for the British and Australian press in London to-day, Mr. Arthur Calwell. Minister for Immigration -

Attacked the Australian people Tor their attitude to immigration.

Blamed the British Ministry of Transport for failing to provide ships.

Accused Britain of failing to make proper use of her land to grow food.

Attacked the Australian press in general and the Sydney press in particular on grounds of distortion and “ stunting “.

– Certainly. The Prime Minister should take an early opportunity to obtain the report, which should either clear Senator Amour or substantiate the allegations against him.

A good deal has been said about our representation in Brazil, Chile, and other countries. It appears to me that the only matter of interest to honorable members, when the Estimates are being discussed, is whether these legations bring any benefits to Australia. Several honorable members opposite have spoken in support of the legations, but none of them has been able to point to one penny by which this country is better off as the result of having legations in Brazil and Chile. The honorable member for Watson said that the legation in Brazil was not a large establishment, as the staff consisted of the Minister and his secretary. If that be so, I must direct the attention of honorable members to some items in the Estimates, because I notice that the estimated cost of postage, telegrams and cablegrams for 1946-47 was £5.000. That is not “bad going” for two men. The amount is nearly as much as the Post master-General’s account for the Department of the Interior. This characterizes the whole of the expenditure of public money in the Department of External Affairs. Wherever it takes the fancy of the Minister to establish a legation, he proceeds to do so regardless of the expense.

I shall now refer briefly to Indonesia. I am not interested primarily in the rights or wrongs of the Dutch, or the Indonesians - the participants in .the present quarrel - but it is worth reminding honorable members that many speakers have talked about the “ poor Indonesians “ - this nation, they described it, although it is a collection of vastly different peoples - and we are asked to picture them as battling for freedom against the oppressive Dutch. What is the truth ? There are 40,000,000 native inhabitants of the Netherlands East Indies, and a maximum of 100,000 Dutch people and only 20,000 troops. If there was a shadow of popular support for the Indonesian movement and if one-tenth of the people supported it, they would sweep the Dutch out of the land into the sea in five minutes. The truth . of the matter is that a handful of agitators and. Communists are heading this revolt against the Dutch in Indonesia, so called at the present time. Whether our sympathies lie with the Indonesians or the Dutch, no one can pretend that our interests lie with the Indonesians. The Dutch are the only European power besides ourselves in this part of the world, and if the Dutch leave the Netherlands East Indies their place will be taken by those whom we term the Indonesians - a people who cannot possibly be favorable to Australia and its White Australia policy.

The same point was raised in regard to Argentina. A previous speaker said that Argentina has a form of government which is not acceptable to us who believe in democracy. That really is not the purpose of foreign relations. It behoves the’ Minister for External Affairs and the Government to carry on the relations which are most advantageous to this country, and never mind the spread of tho.3e doctrines and the encouragement of those governments which happen to believe in the same things as this Government does.

Mr SHEEHY:
Boothby

.- The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) complained that comparatively few honorable members on this side of the chamber had taken part in this discussion of the estimates for the Departmen of External Affairs, and he expected those honorable members who have been overseas to present to the Parliament reports about their missions. Earlier today, an honorable member opposite remarked that members of the Labour party had apparently become dumb. I have been a member of this Parliament for four years, and never in that period have I known a debate to descend to such n low level as the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) and the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) dragged it to-day.

Mr Abbott:

– They are two good men.

Mr SHEEHY:

– That is the opinion of the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott), but never in my four years’ experience of this Parliament have [ known the chamber to be turned into the circus which those honorable members created here to-day. The Estimates show the finance -which has to be provided for a service without which the country cannot function. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) stated that the Minister” for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) is not immune from criticism because he happens to be absent from the country. I do not think that any supporter of the Government takes exception to criticism of the Minister, but it is my conviction that members of the Opposition made an organized .attempt this afternoon to attack the Minister and to vent their spleen upon him, quite regardless of the magnificent job which he has done for this country. The Department of External Affairs is doing a fine job in training ‘its young officers to fit them to fill important posts overseas, and, furthermore, I believe that this is the first time that Australia has had a coherent foreign policy. The Leader of the Opposition claimed - and rightly so - that he was instrumental in bringing this department into being ; in other words, he claims that this is his baby and that no one else has the right to nurse it. I reiterate that the criticism uttered of the Minister was animated by personal jealousy on the part of members of the Opposition who do not possess the stature in world affairs of the right honorable gentleman.

Like the honorable member for Henty, I do not desire to discuss the merits of the Indonesian question, hut I intend to comment on the fact that the Government has again been criticized for the part it played in bringing hostilities in Indonesia to an end. Instead of condemning the Government for its action, the Opposition should commend it for its successful efforts to prevent the Indonesian situation becoming another blood-bath. My mind goes back to 1914 to the comparatively small incident which precipitated the world into the greatest war it has ever known. I do not think that any one could seriously deny that in attempting to bring hostilities in Indonesia to an end the Government did a great job for humanity.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– The House has witnessed .a somewhat unusual spectacle during this debate. As honorable members know, it is customary for a Minister to be in his place in the House to answer any criticism levelled at his administration when the activities of the department which he administers are being examined. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) is the Acting Minister for External Affairs, but although the debate has proceeded all day, the right honorable gentleman has, with one exception, been conspicuous by his absence. The single occasion was when the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) entered the House after the dinner adjournment and made an attack on members of the Opposition. That circumstance is interesting, because the honorable member for Dalley made certain charges against members of the Opposition regarding the concerted attack which he alleged had been made against the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt). The honorable gentleman fairly lauded the Minister, and spoke of him as one who has left his mark on international affairs. But I remember very well a time before the honorable member attained the august position which he now occupies, when he sat on the corner benches and was a most bitter critic of the Minister whom he now seeks to laud, I remember him criticizing almost every action of the Minister for External Affairs. He criticized him in the corridors, in the party room, and wherever and whenever he could. I wonder what pressure was brought to bear on him to induce him to enter the debate this evening in order to “ eat the leek “ and apologize for the attacks which he has made in the past! One wonders, because it is very seldom that the honorable member goes back on an opinion which he once held. And so he becomes yet another “ yes man “ of the Minister for External Affairs; he has “eaten the leek “, he has made his apology for the attacks he formerly made upon the Minister, and, I daresay, he is now back in the good graces of that gentleman, who is also Deputy Prime Minister and deputy leader of his political party. He has paid the price - there is always a price to be paid for rewards; and, undoubtedly, the reward will follow.

It is a notorious fact that the Minister for External Affairs will brook no interference in the foreign policy of this country. The Minister does not require men of individual thought and capacity for action, as the appointments which he has made indicate. I say nothing with regard to the capacity of the present Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, who is a man of considerable ability. However, the fact remains that he was private secretary to the Minister, that he did learn to jump when he was told to, and that he has now become Secretary of the department. Mr. Hasluck, who is a man of individual thought and of great capacity, resigned from the department because he would not become a “yes man” to the Minister. Then we find Mr.’ Macmahon Ball, another man of outstanding capacity, and one capable of representing Empire opinion in Japan, tendering his resignation because he would not become a “ yes man “ to the Minister. Every appointment which the Minister has made shows that he will not countenance any one who is not prepared to agree completely with him. That is also the reason why no supporter of the Government has been game to say anything with regard to external affairs. They know that the Minister will not permit it; he- is- the personification of the external affairs policy of this Government.

Recently a committee was appointed to advise the Government on the terms to be included in the Japanese peace treaty. The history of the appointment of that committee is interesting, because the Minister, after making a promise to the House that such a committee would be appointed, adopted an attitude that he, and he alone, would choose the personnel of that committee. Against the committee itself I offer no criticism, beyond saying that, at the opening meeting, I asked whether it was empowered to make recommendations or suggestions which, would be acted upon, as would those of any other committee of equal standing, and I was told by the chairman that it had no power to make recommendations, that it might merely make suggestions which ultimately would come bef ore the Minister or Cabinet. In every instance, this Minister has adopted tactics which prove conclusively that he will brook no interference.

Let mc refer again to the observations of the honorable member for Dalley, who bitterly attacked the Minister before he was elevated to the august position of Mr. Speaker, and who to-night “ ate the leek “ and apologized for all the nasty things he had said about the Minister on other occasions. In his observations to-night, he again revealed that extreme anti-British bias which characterizes honorable members opposite. He said that we who sit on this side of the chamber, when in office, had been merely marionettes of Whitehall, that the <t: twiddling fingers “ of Whitehall had dictated the foreign policy of this country before the advent of this great champion of the smaller nations. But for those “ twiddling fingers’ “’ of Whitehall and the policy emanating from that quarter, we, with our .White Australia policy, would have had no protection, and would not for long, have remained a nation. It ill becomes the honorable member for Dalley to criticize British imperial policy in relation to foreign affairs, because under that policy Australia has been protected for many years. The tendency of the Minister for External Affairs to badger and “ pull by the ears “, those who have protected us, is calculated to do Australia a greater disservice than would be done by any action of Whitehall.

The honorable member for Dalley criticized the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) as one who was in favour of Argentina, and implied that the reason for that lay in the fascist policy that was being pursued by that country.

Mr Rosevear:

– I did nothing of the kind.

Mr HARRISON:

– The honorable member referred to Argentina as a nation of collaborationists. He knows full well that no less a person than the Minister for External Affairs sponsored Argentina’s entry into the United Nations.

Mr POLLARD:

-That is not true.

Mr HARRISON:

– It is true. He voted for the admission of Argentina. Did. he depart from form in that connexion? Of course not; because, as the Leader of our party has pointed out, he agreed to send a trade delegation to Japan. There is no need for me to enlarge on that point, because it has been expounded sufficiently by my Leader ; but f do ask: If the Argentinians can be described as collaborationists, what is to bc said of the Indonesians? They were arch-collaborationists in the .Pacific, against Australia and the other democratic countries of the world. Yet what attitude has been adopted by the Minister towards them? He has submitted to intervention on their behalf. It was members of this nation who murdered Australian men. Photographs produced by the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) show Dr. .Soekarno shaking hands with the high war chief of Japan, and congratulating him on the work he was doing against the Allies. Yet the Minister for External Affairs had no hesitation in allowing Australia’s foreign policy in relation to Indonesia to be taken out of his hands by a bunch of Communists. He was afraid to prevent them from directing the policy of this country in regard to Indonesia.

The honorable member for Dalley also referred to Senator Amour. I say nothing about Senator Amour, other than to associate him with the article which appeared in the Clare Champion. The honorable member for Dalley claimed that the honorable senator was speaking on behalf of the Government, and’ said that it was refreshing to find one who was prepared to stand up for Australia and say that it is still the best country in the world. I remind honorable members of the observation of the honorable member for Dalley in regard to the “ twiddling fingers “ of Whitehall, which was a slur upon Empire policy. I also point out to the honorable member that Senator Amour, in his remarks, defamed flip British Empire and the people of Britain. I am entitled to ask whether that is the policy of the Government. The honorable member for Dalley occupies a high place in the councils of his party. He is no less a person than the Speaker of the House. Therefore, when he says that “Senator Amour spoke on behalf of the Government, he must accept responsibility for the statements which Senator Amour made, and unless the Government’s policy be that of defaming the British Empire, of speaking slightingly of the British, and of doing everything possible to destroy any feelings of friendship towards Britain which might exist in this country, then his championship of Senator Amour was in very ill taste. When I find that an honorable gentleman who, before his elevation to the august position of Speaker of the House, was the bitterest critic of the Minister for External Affairs, humbly “ eats the leek “ in the presence of a full gathering of the members of his party, I want to know the nature of the pressure that was brought to bear on him. We found the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) entering the chamber for the express purpose of hearing the apologies of the honorable member for Dalley for all. the nasty things he had said about the Minister.

I believe that what I have said proves conclusively that the honorable member for Dalley descends from his lofty position only when the Government has no case, and when the Prime Minister is not prepared to defend his own estimates. The honorable member is called into the breach to try to divert attention, or to set up a straw man so that he might knock it over. His heart was not in the job to-night. He failed to make the impression which I have no doubt he was asked to make, and I venture to believe’ that he will try to recover the ground he has lost by making a second speech this evening. I hope that he does a better job than he did in the first instance. I look forward to hearing a further apology from him almost immediately.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman-

Mr Holt:

– I rise to order. Are you in order in calling on the honorable member for Dalley for .a second speech on these Estimates when other honorable members on the same side of the chamber who have not yet spoken also rose?

page 402

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

(Mr. Hadley). - I was expecting the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. McEwen) to rise, but, unfortunately, he was not within sight of the Chair.

page 402

QUESTION

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

– Order ! I inform honorable members that the call rests entirely with the Chair, and that I have given the call to the honorable member for Dalley.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member for Balaclava will resume his seat. He must not reflect on the Chair. The honorable member for Dalley is not lecturing the Chair.

Mr Holt:

– Would the honorable member support the holding of a Government inquiry into the matter?

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– If the honorable member for Fawkner, who is a legal man, is prepared to repeat outside the chamber what has been said here, let him do it. That is the real test when a man’s reputation is at stake. I pass on to one other charge, namely, that made by the honorable member for Henty regarding a statement alleged to have been made by the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) in London. That article was broadcast through the press of the world. It was repudiated by the Minister. That fact, of course, does not mean much, because very often when a statement is reported in the press, whether it is a distortion or not, if it is an uncomfortable statement it is usually repudiated; but the outstanding fact in this case is that the newspaper which originally published the article publicly apologized for publishing it. That fact strengthened the Minister’s repudiation of it. These facts could not have been unknown to the honorable member for Henty, and I put it to him as a gallant gentleman that, after all, if he is going to tear to pieces the reputation of any person, he should inform himself of the facts before he attempts to do so. Prom my knowledge of the honorable member, I am sure that when he becomes aware of the repudiation of the article by both the Minister and the newspaper concerned, he will readily apologize for what he has said.

The statements of honorable members opposite with respect to my attitude in the past are all astray. On two occasions, f was a member of what they would call a “ corner party “ in this chamber, arid on neither of those occasions could T have done what they alleged I did.

Mr Harrison:

– But the honorable member criticized the honorable member for Barton.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– If what the honorable member says is correct he, with all his facilities for research, would not have the slightest hesitation in quoting me from Hansard to support his statement; but the fact is that he cannot substantiate his allegations. I adhere to my original contention, namely, that the whole of these Estimates are being used by honorable members opposite for the purpose of defaming a man whose critics, politically, are not fit to clean his boots.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- Usually, to the honorable member who happens to follow the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) falls the responsibility of replying to effective points made in debate. It falls to my lot to follow him this evening, but he made no point in his self-defensive speech which would warrant further reference. I have never heard him at a greater disadvantage than I heard him to-night. His speech was nothing but muddled sniping and sharpshooting at the Opposition in a debate which should be directed to issues arising in respect of External Affairs. Whatever may be remembered of the honorable member’s record in this chamber, nothing will be remembered of his contribution to this debate. That observation applies also to the speeches made by other members opposite. The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. .Sheehy) and the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein merely attempted to attack the Opposition for its very effective criticism of this country’s external foreign policy and the gentleman out of whose mouth that policy fall?. The first speech made by the honorable member for Dalley in this debate was a plain, unvarnished “hands off Evatt “ speech. Apparently, honorable members opposite believe that in the House of Commons it is quite proper for Mr. Churchill to attack the British Government’s foreign policy, or for the Labour party, when it was in opposition in that Parliament, to denounce British foreign policy when it was under the ministerial direction of Mr. Anthony Eden; but in this Parliament honorable members opposite say, “No. We have some one who has a halo around his head, who has been canonized - at least by himself - and he must not be criticized “. I do not accept that view at all. If there is one subject which this National Parliament is justified in debating more than any other it is foreign affairs. And, when we have no real foreign policy but only a Minister who makes speeches about foreign policy, it is inevitable that there must be associated with the Opposition’s criticism of foreign policy reference from day to day to the man who manufactures it. Some things are processed from day to day, such as, sausages and bread; and it seems to me that foreign policy, as far as Australia is concerned, is now a perishable product, manufactured from day to day.

Mr Falstein:

– Tell us about your war policy when you were Minister for External Affairs.

Mr McEWEN:

Mr McEWEN:

– I suggest that the honorable member should make a further study of the work of the San Francisco conference. I repeat that this country is in much more need of a guarantee of safety than of personal publicity for one of its sons, no matter how brilliant he may be. Much of the important work in the realm of international affairs could be performed without any public posturing at all.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence, Minister for Past-war Reconstruction and Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · Corio · ALP

– Something has been said by honorable members opposite about Ministers and members on this side not having played much part in this debate, but the committee will recollect that only the other week we debated a ministerial statement on international affairs, and that many of the matters raised on the Estimates were then considered. I think it can be said the Opposition did not get any change in that debate. I set out in my contribution to it to show that there was no foundation whatever for saying that the Department of External Affairs was run by one Minister. I said then that the policy decided by the Department of External Affairs and enunciated by the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) was the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. I repeat that. Charges have been made in this debate that the proposed vote for the Department of External Affairs has been unduly inflated because the Minister for External Affairs has appointed ministers and representatives to a far greater number of countries than Australia can afford to have representation in. Every decision to appoint a representative in any country has been made by the

Cabinet. It has also made the decision as to who should represent Australia in those countries. So it cannot be said that this is merely ‘the responsibility of the Minister for External Affairs. These decisions are taken by the Cabinet. Criticism has been advanced that we ought not to have appointed ministers in Brazil and Chile. I think some honorable members opposite said that we should not appoint any one at all to South America, and that others said that rather than have appointed them in Brazil we ought to have appointed them in Argentina. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has effectively dealt with that point. If honorable members look at the countries to which Australia has appointed representatives, they will find that the representation has been spread effectively from the geographical point of view. It would surely be utter nonsense to appoint all our representatives to Europe or North America and none to South Amenca or Asia. Our diplomatic representation has been spread all over the world. That is as it should be.

Surely one cannot ignore that there is in the- aggregate a very large population in South America, and that there are several countries there that in the councils of the world play a considerable part. I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that if we decide to take part in international affairs we should leave out of consideration the opinions and political motives of large numbers of people in an area as large as South America. So, looking at the countries in which we have representatives, I say that the Minister for External Affairs has made excellent recommendations to Cabinet, all of which have been adopted by it. I desire to add something to what has been said by the honorable member for Dalley on the matter of a choice between representation in a country like Argentina and a country like Brazil. The honorable member pointed out that the population of Brazil was more than 43.000,000 and of Argentina was less than 14,000,000. He also pointed out, as I would have had he not, that, all other things being equal, we should seek representation in countries with economies complementary to ours rather than competitive. There are considerable prospects of trade between Brazil and

Australia. I have taken part in certain trade negotiations at Geneva.

Mr McBride:

– You did not do much.

Mr DEDMAN:

– The honorable member has not heard yet what has been done at Geneva, and when he has heard it will be time enough for him to criticize. He purports to be interested in the wool industry of Australia. Brazil is .an importer of Australian wool. Evidently that is of no interest to him. As with wool so it is with a number of other commodities. I tell the honorable member for Wakefield that I anticipate that Brazil will be one of the countries that will enter a multi-lateral agreement as a result of the Geneva trade negotiations. So trade with Brazil ought certainly to be much more important to Australia than trade with Argentina.

Mr McBride:

– Tell us something about Chile.

Mr DEDMAN:

– I am dealing with Brazil. The honorable member can have his say when he likes. I now propose to answer certain remarks made by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett). I regret he is not present. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) answered him effectively. Certain statements appeared in the press of Australia as allegedly having been made by the Minister for Transport and Minister for External Territories (Mr. Ward) in London. I was in close touch with, him all the time he was in Great Britain and at Geneva, and he made available to me the exact text of any statement he made while I was there. I duly reciprocated.. I was surprised when I received reports from Australia that he was alleged to have said certain things. I know that he sent to Australia the exact text of a statement he made and that he is in possession of, and probably may produce in this chamber, an apology from the newspaper that printed the statement. So the honorable member for Henty was talking about something of which he knew little. Because of his inexperience he ought to think twice before making charges such as those he made. I turn now to certain remarks made by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen). He has endeavoured to belittle the work done by the

Minister for External Affairs. He said: “ When I was Minister for External Affairs this is one of the things I did. I would not have mentioned this, only it is part of my argument “. He said he was responsible for assisting in having the Governor of New Caledonia changed from a pro- Vichy one to one who would collaborate with the Allies. If that is all the honorable member can claim to his credit, he has very little to be proud of. L was a member of the War Cabinet from the time that Japan declared war, immediately after which we met grave difficulties in New Caledonia, and the governor, in whose appointment the honorable member for Indi takes pride, had to be changed before the Americans could get any co-operation there. So much for the boast of the honorable member for Indi, about what he did in New Caledonia. That is all I wish to contribute to this debate. I said most of what I wished to say on the debate on the ministerial statement on International Affairs. I merely repeat that my colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, has done a wonderful job. For the first time in our history it is evident to the rest of the world that Australia has a foreign policy. That was never so before. I completely repudiate the idea put forward by the honorable member for Indi that Australia should do nothing other than echo the voice of the United Kingdom on every matter that comes up for consideration at international conferences. I believe that 95 per cent, of the people of Australia would support me in doing so.

Mr McEwen:

– That is a characteristic distortion of my statement.

Mr DEDMAN:

– It is not a distortion at all. It is exactly what the honorable member said. He said that it would be disastrous if Australia did anything other than back up the United Kingdom on every matter which came up for consideration at international conferences. This Australia of ours, having achieved the full status of nationhood during World War I., has a complete right to put its own point of view in the councils of the nations. What does the honorable member for Indi suggest that we should do if we found ourselves in disagreement with the point of view of the United

Kingdom on any matter? Does he suggest that our representatives should sit dumb and do nothing? Australia is entitled to express its point of view. The very fact that the Minister for External Affairs has always done so on behalf of the Australian Government, whether he has been in disagreement with some other country or not, is one reason why the right honorable gentleman has made such a success of external affairs policy for Australia.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- It. is not my intention to traverse the whole field of international affairs, because we had a debate on that subject last week, :*nd I spoke fully then. However, statements which have emanated from the Government side of the chamber to-night impel me to raise my voice in protest. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), who recently had charge of Australia’s economic destiny at an international conference at Geneva, seems to entertain some viewpoints that are alarming to me. He indicated to-night that population should be the criterion for diplomatic representation . and said that because Brazil has more people than Argentina, diplomatic representation of Australia in that country is more important than such representation in the latter country. According to the same reasoning, we should say that China and India are more important from a diplomatic point of view than either of those two countries, or even Great Britain. To what was Australia committed by the Minister at Geneva? The honorable gentleman, spoke of a multilateral agreement with Brazil. There are great dangers in multilateral agreements. Australia made many agreements with other countries during the period in which I was Minister for Trade and Customs, and, in the light of my own knowledge and experience I say that, unless we adhere to preferential trade within the Empire and make that a permanent policy, we shall lose the substance for the shadow. If we have peregrinating ministers visiting Brazil, where the nuts come from, or Argentina, Uruguay, or Paraguay, in the hope that they will be able to force trade between Australia and those countries, and if we overlook Great Britain, with a population of only 44,000,000 people. but nevertheless with the greatest influence in the- world, we shall find ourselves in grave economic difficulties. Great Britain has kept Australia prosperous over the years by taking over 50 per cent, of this country’s exports - even as much as 90 per cent, in some instances. If we neglect the Mother Country now we shall find, when we emerge from the present period of bounding prices - and I remind honorable members that the sellers’ market is now becoming a buyers’ market - that our market there is lost to us because that country has perforce gone elsewhere.

I refer now to statements that were made by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), who is not very happy when talking from the floor of this chamber about trade. For all the honorable gentleman’s shortcomings in his capacity as Speaker, I prefer to see him in that position. He spoke of Argentina as a place to which Australia could not sell anything. Apparently his historical knowledge of commerce is very limited. I remind him that Australia was a large exporter of agricultural implements to Argentina. That trade has disappeared. Admittedly, we do not approve of the kind of government now in office in Argentina. It is not the democratic sort of government to which English-speaking communities are accustomed. Nevertheless, I have this to say on behalf of the Government of Argentina - that when the Commonwealth Government failed to make a gift of food to the United Kingdom last Christmas, the alien government of Argentina did so. Twelve months ago I suggested such a gesture to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley). The right honorable gentleman said that he would consider the suggestion, but when I reminded ‘ him that I had in mind Christmas, 1946, not Christmas, 1947, he mumbled something to the effect that the Government did not approve of my suggestion, although British newspapers had led their readers to believe that a gift of food would be made by Australia. It was then that Argentina made a substantial gift of meat to the United Kingdom. This gift was sufficient to provide the British people with extra food for their dinner tables at Christmas time. I have repeated my suggestion to the Prime Minister this year. However, the right honorable gentleman has informed me that I have made the proposal in ignorance of what the Government intends to do. What does the Government intend to do? The Prime Minister has been consorting with Lord Addison, and apparently some great scheme is afoot. I remind the right honorable gentleman now that the British people would appreciate food more than a gift of £25,000,0OO, which merely amounts to freezing some of our funds already overseas.

I hope that the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, having spoken about trade as he has done to-night, will study the history of Empire preferential trade since 1908. If he does so and acquires the correct perspective, which he now lacks, he will realize that a group or regional agreement between the nations of the British Empire is no more anomalous than the fact that the republics within the Soviet Union trade with one another, as also do the States of the United States of America. We must not allow Empire trade preferences to be broken down. Great harm can be done at international trade conferences if Australia’s delegates are not fully informed of the facts.

There has been a great deal of merging of the diplomatic with the economic in to-night’s debate. The Government should be indicted for the way in which it has appointed representatives to other countries. I refer not to diplomatic appointments in Brazil, Chile and other countries, but to trade appointments in various parts of the world. I have particularly in mind major appointments, such as that of a representative in Ceylon. 1 have tried to find out the exact nature of the Australian representative’s joh in that country, to which the former representative of the electorate of Franklin in this Parliament, Mr. C. W. Frost, has been appointed. Apparently the post carries with it some diplomatic responsibilities in addition to trade responsibilities, and Mr. Frost, therefore, holds a semi-ministerial post of a nebulous character. After his defeat at the last elections by the gallant member who now graces this chamber, he went to Ceylon without having any knowledge at all of the task which he was required to undertake. He is in communication with the democratic government of Ceylon and, in that capacity, he has many perplexing problems to handle. I say that he is not qualified to solve them. I hold the same view regarding Mr. J. P. Breen, the former representative of the electorate of Calare, who also was defeated at the last- elections by a young and gallant gentleman who now sits on this side of the chamber. Upon his defeat, Mr. Breen was appointed immediately, without training, as a senior official of the Australian Government in the Middle East. Both of the appointments which I have criticized were made in spite of the superior claims of ex-servicemen, although the Government went through the motions of observing the law in relation to preference. Neither Mr. Frost nor Mr. Breen is an ex-serviceman and, in fact, Mr. Breen was not even an applicant for the position to which he was elevated.

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– That is not true. He was an applicant.

Mr WHITE:

– It is quite true. The Government sent both of these men to jobs which could have been filled more satisfactorily by eminent men with excellent service records. I shall say no more on the trade issue. However, I have a suggestion to make to any Minister who will take the trouble to listen to me. If necessary, I shall wait until the Ministers now on the front bench are ready to listen.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The Standing Orders do not compel a Minister to give attention to an honorable member’s remarks.

Mr WHITE:

– I should know from experience that Ministers do not listen to what honorable members say. However, I praise the Government for the schooling which it is giving to the young men who have been appointed to Australia’s diplomatic service. Experience and training are just as. necessary for that service as they are for members of the armed forces. The training should be long and arduous.

We have some promising material, but I make a suggestion for the improvement of the men after they have graduated. Provision should be made for the attachment of these men to the diplomatic services of the British Empire. The British Foreign and Colonial Office employs many prominent Australians. For example, Mr. Leeper is His Majesty’s Ambassador in Greece. Mr. Yencken was the adviser to the British Government regarding Spain. Unhappily, he was killed shortly after the conclusion of World War II. in an aircraft accident. Mr. Garran, son of Sir Robert Garran, a former CommonwealthSolicitorGeneral, did an able and distinguished job in Yugoslavia and Portugal. Mr. Jordan, a member of the first Australian Imperial Force, was a prisoner of war in Turkey and is now charge d’affaires at Ankara. Mr. Greenwood is the British Government’s adviser in Persia. Those ‘are eminent Australians who are employed by the United Kingdom. Others are employed in the Trade Commissioners Service. Some are interchangeable, and are transferred on occasions to consular positions.

Honorable members opposite will realize, if they rise above party political considerations, that my suggestion is most laudable. I know that young Englishmen employed in the diplomatic service would like to transfer to posts in Australia - in other words, to “ swop “ with Australians - as the armed forces exchange personnel. I have spoken to our patrol officers in New Guinea. They have learned the hard way, and are most valuable officers and excellent public servants. But what do they know of conditions in West Africa and Kenya ? If provision were made for an exchange of our officers with their “ opposite numbers “ in other parts of the British Empire, we should become better informed. The officers concerned would become better advisers to the Government, and Australia would derive advantages from the interchange. Even more important, my suggestion, if adopted, would promote closer Empire unity. The population of the United Kingdom is approximately 44,000,000 persons, and the British Empire has about 70,000,000 white inhabitants. The corporate voice of Great Britain and its dominions must be heard in the world, in the interests of trade and economics generally, and our own security. If necessary, scholarships should be provided to enable young Australians to study abroad. At present, Rhodes scholars from Australia, the other dominions and the United States of America go on to Oxford, and many have distinguished themselves in later life. In the same way, Colonial Office scholarships should be provided, and opportunities should be created to enable Australian public servants to transfer to positions in Great Britain and the other dominions. From such an exchange, Australia would greatly benefit. Our public service must be efficient - we do not criticize it - and should be of the smallest possible dimensions. However, public servants must travel and be well informed. They cannot be well informed if they have no experience of working in other countries. Some exchange and circulation of public servants throughout the British Empire is essential, and I hope that the Government will sympathetically consider the proposal.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The chamber to-day has heard speeches from the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen), the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott), and other members of the Opposition, which were very critical of the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) in an extremely personal manner. The Estimates for the Department of External Affairs have been used as a vehicle for a personal attack on the right honorable gentleman. I make no complaint of that, except to say that I have not yet heard any specific instances in which his foreign policy was deemed to have erred. Criticism has not been voiced of the general line which Australia adopted at the United Nations on the series of questions which have come before that organization, and especially at the time when the Commonwealth was represented on the Security Council. It would be absurd to pretend, ii nd I have no intention of pretending that the foreign policy of the Minister for External Affairs has been an endless summer of success, but I should like to hear of any specific instances of serious failure.

The honorable member for Indi spoke st length about the Minister’s ego, and then claimed credit for the incidents in New Caledonia in 1940, when an administration sympathetic to the Vichy Government in France was expelled. He conveyed the impression that, by his own manipulations, colonial rebellion had been created. Every one knows that the history of the French colonial empire at that time was full of similar incidents; that a rebellion existed in the territory at the time of the French capitulation; and that quite independently of any activities of the honorable member for Indi when he was Minister for External Affairs, although I do not desire to take any credit from his achievements, the economic interests of New Caledonia had been so identified with Australia that there was no difficult problem in Australia’s relations with it.

However, I do not desire to speak ai great length on that particular matter. I propose to direct’ my remarks to a subject which has been the crux of the Opposition’s criticism of the Minister for External Affairs for a. period. I refer to the situation which has developed in Java as the result of World War II. It is high time that the assertions of Dutch virtue on the one hand and of Communist claims of Indonesian virtue on the other, were replaced by something approaching a scientific analysis of the situation in Indonesia. At the cessation of hostilities, the South-East Asia Command entrusted the British with the occupation of Indonesia, and British forces under General Christison entered Java. The situation which they found was that a government claiming to be the Government of the Republic of Indonesia was in being, and General Christison issued orders to the British troops that they were to take no action against a display of nationalist flags by Indonesians, that they were to take no armed action against those whom the Dutch characterized as rebels, that in the dispute between the Dutch and the Indonesians the British forces were to be entirely neutral, and that the Indonesian Government, which was the de facto government of some areas of Java, was to be held responsible for the safety of British, Dutch and other internees there. That, of course, was flattering the Indonesian Government because it is an obvious fact that it was incapable of being responsible for the safety of any one. However, that was the policy of the British Command. Let us clear our minds of some of the cant that is talked about the Indonesian nationalist movement. First, I shall approach the subject from the conservative point of view. There is the suggestion that the Indonesian nationalist movement either was a product of Communist action or came into being only as the result of the Japanese occupation. As far back as 1.910, a powerful Indonesian nationalist movement, which was known as Bo edi Otomo, or “ Glorious Endeavour “, was in being. It had a membership of 10,000 Western-educated Indonesians who had derived their ideology from Western education, just as many of the Indian leaders derived what one might term a “ democratic, ideology “, professed if not practised, and a nationalist sentiment from their contact with the West. By 1927 that Indonesian nationalist movement was capable of staging a major rebellion against the Dutch, go that the chief fact about the Indonesian nationalism is that it antedates the Japanese occupation, and it certainly was not created by Communist action. Every observer that Australia has had in those areas, including naval officers, have commented on the significance of Communists in the Indonesian nationalist movement as being merely chat of merchant seamen who moved from island to island and provided a means of communication between the various nationalist groups. That is the situation h,s far as the history of the Indonesian movement is concerned. Dr. Soekarno and Dr. Sjahrir gave certain guarantees to General Christison at a time of trouble that they would ensure the safety of those who had been formerly interned by the Japanese. But as their movement is not really a coherent one, and since it could more properly be described as an anarchic movement, their guarantees were worthless. In point of fact, when Brigadier Mallaby was going to meet their representatives, in order to devise a scheme to safeguard the internees, he was murdered. The Indonesian leaders disclaimed responsibility for that action, and I have no doubt that they were not responsible, but the incident indicates, at least, that they were incapable of control.

I think that a great deal of the cant that is talked about the existence of a united, coherent movement for nationalist independence should be debunked. There are many elements in the Indonesian nationalist rising, and their only common characteristic is their opposition to Europeans, and, of course, to the Dutch. There are feudal sultans, there is Sarikat lslam, an essentially Indonesian movement, and eastern Javanese movements which take no notice of either Soekarno or Sjahrir.

What are the objective facts of Dutch Indonesia? The first fact is that Holland cannot exist without the products of its Indonesian empire, and the basie reason for Holland being in Indonesia is simply expressed in those words. A European population of 8,000,000 could not be maintained in an area only half the size of Tasmania unless the products of the Dutch colonial empire were coming in to sustain it, and the fact is that the imports of Holland before the war were financed by the sale of commodities from the Indonesian empire. That is the basic reason why the Dutch wish to remain there. We may discuss our interest in their remaining there, or not remaining there, but, at least, let us clear away the junk.

The Dutch interest in Indonesia is economic. I do not denounce them for it, or praise them for it; I merely say that if we are to discuss foreign policy intelligently we must start with a basis of objective fact. The Dutch were dissatisfied at all times with the attitude adopted by the British occupying force towards the Indonesian nationalist movement. The continued tenor of British advice to the Dutch was to make a compromise with their colonial people, and the Dutch expressed their dissatisfaction with British policy in that regard. Meanwhile the Dutch were not pursuing a continuous policy, as the repudiation of Dr. van Mook by the Dutch Government showed ; and their policy towards the Indonesian rebellion was not consistent. The Indonesian leaders had just cause for complaint at certain stages of the negotiations because of the vacillations of Dutch policy and because they were unable to ascertain definitely who was speaking authoritatively for Holland.

The situation which developed in Indonesia afforded an opportunity for the utmost co-operation between Great Britain and Australia; and since one of the criticisms levelled at the Minister for External Affairs is that he has not coordinated his policy with that of Great Britain, I suggest that we should look briefly at the policy Great Britain followed in Indonesia. The whole trend of British policy was towards securing a compromise. I think that the British authorities were wasting their time, because their philosophy was the product of mature British colonial experience and it was not a viewpoint likely to find acceptance in Holland. The British Empire itself has been developed by a series of compromises, most of which cannot be defended in terms of academic logic but are susceptible of defence as representing practical solutions of difficult problems which have arisen from time to time. The British approach to the problem in Indonesia was to induce the Dutch to drop the Germanic logic, which they possessed to such a degree, and to come to a sensible compromise, the sensible compromise being expressed in the Cheribon agreement.

Sir Archibald Clarke Kerr’s policy was at all times directed by the British Government, which acted in close collaboration with the Australian Government, which was, of course, most interested in the situation. What are our interests ? I maintain that the interests of Australia were well and truly expressed in the Cheribon agreement. In the first place that agreement proposed to establish a Republic of Indonesia, and Java and Sumatra were to comprise that republic. The Republic of Indonesia was to become part of a greater entity. The outlying islands, which are not rebellious, were to be federated with the Republic of Indonesia in what was to be called the United States of Indonesia. The United States of Indonesia was to have the King of Holland as its sovereign, but the Republic of Indonesia was not to recognize him as its sovereign. Just how that situation could be explained in logic I do not know ; but a formula was devised which satisfied both the Indonesians and the Dutch and certain defensive positions which the Dutch had in Indonesia were to be safeguarded to them. I do not believe that the Dutch ever intended to keep that agreement, and equally, I do not believe that the Indonesians are capable - at all events, at present - of keeping the agreement in all respects. However, for the moment I intend to concentrate my remarks on Holland’s actions with regard to that agreement. If the British Government had promised to withdraw its forces from India, as it did last year, and had then commenced to pour in troops, one would say that there was, at least, superficial evidence that it did not intend to keep its promise. The fact is that throughout these negotiations the Dutch increased the number of their troops in the Netherlands East Indies from nil to 100,000. Honorable members might say that that was a perfectly correct policy, and that the “police action” taken by the Dutch against the Indonesians was perfectly justified, and I should respect that point of view although I do not. agree with it. However. the agreement entered into by the Dutch shows that they professed themselves agreeable to the creation of a new entity, namely, the United .States of Indonesia, and undertook to respect its independence. That is briefly the factual story of the situation which developed in the Netherlands East Indies.

How did the Cheribon Agreement meet the interests of the Commonwealth of Australia? I believe that the political situation at present existing in the Philippines is the ideal, one for the islands to the north of Australia. The western power, in that case the United States of America, has the right to maintain fortified positions. On the other hand, it has given complete independence to the native peoples. The result is that the fortified positions, which are really maintained in our interests as well as those of America, are not surrounded by a hostile population. If Dutch sovereignty is restored in Indonesia by military action, which would involve the complete suppression of the Indonesian revolution, we should not imagine - whatever we may think of thai possibility - that it is an acceptable solution of the problem. Our experience of fortified positions which are surrounded by a hostile population, teaches us that those fortifications will last only about as long as they did in the Netherlands East Indies in 1941, when they lasted about five days. Therefore, when Australian foreign policy was directed towards the consummation of the Cheribon agreement it was directed towards leaving Europeans in certain fortified positions, conserving certain economic rights, and yet, at the same time, conferring on the native peoples democratic rights. That is a policy which afforded a reasonable prospect that the native peoples ‘would not become hostile to the European force maintained in their country. I believe that in time the situation would have improved. However, that was not to be, and the Dutch took other action. In foreign policy, since one cannot control other nations, one can only work towards the achievement of a settlement which is in one’s own interests. Since the Minister for External Affairs worked towards the maintenance of the Cheribon agreement, I say that, for the reasons which I have outlined, he worked towards a settlement which was entirely in the interests of Australia; and the fact that his attitude was not subsequently adopted by either the Dutch or the Indonesians does not invalidate the soundness of his approach to the matter. The Cheribon agreement provided that, should there he a dispute between Holland and .the Indonesian Republic, an independent arbitrator should be called in. It was an independent arbitrator, Sir Archibald Clarke Kerr, who achieved that sensible compromise, which bears every mark of similar sensible compromises which have been achieved by the British throughout their colonial history. When the dispute broke out, it should have been referred to an independent arbitrator. That was not done. Yet the Dutch had promised that Indonesia would -be an independent republic. On that ground, the Australian Government suggested that the dispute should be referred to the United Nations. Its attitude was sound, and won the general support of liberal opinion all over the world, as well as of the nations of which the Security Council is composed. Consequently, I consider that on those issues the foreign policy oi the Minister for External Affairs has been entirely sound.

Some play has been made upon the criticisms of the’ Minister expressed by Mr. Paul Hasluck in a speech that he made in the University of Western Australia. His words have been seized upon. Anybody can give us a spate of emotional words. In the course of his address, Mr. Hasluck, for a considerable period, outlined quite objectively what had taken place in the Security Council of the United Nations. He then said that there was a strain of larrikinism in Australian foreign policy; that we “ threw stones at lights because they were bright “. I do not know exactly what the reference means, but I take it to mean that undue criticism of other countries has been expressed by the Minister for External Affairs. I shall not be impressed by that statement while it remains a generalization and not a specific .statement. In all the newspapers which have published cartoons, I have not yet seen what are the specific instances in which there has been undue criticism. When these are given, I shall be prepared to be impressed by Mi-. Hasluck’s statement. If they are not given, I shall not be prepared to be impressed. Although that generalized statement was made by him in two columns of matter, no specific instances were given.

The other point seized upon was the complaint that the Minister controls his department. That is a very touching reversal from the usual press complaint that Ministers are run by bureaucrats. When Ministers run the bureaucrats, that, too, is wrong. We should like, to know from Opposition members what exactly is the situation in a department which they want to produce. We have not heard of it so far, and I doubt whether we shall.

The Minister has also been criticized because of his consistent campaigning against the exercise of the veto. I suppose that it is a criticism of him to say that he has taken the United Nations seriously. He may be quite wrong in doing so. But many people have believed that it was desirable to make this international organization work, and the veto, as it has been used by several great powers, has prevented the United Nations from working. So the Minister’s campaign against the exercise of the veto in the initial stages was, I consider, quite sound.

I take the strongest exception to the speech of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), because it contained an unjustified smear concerning the Advisory Committee on the Japanese Peace Settlement. There was a very strong suggestion in the honorable member’s speech that the committee was designed to. reflect the Minister’s own ego, and was virtually a useless committee because it was not empowered to make representations or recommendations.

Mr Anthony:

– Does the honorable member know the conditions under which the committee was appointed ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I am well aware that the Minister appointed the members of it. It was not an all-party, committee, but a committee of outsiders who are experts in their several spheres.

Mr Anthony:

– Including the honorable member.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr BEAZLEY:

– An unfriendly act.

Mr McBride:

– Yes. When we were considering the statement of the Minister for External Affairs, the Prime Minister said that he believed that SO per cent, of Australians supported the Government’s sponsorship of the Indonesian republicans. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is accurate in his assessment of public opinion at any time. Does he believe that 80 per cent, of the Australian people approve of what is happening at present on the waterfront? If he does, he is completely out of touch with public opinion. The Parliament is entitled to a statement on this very important matter because our relations with the Dutch are of primary importance to Australia at present, and will he equally important in the future. However, up to date, not one word has been said on behalf of the Government on this matter. I hope that even at this late stage the Prime Minister, or some other spokesman for the Government, will explain to the Parliament exactly what is the Government’s policy towards the Netherlands East Indies.

Much has been said in this debate concerning our representation in Russia, and Russian representatives in Australia. I should like to know whether our representatives in Russia are afforded facilities to obtain information in respect of Russian politics, industry, commerce and social life equal to those afforded to Russian representatives in Australia. Unless our representatives in Russia are given free access to such information we are merely being deluded by appointing a minister to Russia. In such circumstances, we should not be justified in approving the expenditure of £39,200 in respect of our representation in Moscow, where our representatives are, in fact, behind barbed wire. It has been said that former representatives of Australia in Russia, who, apparently, were not satisfied with conditions in that country, gave very little information upon their return to this country. Our first representative, Mr. Slater, gave no information at all about Russia to the people of this country. I do not know what he reported to the Government, because those reports have been kept a close secret. However, his successor, Mr. Maloney, upon his return from Russia, not only reported to the Government - and that report also has been kept secret - but also made very important statements to the public of this country. The only inference that could be drawn from those statements was that our representatives in Moscow were not given any opportunity to carry out their diplomatic duties. If that be so to-day, the Parliament and the people are entitled to be told the full facts. “We should not toleratea mere facade of diplomatic representation in Moscow, which is a snare and delusion. The Parliament is entitled to full information on this matter, and unless the Prime Minister, or one of his colleagues, is prepared to give that information, it is a mere sham to have the Parliament discussing estimates of expenditure for purposes about the usefulness of which we are not given any facts at all. I hope that in respect of these matters the Government will supply full information, and that when the committee is dealing with estimates in respect of other departments, Ministers will supply full information concerning their respective departments. The Parliament will thus be fully informed, and the period of the debate will be greatly curtailed.

Progress reported.

page 421

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Census and Statistics Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947, No. 126.

Commonwealth Bank Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947, No. 131.

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947. No. 132.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - RegulationsStatutory Rules 1947, Nos. 122, 134.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations - Order - War service land settlement - Victoria (dated 29th August, 1947).

National Security (Prices) Regulations -Orders- Nos. 3030-3034, 3036-3078.

National Security (Rationing) Regulations - Order No. 141.

National Security (Shipping Coordination) Regulations - Orders - 1947, Nos. 44-47.

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947, No. 128.

Naval Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947, Nos. 130, 135, 136.

Sales Tax Assessment Acts (Nos. 1-9) - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947. No. 133.

War Gratuity Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947, No. 127.

Wireless Telegraphy Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947, No. 129.

House adjourned at 11. 38 p.m.

page 421

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated -

Civil Aviation : Trans- Australia Airlines

Mr White:

e asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Has Trans-Australia Airlines submitted a profit and loss account of its operations since its inception?
If so, how much profit, if any, has been earned ?
If a profit has been earned, has the Airlines Commission used the profit in expansion of its business or in the purchase of new aircraft and equipment?
What is the explanation for the substantial capital expenditure to date, and what additional capital expenditure is contemplated?
What is the annual interest bill on the capital expenditure to date, and is such interest charged against the commission?
If the operations of the commission to date have resulted in a loss, what is the amount of such loss?
Has any of the £3,000,000 capital supplied by the Government to the Airlines Commissionbeen used to meet a deficit on operations, and, if so, how much?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The information is being obtained and will be supplied as soon as possible.

Banking: Volume of Operations, Dividends

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What were the (a) gross and (b) net profits of the Commonwealth Bank and each of the trading banks for the last year for which records are available?
What provisions for taxation (or, in the case of the Commonwealth Bank,payments to the Treasury) were made by the banks?
What are the rates of dividend on (a) subscribed capital and (b) shareholders’ funds in each case, including the Commonwealth Bank figures treated as the returns of a tradingbank?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1, 2 and 3. The information relating to the trading banks is shown in the attached table. So far as the Commonwealth Bank is concerned, net profits for the year ended 30th June, 1947, were £1,141,109; profits paid to the National Debt Sinking Fund totalled £525,373; while the nut profit as a percentage of capital and reserves was6.3 per cent. As this last figure represents, in effect, profits without any allowance for taxation, it is not com parable with the dividend figures of the trading banks. These figures do not include profits of the Note Issue Department amounting to £3,942,384, which was paid to the Treasury and credited to Consolidated Revenue or profits of the Commonwealth Savings Bank amounting to £880,694, of which £440,347 was paid to the National Debt Sinking Fund.

Radio-telephone Services.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

l. - On the 25th September the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Clark) asked the following question: -

I ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral whether experiments have yet been carried out in connexion with the radiotelephone service and, if so, what has been

The Postmaster-General has supplied the following information : -

The present position in connexion with the proposal to carry out experiments with radio telephone services in the Broken Hill district is that the building, which is required to house the base station at Broken Hill, is now nearing completion and, unless any unforeseen difficulties arise, it is expected that the installation of the radio equipment will be commenced towards the end of October. It is estimated thatthe equipment will be ready for use about two months after the building is available and the provision of the radio units fit the outstations will also be effected within the same period. It is therefore anticipated that the experimental tests under actual working conditions willbe commenced early in 1948. The honorable member may rest assured that everything possible is being done to expedite the installation of the apparatus in order to bring the radio-telephone service into operation it the earliest date practicable.

Immigration : British Migrants

Mr Hutchinson:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

n asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

How many British migrants have been brought to Canberra during each of the last twelve months?
What sum has been spent on (a) camps, (b) wages and allowances, and (c) accommodation and lodging costs?
How many houses have been built (a) wholly and (b) partly by. these migrants?
How many of these migrants are now in Canberra:
How many more migrants are expected to reach Canberra during the next twelve months ?

Mr Calwell:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

2 and 3. These matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Works and Housing who has been requested to furnish a separate reply.

157 to the knowledge of this department At first sight these figures appear to be alarming in comparison with the number of British . tradesmen brought out here, but an examination of the position extending over a period of months discloses that these men have left Canberra mainly for the. following reasons: - (i) Some have married girls whom they previously met whilst serving in Australia, (ii) Others have joined relatives who have been resident in Australia for many years, (iii) Many of these British ex-servicemen visited or were located in different parts of Australia whilst serving in the South-West Pacific Area and have gone to join friends made during their sojourn in Australia, (iv) The majority of the men have come from crowded areas and cities in the United Kingdom and find it difficult to settle down in Canberra particularly with its absence of night life. (v) Numbers have been enticed to the capital cities and other centres by the lure of higher wages offered by private contractors. (vi) These tradesmen are all exservicemen and numbers are passing through the rehabilitation period, consequently until they have adjusted themselves to civilian life they will find difficulty in settling permanently anywhere. This is evidenced by the fact that some men who left Canberra shortly after their arrival have since returned. It is considered that the introduction of these migrants has been completely justified, despite the departure of a number from Canberra, since, wherever they may finally settle in the various States, they represent an asset to Australia and make a valuable contribution by their labour towards the solution of the housing and construction shortage which exists everywhere.
Personal nominations under the free and assisted passage schemes have been submitted by local residents and approved for 103 persons (men, women and children) to come to Canberra. In addition the Public Service Board has lodged a group nomination for 55 typists, and the Government Printing Office has lodged a group nomination for twelve compositors. The Department of Works and Housing are at present considering the question of submitting a nomination for 300 additional British building migrants for Canberra to offset the number who have gravitated to the various States. There is also a balance of 70 tradesmen to arrive from the United Kingdom in completion of the original requisition for 600. Depending on the availability of shipping accommodation, it is hoped that all the abovementioned migrants will arrive in Canberra during the next twelve months.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 October 1947, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1947/19471001_reps_18_193/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 1 October 1947

BANKING

Nationalization : Petitions

WOODVILLE YOUNG WOMEN’S HOSTEL

Mr THOMPSON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr THOMPSON:

Mr DEDMAN:Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Mr CHIFLEY:Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

Mr LANG:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

IMMIGRATION

Housing- Rural Workers

Mr HAMILTON:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr DAVIDSON:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr CALWELL:

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Mr DUTHIE:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

Mr BEALE:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

RENT CONTROL

Mrs BLACKBURN:BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

AUSTRALIAN LABOUR PARTY

Katoomba Branch

Mr ABBOTT:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr ABBOTT:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr ABBOTT:

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr BRENNAN:BATMAN, VICTORIA

QUESTION

WARGRAVES:

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOHNSON:Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr JOHNSON:

COMMONWEALTH DISPOSALS COMMISSION

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr WHITE:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr White:

Mr DRAKEFORD:Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

WAR SERVICE HOMES

War Widows

Mr LEMMON:Minister for Works and Housing · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr BLAIN:NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr JOHNSON:ALP

Mr McEwen:

Mr JOHNSON:

QUESTION

WAR WIDOWS’ PENSIONS

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr CHAMBERS:Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

House of Representatives
1 October 1947

Mr THOMPSON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr DAVIDSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOHNSON:
Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr JOHNSON:
ALP

Mr CHAMBERS:
Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr CHAMBERS:
ALP

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence, Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · Corio · ALP

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta