House of Representatives
22 March 1950

19th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at S.80 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1052

QUESTION

MALAYA

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– An United Kingdom Ministers since the war seem to have been unable to see any further east than Suez, and as the British Army seems to be dwindling and committing the same errors in Malaya as it committed before the war and early in the war, I ask the Prime Minister whether the Australian Government gave the impression, as reported in the 8 trait 3 Times of Malaya, that it would refuse to grant any military aid in Malaya if an official request were made? If this was unintentional, as I believe it was, will the right honorable gentleman take immediate steps to correct the false impression? Furthermore, does not the Government consider that some real commando units in Malaya would more effectively help to stop communism in South-East Asia than the maintenance of a force in Japan is doing, for that force is of no real use and actually causes loss of face for Australia because Japan is being run by the United States and not by Australia ? If the recent statement of the Minister for External Affairs is to be taken seriously, should not the Government offer some real help to Malaya in its present difficulties?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I have not seen the statement which apparently has appeared in a newspaper. All I can say is that no statement has been made on behalf of the Government on that matter. The points that have been raised by the honorable member will certainly be taken into very close consideration by the Government.

page 1052

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Mr MULLENS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs to state the establishment strength of the Embassy for the Russian empire at Canberra. How does it compare in point of numbers with the Australian Embassy at Moscow? Has the Minister any knowledge of the activities of the personnel at the Russian Embassy and the numbers engaged (a) as administrative workers, (6) as domestics, such as valets, and (c) as persons with undefined duties? Is ‘there any restriction upon the movements of members of the Australian. Embassy in Moscow? If so, what knowledge has the Minister for the comings and goings of members of the Russian Embassy staff at Canberra?

Mr SPENDER:
Minister for External Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The staff of the Australian Embassy at Moscow is very small by comparison with Russian representation in Australia. The number of officers and workers employed by the Soviet Embassy is on record and I shall supply the exact figure to the honorable member later.

Mr Mullens:

– Can the Minister not announce the figure now?

Mr SPENDER:

– The staff numbers approximately twenty, including not only administrative officers and others engaged upon embassy work, but also others, such as door-keepers.

Mr Mullens:

– .What about valets?

Mr SPENDER:

– The honorable member may describe them as valets. The Government has always extended complete freedom of movement to the staffs of all foreign embassies in Australia. Recently I was asked whether we contemplated restricting that movement. I said that the matter was under consideration and that we were looking at the problem closely, because it was known to every honorable member in this House that the Embassy of our own country and those of all other countries in Moscow had their activities very distinctly limited. At the moment we do not propose to take any steps, but the matter is being very closely observed.

page 1053

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the need to encourage saving by the people, will the Prime Minister consider excluding the surrender value of life insurance policies when computing the- capital of age and invalid pensioners? Men, when young, take out insurance policies, but when some of them reach the time of application for an age pension they find that they are not entitled to the pension because of the surrender value of their polices, which were originally secured to make provision for their wives and children. Would the Government consider that position ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The honorable member has made an important suggestion on a matter of policy, which will, of course, be considered by the Cabinet.

page 1053

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to a resolution carried by the annual conference at Brisbane last, week of the Australian Sugar Producers Association Limited? The resolution stated that a return of the Australian £1 to parity with sterling, will mean a loss- of £3,000,000 in the annual value of the sugar industry’s exports^ and will require an increase of Id. per lb. in the retail price of sugar in Australia to offset this yearly loss. If the right honorable gentleman’s attention has been drawn to the statement, in view of the grave loss involved in the proposal to the Queensland sugar producers, I ask him to give an unequivocal’ and binding assurance that no- decision to appreciate the Australian £1 in relation to sterling will be taken during the lifetime of- this Government? In other words, will he say that under no circumstances will he abolish or alter the 25 per cent, exchange rate that has existed between the- Australian and the English £1 since 1931, and which is at present being challenged only by newspaper proprietors, importers and speculators for selfish and antiAustralian reasons?

Mi-. MENZIES. - I have not seen the statement referred to by the honorable member,, but I should not in any event make any statement on a matter of this kind. It is a matter which, if and when it is considered, should be considered by the Government and made the subject.matter of decision, as it was by our predecessors. I for one do not propose to make it a matter of general debate at, this stage.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Before Mr. Speaker’s new interpretation of the Standing Orders becomes effective, I ask the Prime Minister when the Government, proposes to get ready to make up its. mind to think, about making, a start on the matter of putting value back, into the £1.

Question not answered.

page 1053

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

– At the 30th June last, outstanding income tax amounted to approximately £55,000,000: This included current assessments which had been issued immediately prior to the 30th June, but in respect of which the last date for payment was subsequent to the 30th June. Excluding those current assessments, and realizing, first, that those who do not meet their taxation obligation throw a greater burden on those who> do meet assessments, and secondly, also that amounts outstanding were approximately the same at the end of the last three years, could the Treasurer inform the House whether all possible steps are being taken to collect these arrears?

Mr FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– -The Taxation Branch has assured me that every possible action is being taken to collect, the maximum amount of outstanding taxes.

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the difficulties experienced by country people in checking their income tax returns: and obtaining information on taxation matters - country people in New South Wales, for example, must refer such matters to Sydney - will the Treasurer consider the establishment of taxation offices in big country centres?

Mr FADDEN:

– I am afraid that I cannot accede to the request of the honorable member at present.

page 1054

QUESTION

SECRET DOCUMENTS

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Yesterday, I asked the Minister for the Army whether he would let me see the document from which he read during the debate last week on the trial of Japanese prisoners of war. The matter involved the then Minister for Defence and myself. The Minister agreed, and last evening I went through the documents with him. Is he now prepared to make a statement regarding the result of our perusal of the documents?

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Army · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I provided an opportunity for the honorable member for Adelaide to see the file to which he referred. He examined it, and was of the opinion that the word in question was “Department” and not “Defence”. In the document, the word appears as a contraction, either “ Def.” or “ Dep.”. It has been a long-accepted practice in this House to accept the assurance of an honorable member in a matter such as this. The document was in the honorable member’s own handwriting. In accordance with existing practice, I readily accept the honorable member’s assurance. I merely add that I have acted in that way ever since I have been a member of this House.

page 1054

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr CHARLES RUSSELL:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

– Does the Minister for Civil Aviation know that several small aerodromes are being closed in rural districts -because of the increasing requirements of the Department of Civil Aviation, and because the cost of re-constructing the aerodromes would be too great for small communities? Since any landing ground is better than none in an emergency, is the Minister prepared to make a new classification of aerodromes for the benefit of country areas ? Will the Minister say whether some of the money raised by the tax on aviation fuel, and by State taxes on air transport services, can be made available for the construction and maintenance of aerodromes when that work is beyond the resource’s of the average local authority?

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Air · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– I understand that in Queensland and Western Australia airlines are taxed and that, as far as possible, such revenue is used for the upkeep of aerodromes. I also understand that some of the money raised by the tax on aviation fuel is devoted to the upkeep of aerodromes just as part of the proceeds of the tax on ordinary motor fuel is used for the upkeep of roads, including roads leading to aerodromes. As for the. closing of aerodromes in country districts, it must be remembered that standards of safety have to be laid down and maintained. It is true that some country aerodromes have gone out of use because of neglect. . Only if a landing ground is safe can I agree that it is better than no landing ground. Since 1929, 26 airports have been delicensed but the total number of licensed airports since that date has increased from 68 to 147. The use of larger and heavier aircraft makes it necessary to adhere to prescribed standards of safety.

page 1054

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr McCOLM:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Labour and National Service inform the House of the latest development in the industrial “dispute on the Brisbane waterfront ? Can he say whether any action is being considered by the Government in regard to it ?

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I have been advised by the chairman of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board of certain incidents that occurred at the pick-up this morning. The first man to be called was asked by Mr. Ball, the representative of the board, whether he had refused to carry out the employer’s instruction yesterday. He answered, “ Yes “, and was then suspended by Mr. Ball for seven days. The next two. men were treated similarly, and the union officials present, including members of the executive, then interviewed Mr. ‘ Ball, and informed him that they could not permit the men to be dealt with individually. The effect of this was that no more men offered for work, and none were picked up. The ten ships, which were working yesterday with one gang each, are still working. Three hundred and eightyeight men are on the ships, but the executive of the union is meeting now, and I am advised that those men may be withdrawn. At present, 1,421 men are idle. Those developments are very serious, and I have brought them to the notice of the Prime Minister. The Government will consider them, and I hope that by to-morrow it will be possible to announce the results of that consideration.

page 1055

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the desire of the public generally to obtain information about the progress of the Government’s programme for bringing about peace in industry, will the Prime Minister use his undoubted influence with the daily press to ensure that those newspapers shall give as much publicity to industrial disputes to-day as they gave to them prior to the 10th December last?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am bound to say that most of my own knowledge of industrial disputes is gleaned from the daily press, and I cannot complain of any lack of information on that subject.

Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question arising out of the question asked in this House yesterday by the honorable member for Griffith. In view of the number of Communistinspired strikes, affecting a large number of industries, will the Government make it clear to the community and to the unions concerned that it will uphold with all its power the principle that industrial disputes should be settled by the arbitration system ?

Mr HOLT:
LP

– This Government has tried to leave the people generally in no doubt that it stands four-square behind the arbitration system and will back it with such authority as it can muster. Concerning the immediate developments, As I have stated earlier in reply to another question, the Government is considering the immediate developments, and I hope to report further upon them to-morrow.

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister following upon a question that was asked by the honorable member for East Sydney, who said that the press had not been giving as much prominence to industrial troubles recently, as it had been giving to them prior to the 10th December.

Mr Edmonds:

– I rise to order. I ask whether it is competent for an honorable member to base a question on one already asked on the same day?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Under the new Standing Orders it is. One supplementary question based on a previous question may be allowed at the discretion of Mr. Speaker.

Mr JEFF BATE:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that from the 1st January .to the 25th -February this year coal production rose from 1,400,000 tons to 1,600,000 tons, a gain of 200,000 tons over 1949. I am reading from a journal called Common Cause, of which the associate editor is a well-known Communist, Mr. Edgar Ross, and I understand that this newspaper is read by the honorable member for East Sydney.

Mr Tom Burke:

– Is the honorable member in order in reading from a newspaper ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not know whether be read from a newspaper. He had one in his hands. If the House wishes rue to enforce the rule rigidly, I shall enforce it on both sides. I have no knowledge that anything was read from a newspaper. Certain figures were quoted, the name of an editor was stated, and it was suggested that the newspaper was one which was read by the honorable member for East Sydney. I have no knowledge of what that honorable gentleman reads, although I have my suspicions.

Mr Tom Burke:

– I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not for the House to decide whether the rules shall be enforced. It is for you to say whether an action ‘ of an honorable member contravenes the Standing Orders. You must decide it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– To do so I should have to see the newspaper in order to try to determine whether a paragraph was quoted. I do not know whether any paragraph was quoted. All that I heard was a series of figures with regard to coal production between -the 1st January and the 25th February of this year. Apparently there was an increase of production during that time of 200,000 tons. In making that statement the honorable member for Macarthur was perhaps giving information rather than seeking it.

Mr Calwell:

Mr. Chairman-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I am not a chairman.

Mr Calwell:

– Perhaps I was attempting to pay you a compliment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would rather that the honorable gentleman desisted from paying me compliments. In any case it was rather a backhanded one, and I am rather expert myself in the paying of compliments of that kind.

Mr Calwell:

– I rise to order. I ask whether the honorable member for Macarthur is in order or not. That is the simple matter for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have ruled that the honorable member is in order.

Mr Calwell:

– That is the first I have heard of it.

Mr MENZIES:

– I shall answer the question of the honorable member for Macarthur flatly and frankly by saying that I do not know ; but I shall find out.

page 1056

QUESTION

AIR MAIL SERVICES

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Civil Aviation inform me whether, on routes where Trans-Australia Airlines is in competition with private air line companies, air mails are still being carried exclusively by Trans-Australia Airlines? If so, does the Government propose to revise that policy? By way of explanation, I point out that, in some States where surface mails and air mails are in com petition, it is quicker to send mail by surface than by air.

Mr WHITE:
LP

– It is true that on some routes Trans-Australia Airlines has a monopoly of the carriage of air mails. That system was introduced during the regime of the last Government, which, I believe, paid a subsidy from the funds of the Postal Department, to TransAustralia Airlines on a bulk basis instead of on the basis of lb.-per-mile, which had prevailed .before. Negotiations are proceeding between the Postmaster-General and myself, and shortly .a Cabinet subcommittee will discuss some major points of aviation policy. The matter of whether mail shall be carried by air lines other than Trans-Australia Airlines on all services will then be considered.

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. Letters are carried by air from Tasmania to the mainland or from Melbourne to Tasmania for 2$d. The people of Tasmania appreciate this concession. Is there a possibility of an air mail charge of 2$d. being applied throughout the Commonwealth instead of 5½d. as at present? If that is not possible, can the air mail postage rate be reduced to 3-Jd. or 4-Jd. ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is one which involves policy. The Minister may answer it or not as he pleases.

Mr ANTHONY:
Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I shall answer the question. First-class mail matter for Tasmania, that is letters, is carried by air mail irrespective of surcharge only to the general post offices at Hobart and Launceston. Thereafter letters which do not carry the air mail surcharge go to their destination by ordinary mail routes. The air mail surcharge brings in from £500,000 to £600,000 a year to the Postmaster-General’s Department. The whole of that amount is paid to the various air lines for the purpose of providing the air mail services. TransAustralia Airlines gets about £400,000, and the balance is paid to the other air lines which carry mails. Therefore, if charges were reduced, either the service would have to be restricted, or the loss would have to be made up out of Consolidated Revenue.

page 1056

QUESTION

COAL

Mr DAVIES:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Labour and National Service inform me whether it is a fact that the conference which was held in Sydney recently to deal with the problem of pneumoconiosis as it affects the miner was comprised mainly of doctors, and that mining engineers and practical miners were allowed to attend only as observers? Is it also a fact that the decisions reached at that conference will have to be implemented by the mining engineers and practical miners, and that it is of the utmost importance that they should meet in conference in order to consider ways and means of doing so ? Will the Minister consider the advisability of calling a conference of mining engineers and practical miners as soon as possible so that the resolutions carried at the conference convened by the International Labour Office shall take practical form?

Mr HOLT:
LP

– I have been advised by all the interested observers and participants that the conference to which the honorable member has referred, which was the first meeting of the International Labour Organization ever to be held in Australia, was a complete success. The points which have been raised by the honorable member for Cunningham are of value, and I assure him that the Government will give them earnest consideration. It is true that most of the official delegates to the conference were medical men with an expert knowledge of pneumoconiosis. The chairman was Dr. George, the medical adviser to the Joint Coal Board, who, I think, is held in high regard by all sections of the industry in Australia. Sympathetic consideration will be given to the honorable member’s proposal that a conference should now be held between men who have to deal with the day-to-day problem of pneumoconiosis and those who have the knowledge gained from, participation in that conference.

page 1057

QUESTION

POLIOMYELITIS

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister for Health, about the epidemic of poliomyelitis in New South Wales and other States. Some little time ago, the Minister for Health was inclined to think that the epidemic was abating rapidly, but, unfortunately, events have proved otherwise. Will the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Health, ascertain whether it is possible for the Commonwealth to take the active initiative with a view to cooperating with the State governments to deal with the problem of poliomyelitis? Has the Government yet had the time to consider the .suggestions of the honorable member for Hindmarsh relating to the treatment of sufferers from this terrible scourge ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– Naturally, the Government regards this problem with very great sympathy. I understand that the Minister for Health is conferring with the States in relation to it. In any event, I shall be glad to confer with the right honorable gentleman along the lines suegested by the right honorable member.

page 1057

QUESTION

JAPANESE PEACE TREATY

Mr GRAHAM:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for External Affairs in relation to the peace treaty with Japan which, as honorable members know, has not yet been completed. Has any decision yet been made concerning the reparations to be paid by the Japanese people to the Commonwealth of Australia, arid i so, have any reparations already .been paid by them, either in the form of good? or cash?

Mr SPENDER:
LP

– Replying to the second portion of the question first, the answer is “ No The subject of reparations is wrapped up with other matters affecting the terms of the suggested peace treaty with Japan. Arrangements have been made for the establishment in London of a working committee, representative of all members of. the British Commonwealth, to work out the terms of the treaty. The committee has not yet been established, but I expect it to be established before long. The decision to establish such a committee was one of those taken by the British Commonwealth Conference at Colombo. When the committee is established, it will deal, among other matters, with the subject of reparations.

page 1057

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Mr ANDREWS:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA

– Adverting to my previous question which I asked some days ago concerning the urgent need for a definite line of action to be taken in relation to the Commonwealth control of aborigines, I ask the Minister whether, in view of the existing separate control exercised by the respective States, he is now prepared to admit that the recent outbreak of tribal warfare in the Cape York Peninsula district stresses the need for a centrally controlled Commonwealth department to deal with the aboriginal and half-caste problem, which is a blot on the white man’s escutcheon?

Mr McBRIDE:
Minister for the Interior · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I understand that at a conference of Commonwealth and State representatives which was convened for the purpose of discussing the subject of the control of aborigines the representatives of the Commonwealth suggested that the. Commonwealth was prepared to accept full responsibility for the protection and education of aborigines in Australia. Unfortunately that suggestion was not agreed to by the States. I can find no way by which, of our own volition, we can assume such control. I am afraid that that is the position, and that it cannot be altered.

page 1058

QUESTION

MORWELL POST OFFICE

Mr BROWN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– Last week I directed a question to the Postmaster-General regarding accommodation at the Morwell Post Office. Is the honorable gentleman now in a position to give me any further information on the subject?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I have made inquiries concerning the post office at Morwell and have ascertained that, as was stated by the honorable member last week, it is urgently in need of repair. The Postal Department has made arrangements for the acquisition of a new site, I think, on the corner of the Prince’s Highway and Church-street. Plans are now being prepared for the erection of a new post office on that site, and I hope that tenders will be invited at an early date. In the meantime arrangements have been made to transfer the post office to a temporary building. The old building will be utilized as a telephone exchange. I hope that these arrangements will alleviate the problem there at least for the time being.

page 1058

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In the absence of the Minister for Health, would the Prime Minister say whether there is any truth in the report by a Sydney weekly newspaper which supports the Government that the British Medical Association is still refusing to co-operate with the Go vernment in the implementation of a national health scheme and that the Menzies Government is finding the British Medical Association just as intransigent as did the Labour Government? If so, will the Prime Minister indicate whether the Minister’s continued absence from this House is related to the Government’s efforts to settle the strike of the British Medical Association and prepare a scheme for early presentation to this House?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am not aware of the newspaper statement to which the hon- 01 able member has referred. I am interested to learn that there is a strike by the British Medical Association. I was under the impression that members of the British Medical Association were attending to their patients as usual.

Mr CURTIN:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the continued hostility of the British Medical Association to the Government’s free medicine scheme, will the Prime Minister have investigations made in order to ascertain whether that hostility has been inspired by the Communist party?

Mr MENZIES:

– I think that the suggestion is an extremely valuable one, and I shall give it all the consideration that it deserves.

page 1058

QUESTION

BLOOD TRANSFUSION

Mr CHARLES ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Has the Postmaster-General noticed the efforts being made by the Red Cross Society to secure volunteer blood donors? Has he seen a statement by the director of the blood transfusion service that although there were 39,000 blood donors in New South Wales last year, this was still nearly 10,000 short of requirements in that State alone? In view of the very great importance of this work, will the Minister give consideration to the printing of a postmark on mail matter calling for blood donors in order to assist the efforts of the Red Cross Society?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The work of the Red Cross Society in obtaining blood donors is very important. The society has requested my department to mark mail matter with a stamp similar to that used when subscriptions to war loans are being invited or when a campaign is being conducted against bush fires. I shall give very favorable consideration to the suggestion of the honorable member and, if it is a practicable one, I shall have it implemented.

page 1059

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for the Army state whether it is the intention of the Government to make rail or road transport available to convey naval ratings on leave to their families who are housed in the California Guest House, Katoomba, New South Wales?

Mr FRANCIS:
LP

– I shall be very pleased to consider the suggestion made by the honorable member.

page 1059

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL FINANCE

Mr W M BOURKE:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Treasurer concerning the Industrial Acceptance Corporation Limited, a giant money-lending corporation, which announced in Melbourne last week that it proposed to increase its present share capital of £1,500,000 and also to raise an additional £4,000,000 by the issue of debenture stock in order to increase its huge hire-purchase business. Is it not a fact that, since the present Government assumed office, the hirepurchase activities of the Industrial Finance Department of the Commonwealth Bank have been drastically curtailed? Is it not also a fact that that department of the Commonwealth Bank has conferred great benefits upon small businessmen because of its attractive interest rates, which are lower than those charged by its competitors? Did this Government instruct the Commonwealth Bank to curtail its hire-purchase facilities in order to leave the field clear for the monopolistic Industrial Acceptance Corporation Limited to invest its funds?

Mr FADDEN:
CP

– Taking the last question first, the position is the reverse of that suggested by the honorable member. The previous Government curtailed the resources and activities of the Industrial Finance Department of the Commonwealth Bank to such a degree that provision has been made in the bill that has already been brought down for increasing those resources of the bank. The Commonwealth Bank does not cater for the class of hire-purchase business in which the Industrial Acceptance Corporation Limited specializes ; it caters for the hirepurchase of heavier types of commercial vehicles and farming implements. The extension of capital by the Industrial Acceptance Corporation Limited is consistent with the requirements of the law, having regard to the fact that capital issues control has been discontinued.

page 1059

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr PEARCE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the air-conditioning of this chamber. Honorable members who sit in my vicinity are continually subjected to draughts of cold air that come from under the strangers’ gallery. I have noticed that the attendants check the reading on the thermometer behind your chair and, when the atmosphere becomes a little heated there, they cool us down here. I and other honorable members who sit in this section of the chamber will be grateful if you will investigate this state of affairs.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall investigate the honorable member’s complaint. I received other complaints last night in exactly the same terms from honorable members who sit on the Australian Country party benches. I assure honorable members that there is no shortage of hot air of either variety at this end of the chamber.

page 1059

QUESTION

COMPANY PROFITS

Mr CREMEAN:
HODDLE, VICTORIA

– Has the Treasurer read a statement in Tuesday’s issue of the Melbourne Argus to the effect that the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company (Australia) Limited, an American-owned and operated concern, has declared a dividend of 25 per cent? If so, does he intend to allow the company to remit the whole of its exorbitant profits to America in dollars, regardless of the needs of Australian-owned companies for a fair share of dollars to meet their requirements? Is it the policy of the Government to allow American companies such as the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company (Australia) Limited to remit the whole of their ordinary share capital investment to the United States of America every four years, as will happen if they continue to make profits of 25 per cent, per annum and are not compelled to plough all their profits over 5 per cent, back into their activities in Australia ? Is it correct to state that the Minister for External Affairs is, or was, a director, a legal advisor, or a financial consultant of the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company (Australia) Limited?

Mr FADDEN:
CP

– The law with respect to companies, as it is administered now, is exactly the same as the law that was administered, by the previous Government. I know nothing whatever about the alleged association of the Minister for External Affairs with the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company (Australia.) Limited’..

page 1060

QUESTION

OIL FROM COAL

Mr FAIRHALL:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for National Development say whether consideration is being given to the production of oil from coal? If so, are any particular propositions being considered and can the Minister supply details of such propositions?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Works and Housing · LP

– I do not know of any particular’ proposal’s that are being examined officially, but my department has the subject of the production of oil from coal constantly under review. I very much doubt, whether the1 extraction of oil from coal in Australia will be a practicable proposition in the years immediately ahead. That is only my personal opinion.

page 1060

QUESTION

PORTUGUESE TIMOR

Mr BOSTOCK:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for External Affairs say whether negotiations with Portugal concerning the future of Portuguese Timor are contemplated by this Government?’ If not, will the Government investigate the possibility of initiating negotiations on various aspects of the administration and defence of that vital area?

Mr SPENDER:
LP

– I referred to the areas to the north of Australia,, including Portuguese Timor, in the course of my recent statement on international affairs, and I made it clear that the control of those areas and any fundamental changes there were matters of prime concern to

Australia. The Government will, not adopt, a passive attitude towards any fundamental changes that may take place there. It regards those areas where Australian troops fought as being of supreme strategic significance to Australia. The problem that the honorable member has mentioned has already engaged my attention and that of the Government. I can add nothing more at present to what I have already said.

page 1060

QUESTION

ROADS

Mr FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for National. Development whether the Government will compensate the municipality of Cooma for the heavy damage that is being done to its roads and streets by Commonwealth vehicles engaged upon the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric project ? I point out that a large new official town is being built at Cooma but that, as all of those ‘buildings are Commonwealth property, they are not rateable and the financial position of the Cooma Council is therefore made difficult. Will the Minister accept my assurance that this is a matter, not of policy, but merely of administration, and that there are several excellent precedents for the request that I make?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– I am without detailed information on the matter, but I shall look into it.

Dr NOTT:

– For a. considerable time I have been asking that a short, allweather road be constructed, from the settlement of Wreck. Bay to the beach in order to- permit professional fishermen to bring in their catches by truck. At present,, they have to carry the fish on their shoulders. On the 12th January, I was informed by the Department of the Interior that money had been allocated for the work, and that the road would be constructed in March. To-day, I received a communication from the Department of. Works and Housing to the effect that a request for an estimate for the work had been received, and was being prepared. Can the Minister for Works and Housing say when the road will be constructed, and who will do the work ?

Mr CASEY:

– At the. present time, works to the value of £25,000,000 are being carried out by the Department of

Works and Housing. The department performs work for every other Commonwealth department except the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. Such a large programme makes a heavy call on available man-power and materials, and makes it necessary that priorities shall be allotted to the various proposed undertakings. I understand that the work mentioned by the honorable member would be a road of about a mile in length somewhere on the south coast of New South Wales. I cannot see that it has any claim to priority over a hundred other works in various parts of Australia. I shall look into the matter, and see whether the proposed work is in its right place on the list.

page 1061

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr WARD:

– I have not yet been able to become conversant with the new Standing Orders. I understand from past experience that it has been the practice that a person who quoted from a newspaper and based a question upon his quotation must vouch for the accuracy of what he quoted. If that Standing Order remains as it was I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the honorable member vouches for the accuracy of the information contained in the newspaper?

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is a convenient opportunity for me to state that under theold Standing Orders there were five standing orders which dealt with the asking and answering of questions. There are now ten. Honorable members would do well to make themselves familiar with the new rules because I now inform them that, although until the Easter recess I propose to be fairly lax in my interpretation of them, I shall enforce them after the recess. By that time honorable members will have had an opportunity to become familiar with them. When I do enforce them many questions of the kind now being asked will be out of order. I shall read the new Standing Orders on questions for the benefit of the honorable gentleman who has asked for guidance and for that of honorable members generally. They are as follows: - 140. Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. 141. Questions may be put to a Member, not being a Minister, relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, of which the Member has charge. 142. The following general rules shall apply to Questions: -

Questions cannot be debated.

Questions should not contain -

statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated;

arguments;

inferences;

imputations;

epithets;

ironical expressions; or

hypothetical matter.

Questions should not ask Ministers -

for an expression of opinion;

to state the Government’s policy; or

for legal opinion.

Questions cannot refer to -

debates in the current Session; or

proceedings in Committee not reported to the House.

Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter. 143. A question fully answered cannot be renewed. 144. The Speaker may direct that the language of a Question be changed if it seems to him unbecoming or not in conformity with the Standing Orders of the House. 145. Notice of Question shall be given by a Member delivering the same to the Clerk at the Table within such time as, in the opinion of the Speaker, will enable the Question to be fairly printed. The Question shall be fairly written, signed by the Member, and shall show the day proposed for asking such Question. 146. The Clerk shall place Notices of Ques tions on the Notice Paper in the order in which they were received by him. 147. The reply to a Question on Notice shall be given by delivering the same to the Clerk at the Table. A copy thereof shall be supplied to the Member who has asked the Question, and such Question and reply shall be printed in Hansard. 148. Questions may be asked without notice on important matters which call for immediate attention. At the discretion of the Speaker one supplementary question may be asked to elucidate an answer. 149. Notice must be given of Questions regarding the character or conduct of individuals other than Ministers or Members of the House.

Mr Calwell:

– Now, what can honorable members ask?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think the honorable member’s own ingenuity will soon discover that.

page 1062

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 2.30 p.m.

page 1062

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS

Mr TOM BURKE:

– On a point of procedure, Mr. Speaker, it appears that honorable members will be at a grave disadvantage until the new Standing Orders have been printed. For guidance, I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you will defer the use of the new Standing Orders until they are available in printed form for the use of honorable members.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I stated a few moments ago that I proposed to administer the new Standing Orders in a lax manner–

Dr Evatt:

– A flexible manner.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If it suits the legal mind of the right honorable gentleman, I shall say a flexible manner. That will be done until after the Easter recess. Honorable members should by then have become familiar with the new rules. I cannot defer the use of the Standing Orders because the House decided unanimously yesterday that they should come into operation forthwith.

page 1062

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Debate resumed from the 21st March (vide page 987), on motion by Mr. Spender -

That the following paper be printed: -

Foreign policy - Ministerial statement, 9th March, 1950.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Perhaps I should, at the beginning of my speech, congratulate the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender) upon the statement on foreign affairs that he presented to the House. Australia is fortunate in that the predecessor of the present Minister laid the foundations of the department so well that the new Minister, within a few weeks of assuming office, was able to present to the House so comprehensive a statement. Much of what he said was simply a re-statement of the policy of the last Government, but regarding some of the other principles enunciated by him there is less reason for enthusiasm.

Before considering what should be done in the future, it is as well to turn back for a moment, and examine the events that have led up to the present situation. None of us will have forgotten the Munich Agreement of the 1st October, 1938. We recall with a good deal of regret some of the undertakings given at Munich, which were disregarded almost as soon as they were published. None of us has forgotten that when the then Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Chamberlain, returned to England, he announced as he stepped from the plane that he had achieved “ peace in our time “. Neither have we forgotten what happened within twelve months of his making that statement. Going back still further, we recall that Hitler’s Nazi policy was the cause of the last war, and we are not likely to forget that as early as 1933 some of the financial institutions of England were financing Hitler’s programme for the restoration of Germany. Because of that, those of us who are responsible for making decisions to-day on international policy would do well to remember what led up to the second world war, so that we may avoid repeating the errors into which our leaders then fell. Hitler, the Nazi leader, had no scruples about disregarding all the undertakings he gave at Munich. He took advantage of the help given to him by the English financiers in 1933 to build a war machine that almost destroyed our civilization. Let us all be careful that we do nothing to help some one else - names do not matter for the moment - to plunge civilization into another fight for its existence.

We are aware of the difficulties that faced the Minister for External Affairs in preparing his statement. As he himself pointed out, international affairs are fluid. Almost every day the situation changes. We know that the powerful American newspaper group controlled by Colonel McCormack has expressed uncompromising opposition to the principles enunciated by the Minister for External Affairs. However, another section of the American press has voiced a warning that Australia and America could at any time in the immediate future find themselves isolated. Those of us who are in the trade union movement have not forgotten that before Russia became engaged in the last war there were people in Australia who declared that the war represented a clash of money interests, and they continued in that attitude even when England had its back to the wall and was being blasted by German bombs. We also remember only too well that immediately Russia came into the conflict the opinion of those people changed.

The situation then resolved itself into a struggle between democracy and totalitarianism. When the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) was speaking last night, some honorable members opposite suggested, by innuendo, that he was peddling the wares of the Communist party. I wonder what the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) thought when Russia entered World War II. against the Nazis. It is safe to say that there was not an Australian, Englishman or American who was not glad that the western democracies were to have the assistance of the Soviet at that time. Great Britain poured out large sums of money in 1933 to enable Hitler to strengthen Germany as a bulwark against the Russians, but, in1941, Britain again poured out vast sums of money to assist the Russians to resist the onslaught of theNazis. Russia entered the war with the feeling that it was being used by the Western Powers to pull their chestnuts out of the fire, but students of international affairs realized that a falling out between the two dictators, Stalinand Hitler, was inevitable. Russia and Germany concluded a treaty of non-aggression in 1938, after which Hitler felt free to enforce his demands upon Poland. The fact is inescapable that once a country adopts the totalitarian form of government, it matters little whether the regime is Leftist or Rightist because the principles of totalitarianism are the same. A dictator who has the ambition to become the master of the world will not tolerate for very long the existence of another dictator whose word is law over more than 200,000,000 people. Therefore, the rift between Hitler and Stalin was inevitable.

When Nazi-ism and fascism had been crushed, Russia’s distrust of the western democracies became even more pronounced than it had been before the outbreak of World War II. in 1939. It is easy for us to say that the number of countries which are now dominated by Russia are proof of the Soviet’s expansionist designs. All that the Russians have done has been to erect a protective screen around their own country, and, in doing so, they are only emulating our own example. The strength of Russia is prodigious. The correspondent, Alan Moorehead, has made the following appraisal : -

As it stands now, Western Europe is not in a position to defend itself, for the Russians are infinitely more powerful than we are.

Unlike the Allies the Russians never ceased arming after the last war, and they never really “demobilized.

The Russian Forces at the present time are so much greater than anybody else’s that there can be no question about the race to catch them up, for that can never be done.

The American Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson, announced on the 15th Marsh last that the United States of America wanted peace, but not peace at any price, and he enunciated five conditions to which Russia must agree before satisfactory talks between the Soviet and the western democracies would be possible to relieve world tension. The former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Churchill, made the following statement the next day: -

Don’t nurse foolish delusions that you have any other overall effective shield at the present time from mortal danger than the atom bomb in possession, thank God. of the United States. But for that there would be no hope that Europe could preserve its freedom. [ Quorum formed.] Having regard to the Statements by Mr. Dean Acheson and Mr. Churchill about Russian preparedness in Europe, we can arrive at only one conclusion. Tests of strength occurred in Europe in 1914-18 and again in 1939-45. If we agree that Russia is preparing for a third conflict in Europe, we must examine with considerable caution the policy that has been outlined by our Minister for External Affairs. I disagree with the opinion which the honorable gentleman has expressed that there is very little difference between the conflict between democracy and communism in Asia and between democracy and communism in Europe. History shows that the Chinese, for example, are not aggressors, and I do not believe that they have aggressive aims. According to press reports yesterday, approximately 200,000,000 Chinese are starving. It is obvious that a nation in that plight is not in a position to begin a war of aggression. So, the conflict to-day is as it was in 1939 and 1940. All the forces of war are poised for a European conflict. If we analyse that position we shall agree that a very wide gulf exists between the Communist approach to world domination in Europe and the Communist approach to domination in Asia. Russia’s interests in Asia are merely secondary to its interests in Europe. Its approach to the problem in Asia represents an attempt to guard its own back door lest some nation should be strong enough to rap on the door and take up the gauntlet which has already been thrown down in Europe.

We have to decide whether this country should be tied up by military preparedness for war. We cannot again send Australian soldiers to fight in France and Flanders. Our whole approach to this problem has been wrong. Having regard to the global situation, it would be much better for us to assist the starving millions of China, irrespective of the type of government that may be established in that country, and to aid Burma and other friendly nations to withstand the onrush of communism, than to attempt to build up a worthwhile military force. We should do everything possible to assist to provide the wherewithal to keep together the bodies and souls of the 200,000,000 starving Chinese, rather than prepare to send another army to France or Flanders. If one but analyses the situation carefully it is as clear as crystal. It has been suggested in some quarters that, in an attempt to rejuvenate Japan, the United States of America may do something that would be against the best interests of Australia.[Extension of time granted..] I thank the House for its courtesy. I shall not trespass on the patience of honorable members for very long. I appreciate the Minister’s difficulties in approaching this problem. I suggest to him and to the Government that the greatest co-operation should be achieved as quickly as possible by the members of the British Commonwealth and the English-speaking countries which share our ideals. I do not agree with the view expressed by an isolationist newspaper of America that -

Australia and Great Britain, having first assured theirpeople of a republican form of government, could always apply for admission as new States into the American Union.

That point of view is being actively canvassed by one section of the American press. I urge the Minister to endeavour to achieve the closest consultation between British Commonwealth countries on this important subject of foreign relations. It is time that we clearly understood where a global conflict may lead us, and the points at which the armies of Britain and Australia will be needed. Australia, with a meagre population of 8,000,000 people, could do more to break the yoke of oppression of communism by providing food for the starving Chinese than by providing a military force to take part in a global war.

Mr Handby:

– Australia is not even sending sufficient food to Great Britain. How could we send food to China ?

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Food production will not be increased if every available man is conscripted to serve in the armed forces. We should try to win the confidence of the starving masses of China by providing their urgently needed food requirements. Having regard to our numerical strength, Australia’s best role would be to assist the starving millions of Asia to withstand the onslaughts of the Communists. If we were like Switzerland, a small concentrated country in which every man is trained militarily for the purpose of defence, and which no outside force was likely to invade because of our long period of disinterest in war, we might perhaps do something along the lines that have been suggested by honorable members opposite. Unhappily, our position cannot be compared with that of Switzerland and accordingly our policy must be shaped having regard to global considerations. Russia did not put nineteen divisions of troops on the European frontier and none on the Chinese frontier with the object of launchingan aggressive movement from China. Aggression will come not from China but from Russian satellites in Europe. Only yesterday Burma signed a trade agreement with’ Japan valued at £17,000,000. We should do what we can to assist the teeming millions of Chinese who are crying out for food. Irrespective of what form of government may he adopted in China, it is all important that we should clearly understand China’s requirements

And endeavour to meet them as far as we .are able to do so. Such a policy would do far more to steady the Asiatic situation than would the recruitment of the comparatively small military force which our small population would enable us to muster. I urge the Minister to avoid the error of believing that an attack may be made upon us by the peoples of Asia. The Asiatics are not aggressive. If any nation attacks us, it will be a European nation. Let us play our part in the manner I have suggested, in co-operation with those who are best able to assist us.

Mr OSBORNE:
Evans

.- I direct the attention of the House to one aspect of the statement of the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender), namely, the fact that there is still no peace treaty with Japan. The Minister has expressed the view that the peace settlement with Japan should be reached as soon as possible. He has rightly shown concern at the present state of affairs. It is of the greatest importance to us to conclude a formal peace treaty without delay. With the sad experience during the last twenty years of great nations riding rough-shod over international agreements, there is a disposition on the part of many people to regard formal treaties as mere window dressing and as of no practical importance. But that is a dangerous viewpoint. It is only through the writing of a formal treaty with Japan that we can ensure the recognition of our rights as one of the conquering nations. Only in that way can we define Japan’s obligations and duties, and, what is most important, establish our right to criticize and protest if the future development of Japan should proceed along lines that are contrary to our treaty rights and its treaty obligations. In order that we may have a voice in the future conduct of Japanese affairs we must have treaty rights with that nation.

We recognize that Japan cannot be held down forever. No sensible man would suggest that. Japan is a nation of 80,000,000 people who must support themselves and, as the Minister has pointed out in his statement, because of its industrial capacity it can also supply many of the things that are required by the needy nations of Asia. Nevertheless, Japan is the only nation in the Pacific which has been able to threaten Australia and actually to bring violence to our shores, and its industrial capacity at the present time marks it as the only one that has the power to threaten us in the near future. For these reasons, Australia should demand certain minimum requirements in the peace treaty with Japan. I suggest that they could be summarized as five points - 1. Japan should remain disarmed. 2. Japan should never again be allowed to develop a powerful merchant fleet which could be used as’ an instrument of war. 3. Some control should be exercised over Japanese industry so that it cannot establish shadow factories and war plants as Hitler did, and thereby enabled Germany to convert itself from a disarmed nation to a powerful aggressor in the space of five or six years. 4. Japanese industrial and financial power should never again be allowed to be concentrated in the hands of a small group of families. This was the means by which the feudalism of ancient Japan became the controlling instrument of a modern warlike state. 5. Some supervision should be exercised over Japan’s foreign trade so that it cannot again become linked with an aggressive expansionist policy.

In order to ensure that these conditions shall be included and that we shall have the right to insist upon their observance we should now be assisting in the formulation of. a final peace treaty. Our chances of achieving that end are steadily receding. Day by day the United States of America is formulating the terms of its peace with Japan through the occupying authority. The peace treaty is being written now by the Supreme Commander in pursuance of American policy. Before long that peace treaty will be complete and we shall have had very little say in its terms and shall have no right to insist on their future observance. There is ample proof of what I say in the happenings of the last year which represented the steady formulation of a de facto peace between America and Japan. An official statement dated the 16th May, 1949, by the American representative on the Far Eastern Commission contained the statement that there had been a change of policy by the occupying authority in relation to the expansion of Japan’s internal industries. It is clear from the statement that from that time the Japanese were to become entitled without restrictions to build their own ships, to build ships for foreign buyers and to establish unlimited steel plants. In justice to the occupying authority, wo must recognize its imperative need to put Japan on a self-supporting basis. It is costing the American taxpayers no less than 400,000,000 dollars a year to maintain the occupying forces in Japan, and we oan understand that, from their point of view, Japan must be allowed to reestablish itself. But we have a right to insist that there shall, be safeguards suitable to our needs, and that we shall have the further right to ensure their observance.

On the 1st December, 1949, the Supreme Commander announced that the Japanese export trade had been restored to an entirely private basis. That is evidence of the degree to which Japan is being readmitted to the full status of a peaceful state. In January of this year, Mr. Acheson, the American Secretary of State, said that Japan must be protected, either through a permanent settlement or otherwise. Japanese currency problems, he said must be solved “ under a treaty or, if procedural difficulties of that nature are too great, under some other mechanism”. It is clear that America contemplates the possibility that a final peace with Japan shall be reached without any treaty. [Quorum formed.’]

I was directing the attention of the House to evidence of the de facto peace that has been reached between America and Japan. I believe that the final and most conclusive evidence resides in a directive from the American Department of State to the Supreme Commander, Allied Powers, dated the 25th February, 1950 - only four weeks ago - which included the following statement : -

The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, subject to his discretion and continued control, should permit Japan to participate with other nations or groups of nations in such international agreements, conventions and conferences of a technical character as Japan may be invited to enter into, accede to, or attend.

In other words, Japan is to be given a limited right to negotiate agreements with other nations. I suggest that when present limitations have been removed Japan will have been restored to the full status of a state at peace.

It is true that the peace agreement that America is arriving at with Japan is, in the main, a satisfactory one. Japan has been thoroughly disarmed. Its future development has been limited and, in general, the lines which the occupation authority is following are suitable to us. But there are certain important matters on which we differ. The United States of America relies on its disarmament of Japan to preserve peace in the future. Australia fears Japan’s capacity to re-arm: The United States sees no danger in allowing Japan to construct shipping. Australia has every reason to fear that. The United States, naturally, is moved very greatly by a desire to restore Japanese economy. Australia fears that if it is too thoroughly restored it will represent a future danger to this country. Finally, and I think most importantly, the United States of America believes in the moral regeneration of Japan. We have strong reasons for being at least somewhat doubtful of that. No fewer than five honorable members of this House had unrivalled opportunities to observe the workings of the Japanese mind over a considerable period of years and one of them, the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Downer), has said that he finds it unbelievable that such a moral regeneration could have occurred in Japan so quickly. However, the conviction appears to be deeply rooted in the mind of the Supreme Commander, Allied Powers, who recently said -

To the Japanese people I can pay no higher tribute than to repeat that they have fully and faithfully fulfilled their surrender commitments.

General MacArthur also made the following declaration in his New Year’s Day statement this year -

Your new leadership, strengthening under the stimulus of responsibility, is rapidly becoming safe guarantee against either the reemergence of those institutions which brought your race to the brink of destruction or the substitution of alien concepts no less provocative of disaster. The. ideal of human freedom, vigorously taking root in Japanese hearts, is progressively asserting itself through expression of the public mind whenever suppressive forces arise to challenge it.

This is an insecure safeguard upon which to found the future prosperity and peace of the Pacific area.

The cause of the long delay in concluding a formal peace with Japan has been, of course, the refusal of Soviet Russia to co-operate with us. Even while discussions were still proceeding, Russia refused obstinately to consider a peace negotiated by any countries not represented in the Council of Foreign Ministers. That meant that Australia would have been entirely excluded from the peace discussions, an injustice that was immediately recognized by both the United States of America and Great Britain. There could be no further discussions with Russia on that basis. AVe must accept the fact that no peace treaty with Japan can be negotiated with Russia as a party at present. Accordingly, we must urge the conclusion of a treaty without Russia.

Does the solution of this problem lie, as the right honorable member for Barton suggested, in the calling of another British Commonwealth conference? I do not think so. Agreement was reached at a conference held here at Canberra in 1947, and our wishes have not changed since then. We know what we want. We need, of course, the moral support of Great Britain and Canada in urging the conclusion of an early peace, and, to that end, the exchange of views in London that will shortly take place may be of great assistance. A new realism has become evident in the Australian Government’s international policy, and I suggest to the Minister for External Affairs that the only effective approach to the problem of the Japanese peace treaty is to recognize the pre-eminence of the United States in Japan and to realize that we can get what we want only by forcing our viewpoint upon the United States Department of State and the occupation authority. We should make the Government of the United States realize that we are entitled to a hearing at the Japanese peace conference and that the treaty should be written now in its final terms. By such insistence we should not be impairing the harmony of Empire policy. As the honorable member for Angas pointed out, it is becoming increasingly Australia’s part to lead Empire affairs in South-East Asia and the Pacific region.- In pleading our cause we shall be pleading the Empire’s cause. Thus, if we persuade the United States of America to accept our point of view, we shall do a service not only to ourselves but also to the rest of the Empire. I suggest that our viewpoint should be put forward with the greatest force on the highest diplomatic level, and on all other diplomatic levels. We should state our case freely in the press of the world and, if necessary, we should not shrink from expressing open criticism in those international councils to which our representatives are admitted.

Mr KEON:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP; ALP (A-C) from April 1955

.- Lest time should overtake me, I propose to refer immediately to one matter that I hope the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony), who is at the table, will take to heart. I have in mind the Government’s policy in relation to the short-wave broadcasting station Radio Australia, which was formerly under the control of the Department of Information. Irrespective of whether we believe that the Communist-controlled governments of China and certain other Asiatic countries should be officially recognized or not, I think that we all are convinced that the Australian Government should try to reach the peoples of those countries, many of whom are resisting the dominance of the forces of communism under the direction of Soviet Russia. We should always keep in mind the very clear distinction between the native peoples of Asiatic countries and their rulers, when those rulers are tyrants of the “ red “ brand. The only means by which we can reach such people in many instances, and certainly the most effective means in any case, is that of short-wave broadcasting. I understand, from the statement that the Prime

Minister (Mr. Menzies) has made concerning the future of Radio Australia, that he proposes to divert it from short-wave overseas .broadcasting to the task of broadcasting to inland Australia. I submit that, if he does so, the Government will deprive Australia of a vital weapon in the conflict that will inevitably take place, whether in a diplomatic sphere or in a more violent sphere, between this country and governments of a Communist hue in Asia. Radio Australia is an efficient instrument for the dissemination- of our views throughout Asia. Its development required the expenditure of a great deal of time and money, and the Government should be very careful about employing that instrument for other purposes. If the Department of External Affairs has not yet been consulted about the proposal, and if the move is merely in pursuance of the Government’s policy of making some pretence of cleaning up the Public Service, I urge Ministers to take a more responsible view of the situation and to reconsider their decision. Radio Australia might well be of the greatest importance iri protecting Australia’s interests in Asia.

I was interested more in matters that were ignored by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender) during his statement on international affairs than in many of the subjects that he discussed. One of the matters upon which I waited in vain for some enlightenment was the proposed attitude of the Government to the decision of the United Nations concerning the internationalization of Jerusalem. As honorable members know, the previous Australian Government last year sponsored a resolution, which was adopted by the Genera] Assembly of the United Nations, calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem in order to protect the holy places and to ensure that Christians and people of other faiths should have free access to them. The Government of Israel in effect put its fingers to its nose and announced that it had no intention whatever of taking any notice of the resolution. The matter has been allowed to rest there. No attempt has been made either by the United States of America or by the United Kingdom to insist upon the adherence of the Government of Israel to the decision. I regret that the Minister did not refer to this matter, because the people of Australia are eager to know whether the Government proposes to maintain the policy that was adopted by the previous Government or to reverse it and allow the Government of Israel to defy the United Nations. Unfortunately, the position seems to he growing more acute because, if press reports are to be believed, the Government of Israel has already refused to grant many people access to the various holy places in Jerusalem. I ask the Government to clarify its attitude in this issue by making a pronouncement to the people. I consider that the only sensible decision would be to insist upon observance of the decisions of the United Nations by the Government of Israel. Indeed, just as it might be claimed that the doom of the League of Nations was sealed when it refused to take any notice of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, so the complete impotence of the United Nations may well stem from this absolute and studied defiance of a decision of the General Assembly. If we believe that anything of value can he achieved by the United Nations, we must determine that all interested parties shall carry out its decisions. At the moment, the Government of Israel is openly defying the United Nations, and the United Kingdom and the United States of America are very conveniently trying to overlook the fact. Undoubtedly either of those countries separately, or both acting together, could bring the Government of Israel to heel without any trouble whatever.

A- subject that was mentioned only briefly by the Minister, but which warranted a special anouncement, is the control of atomic energy. The peoples of the world are waiting in a state of desperate anxiety for the discovery of some means of controlling the dreadful weapons of war that unfortunately man’s scientific ingenuity now enables us to make. It ‘was most extraordinary that the Minister should deliver a lengthy statement on international affairs without making more than a passing reference to the subject. After all, we are living on borrowed time. Who knows whether some of the great nations to-morrow or the next day, instead of boasting about the atomic bombs that they possess, may begin to use them. The vicious circle of growing fear that arises from this situation must be broken, or, if it cannot be broken, at least we should attempt to break it. We have been assured by the most impressive scientific authorities that human life itself may vanish from the earth if those weapons are brought into use. Even if such prophecies should not be fulfilled, and the weapons prove no worse than those of the last war, human life would be scarcely worth supporting. The most urgent task of every democratic government to-day should be to secure some workable means of controlling those weapons, if that be possible in the face of the deliberate hostility and truculence of the Soviet Union. I referred recently to the failure of the newspapers to restore the morale of democracy and keep it on a high plane. One instance of this failure that springs to my mind is the complete ignorance of the peoples of democratic countries about the gesture that was made by the United States of .America in relation to the control of atomic energy. For the first time in human history a nation which exclusively controlled the most dreadful weapon ever made and which could have imposed its will on the world, indicated that it was prepared to make “the information it possessed about that weapon available to the peoples of the world for conversion to peaceful purposes. It stated that it was prepared to destroy its stock of atomic bombs provided that a genuine system of international control, by a responsible body vested with the power to inspect and control factories and installations set up for the production of atomic energy, could be instituted. That offer was unprecedented in the history of mankind; yet very little reference was made to it in the press of this country. If the average man in the street were asked whether the democratic nations of the world had made any serious attempt to secure genuine international control over atomic energy he probably would not be able to answer. That offer was made, but was not accepted because the democratic world was faced with the stubbornness of the Soviet Union. The people of the democratic world have not been impressed with the urgency of the control of the use of atomic energy, or the efforts that have been been made to solve it. That is one reason why the problem has not been solved. Probably the use of atomic weapons cannot be justified in any circumstances, even if it means risking the destruction of any country or of a large part of the civilized world by our enemies. These weapons, if uncontrolled, will be used in warfare. The time has come for the democratic countries to lay their cards on the table and to stop the useless farce that is being played at Lake Success when, if anything of importance arises which may adversely affect the Soviet Union, the veto is immediately applied. That hopeless pantomime, due to the actions of the Soviet Union, must be stopped once and for all. The democratic nations must say plainly what they are prepared to do in relation to disarmament and the control of atomic weapons. If the co-operation of the Soviet Union and its satellites cannot be secured, we must put an end to the useless farce of the Disunited Nations, and form a new body of United Nations without the Soviet. We should restore our own morale if we were to put forward a good and consistent policy in which we had confidence; a policy by which our people would be fully assured that we were trying to secure peace in our time, and the abolition of the dreadful weapons* of war that are available. I do not underestimate the difficulties of adopting such a policy. We must try again so far as the Soviet Union is concerned, because the results of failure are too dreadful to contemplate. The result of our failure to secure peace will undoubtedly lead to the total destruction of mankind or to a destruction of such a big part of it that the other part will wish, too, that it had been destroyed. It is not a problem to be solved during the next decade or the next century, it may need a solution next week or the week after.

The problem must be solved., No one underestimates the difficulties of those seeking a solution. Let us strengthen our own conscience and the belief in our own cause. That would come about if we laid down a plan indicating how far we are prepared “to go in order to preserve peace. If we do that we shall be stimulating confidence and doing something constructive, instead of looking for something constructive from the present United Nations. The United Nations is solving a number of smaller problems but on the big problem of world peace it cannot hope to function as it should while the Soviet Union uses the veto. So far as this Government has power to do so, although it does not have a great deal of power, it should attempt to put that plan into action. The Minister said that Australia is a Pacific power, but I say that it is only a Pacific nation. Power is derived through the possession of armaments. Australia has not the necessary armaments and, therefore, it has not the power to enforce its will. This nation should not try to be any more than a Pacific nation. However, by the assertion of moral influence we can impress upon the nations the necessity for truth, justice and peace in the councils of the nations of the world. This Government has responsibility to do that. It should not be led astray by delusions of grandeur in relation to our foreign policy because we have not the necessary power to implement that policy.

The Minister spoke about Japan and the peace treaty. Everybody knows that the peace treaty, by and large, will be written as die United States wants to have it. That country may make some concessions to please us, but on any fundamental point should the United States come into conflict with other nations, its view will prevail. It would be most unfortunate for Australia if the United States were not present to make its view prevail. “Whatever we may think should be done to the Japanese, we are incapable of doing anything whatsoever without the help of the United States. We are completely dependent on that nation. It is just as well for us to realize that fact, and that basic relationship should he formalized by a union or an agreement between the Englishspeaking nations of the world so that we shall not have fundamental conflicts on policy. I cannot see how the British Commonwealth can possibly’ survive unless there is such a federation with the United States. The British Common- wealth has been an outstanding success in the field of international affairs because it ha9 shown that nations, while remaining free to conduct their internal affairs, can remain a part of a Commonwealth. Although the Australian Government cannot exercise great power in the affairs of the world, I hope that it will raise its voice- in urging some such union. Perhaps this country could be the bridge leading from the British Commonwealth on the one side to the United States on the other.

The last matter in the Minister’s statement that I wish to refer to is in relation to China. Whether or not we consider that that country is controlled by a Communist government, a statement that I noticed in the press yesterday seems to indicate that the Premier of China, Mao Tse-tung, has no illusions about his relations with the Soviet Union. Apparently be has just returned from a visit to Moscow and has declared that he is a loyal Stalinite and is very thankful for the assistance which the Soviet Union has given to the Communist party in China during the last 33 years. The position may or may not be as it was recorded there; but irrespective of what attitude we adopt towards the Chinese Government we must remember the people behind the Government. [Extent sion of time granted.’] The Chinese people are something apart from their government. I hope that this Government will give very serious consideration to the continuance of the operations of Radio Australia so that its short-wave broadcasts to the Chinese people may continue.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– How many Chinese coolies have radios?

Mr KEON:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– Unfortunately theChinese coolies have very little voice in the Chinese Government, no matter what type of government it is. The radio messages should be addressed to the educated classes of China which make governments, whether Communist or Nationalist. The best method of helping the Chinese masses is to relieve their want and misery. Statements about our civilization and our way of life will sound silly and empty to the Chinese coolies, millions of whom along the YangtseKiang and in other parts of China consider themselves lucky to be alive. To such people, communism glows with promise. If we are to compete against the glow of hope that communism brings to the depressed people of the world we must help to raise them out of their miserable state. Although we need to get our message to the educated people of China who control the Government, our best method of checking communism in Asiatic countries is to attack the misery and want that causes it. We must let those people see that communism is not the only alternative to such conditions, but that there is a better way of life. We must not waste time addressing pleas to ourselves and to the European people about the protection of our way of life, but we must realize how empty these tilings are to the teeming millions of the East.

Mr CHARLES ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– What would the honorable member do to change their conditions?

Mr KEON:

– We must recognize their fundamental rights as human beings. If we do that we. shall be making a start on the solution of the problem.. There is no choice between black and white in these matters. We require the Chinese people on our side because otherwise we shall be faced with a very difficult situation. We must .accept the lesser of two evils. As for Japan, since in the final analysis the United States of America will decide the terms of the peace treaty, let us confine our efforts to the re-education of the Japanese people, if that is possible. If it is not, then let us not antagonize them more than is necessary. We are not in a position to impose our views or will on the Japanese without the assistance of the United States of America.

In regard to world peace generally, and the control of atomic energy in particular, let us lay our cards on the table. Let us demonstrate to our own people that we are sincere. Let us call a disarmament conference, if that is desirable, and say how far we are prepared to go. If, as seems almost inevitable, the Soviet will not allow international inspection of armaments, &c, if it is not prepared to lower the iron curtain to that extent, then it will stand convicted before the free nations of the world as the breaker of world peace.

Mr Anthony:

– But Russia has already refused to permit such an inspection.

Mr KEON:

– It has; but then, as the Minister knows, in characteristic Communist style Russia agreed to inspection by a body representing thu United Nations, in which it exercises the right of veto. Apart from that, Russia has consistently refused to allow an inspection to be made. The problem has become more difficult since Russia has itself succeeded in making the atomic bomb. Whereas it would have been impossible to conceal from inspection plant for the making of atomic bombs, there would be no difficulty in concealing a large stockpile of the bombs themselves. Therefore, I urge that we should put all our cards on the table, and discard the United Nations in this matter, as we know that in the deliberations of that body Russia has power to exercise the veto. We should let our own people know the position, and then, with clear consciences, do what is possible to solve the problem. Actually, I have no confidence that we can achieve much with people who are convinced Marxists, and believe that our social system must inevitably destroy itself because of the contradictions in capitalism. However, we ought to make an effort, hot by doing a Moscow crawl, as was suggested by the Conservative leader in Great Britain, but by making our position clear to our own people and to Russia, and by submitting a straightforward proposition which, if the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics refuses to co-operate, should lead us to form a real body of united democratic nations.

I regret that the Minister for External Affairs did not, in the course of his statement, mention the Government’s policy on the proposal for international control of Jerusalem, and the protection of the Holy Places. The House is entitled to know whether the intention is to apply the policy of the previous Government in regard to those matters, or to reverseit. I particularly regret that the Minister did not refer to the last Government’s proposals regarding disarmament and the control of atomic weapons. Any attempt. at such control might be in. vain, but it is our duty to make- it. When our representatives attend the next meeting of the. Assembly of the United Nations^ they must bring these matters forward for discussion.

Mr EGGINS:
Lyne

.- I thank the Minister for External Affairs (Mr.. Spender), and the Government, for. having submitted a statement on international affairs so early in the life of this Parliament.. We could concern ourselves with no more important matter than this, and it is therefore well that honorable members should be afforded the opportunity to express their opinions on the international problems with which we are confronted. During the last half-century tremendous changes have taken place in Australia and throughout the world. From being a remote community “ down under “, we have now come into the front line of international affairs, and must accept new responsibilities. Science and invention have so reduced the effects of distance that practically all world problems have now become our problems. At one time, we could disregard happenings far away in Europe, and in some parts of Asia. We can no longer afford to ignore what happens in Europe or Asia.

One’ of the most important features of the Minister’s statement was the announcement that the Government proposes to appoint a standing committee on foreign affairs. That was a wise decision. The appointment of the committee will enable honorable members to become conversant with world problems, and will give the Australian people a better understanding of them. In time to come, the action of the Government in appointing the committee will he regarded as one of the most important things it did. I am sure that the people will follow with great interest the debates that will take place on the recommendations of the committee.

We must recognize that Asia has changed. The people of Asia want to control their own destiny, and it is our duty to give them every encouragement by raising their living standards. By so doing, we shall help to promote world peace. By helping to raise Asiatic living standards, this Parliament can ensure that the people of Asia, will become partners in> world development. In the. past, Britain and the United States of America, did a great deal to forward the development of such countries as India, Burma, China and Malaya. Of recent years, however, the people of those countries have evinced a disposition to control their own affairs, and many of them are training themselves for the task. Recently, when I was examining certain activities1 in the United States of America, I was astonished to note the number of Chinese and Indian engineers and technical men who had gone there to study industrial and developmental problems to qualify themselves to participate in the development of their own countries on their return. That sort of thing has been going on during the last 25 years, but more particularly during the last four or five years. It is in our interests that the people of Asia should raise their living standards, and accept full responsibility for guiding their own affairs. If they are able to govern themselves on sound lines they will be more likely to prefer the democratic way of life to communism.

I propose to refer now to the importance of Africa in the Empire, a matter not previously mentioned in this debate. Strategically, Africa is most important to Australia. In every war that has involved Africa in recent- times, Australia has played a part; Africa is important to us because of the Suez Canal, and because of the Cape route to Europe. We should seek to establish closer relations with South Africa, as well as with New Zealand. Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand have common interests, particularly in defence. When Egypt was under British rule, we knew where we stood in regard to the defence of the Suez Canal and of the Nile Valley. Now, however, British interests in Africa have withdrawn to Kenya, East Africa, Rhodesia, South Africa, and to the various colonies and protectorates. We must establish closer relations with South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and the British colonies in Africa. If we do” that, we shall have much to gain from, our overseas’ activities, and, ultimately, it will have a real effect, on international affairs.

An examination of the position in Europe compels us to recognize more than ever before the difficulties that confront the democratic powers. This debate has been of great value, because it has clarified many problems, and emphasized the difficulties in the international sphere, and the responsibilities of the Minister for External Affairs, who is charged with the duty of preserving our peaceful relations with other countries. Honorable members must be impressed with the absolute need for the strongest efforts to bind into an even closer union all’ parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America, because our safety lies in that association of powers. I do not exaggerate when I say that, at any time, the world may be again involved in serious trouble. I am not one of those who believe that war is inevitable, but I recognize that we must be prepared for any emergency. That great nation, Germany, is divided on a most uneconomic basis into two main zones. The Eastern Zone is controlled by Russia, and the Western Zone is controlled by the British, Americans and French. The German National-Socialists, who feel intensely proud of their country, believe that the only possible way in which it may rise again will be as the result of another war in Europe. That statement may sound unnecessarily stark, but I see no other way in which Germany can rise again while Russia stands astride half the country, and the Western democracies occupy the other half. Great Britain and America would withdraw their troops from Western Germany to-morrow if they could be certain that Russia would not immediately overrun that territory. The German NationalSocialists base their hopes on another war in Europe, in which Russia will be defeated, and their country will be liberated. They consider that until Russia has been defeated, there will be little or no hope for Germany. Honorable members must take that factor into consideration when they examine the European scene. I should not trust Germany at any time, because I believe that, at the first opportunity, the National-Socialists would provoke war in order to regain their freedom. They would cause trouble in the Russian Zone, or the BritishAmerican Zone in the hope that it would lead to a conflict between the Western democracies and the Soviet, and they would endeavour to gain their own ends without taking a prominent part in the actual fighting. That, briefly, is my view of the situation in Europe.

The honorable” member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) appears to consider that Mr. Churchill and the late President Roosevelt “ sold out “ Europe to Russia at the Yalta Conference. I do not know on what authority the honorable member made that statement.

Mr Bird:

– That opinion was expressed, not by the honorable member for Parkes, but by the honorable member for Gellibrand (Mr. Mullens).

Mr EGGINS:

– At all events, a member of the Opposition stated that Mr. Churchill and the late President Roosevelt had sold Europe “ up the river “. Before an honorable member ventures to condemn those two great men, he should consider the circumstances in which the representatives of the Western democracies met the Russian dictator at Yalta. The war had reached a. crucial stage. Great Britain and the United States of America were about to open- the second front in Europe by landing a vast army in France. Statements . that have been made about the Yalta Conference leave the impression that Stalin, with characteristic cunning, made severe demands on President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill. Probably, the Russian dictator threatened that if his demands were not met, the Soviet would make a separate peace with the Nazis, and withdraw from the conflict in eastern Europe. Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt were placed in an impossible situation. All preparations had been made for the landing in France, and the success of that large venture might have been seriously jeopardized if Stalin had made a separate peace with Hitler. The Russian dictator saw the chance to demand his pound of flesh, and the representatives of Great Britain and the United States of America had to make concessions in order to prevent the development of a split between the Allies before the opening of the second front. Had Russia withdrawn from the war at that stage, the whole of the German Army in Eastern Europe could have been transferred to the Western Front, thereby immeasurably increasing the difficulties of the invaders and certainly causing greater casualties than were suffered. Those considerations must of necessity be recognized before any attempt is made to condemn Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt for alleged errors of judgment in making concessions to Stalin at the Yalta Conference.

The remarks that I have made about Germany apply with almost equal force to Japan. If the United States of America were to withdraw its occupation troops from that country, there would be little or nothing to prevent Russia from taking control of it. The menace of Russian activity is greater to-day than at any other time in history. The Communists are awaiting an opportunity to spread their influence in every country, and to obtain a grip on the world, economically and politically, until the Soviet Government in Moscow can tell itself with satisfaction, “ Now we have the situation well in hand “. During the last few years, the scope of Australia’s influence in international affairs has widened considerably. This country has substantially increased its representation abroad. [Extension of time granted.]

Sitting suspended from 4.5^ to S p.m.

Mr EGGINS:

– I thank the House for its courtesy in extending my time. I shall occupy it, in part, by endeavouring to summarize the points which I made before the suspension of the sitting. I express my thanks to the Government and to the Minister for External Affairs for placing before this Parliament a factual summary of the events that have taken place in the international sphere and a statement of Australia’s policy in relation to them. It is important that our relations with other countries should be understood by honorable members and by the people as a whole. The Government decided to place before honorable members very early in the life of this Parliament a statement on international affairs so that they, and in particular those who are newcomers to this House, may gain a proper apprecia tion of our relations with other countries and of the problems that face us in connexion with them. I strongly support the proposal of the Government to do everything possible to bring about a better understanding between Australia and the other member nations of the British Commonwealth. The attainment of such an objective is fundamental to our future welfare.

I also stress the desirability of achieving the utmost co-operation between the British Commonwealth and the United States of America. As the result of the recent war, the United States of America has entered much more closely into Pacific affairs than it has ever done before. We should encourage that country to extend its bases in the Pacific as close to Australia as possible so that we may have the protection of a strong ally at all times. We need the strength of that great country and the powerful aid of the member nations of the British Empire to enable us to defend the principles of democracy in this part of the world. We should also strive to bring about a better understanding between Australia and the Union of South Africa, the Dominion of Rhodesia and the African colonies. All of those countries are important links in the Empire and the better the mutual understanding between them and Australia and New Zealand, the better will we be able to defend this country against an enemy. We are vitally concerned about what is happening in world politics to-day. At our near north, right at our very door, the peoples’ of Asiatic countries are endeavouring to establish their own institutions of government and to develop their own way of life. We should do our utmost to encourage them to raise their standards so that they in turn may develop to a stage at which their main objective will be the preservation of peace. Unless they are able to develop their own forms of self-government their countries may well fall into the hands of Russia, in which event the danger to this country would be immeasurably increased.

During this debate many references have been made to Germany and Japan. I should not, in any circumstances, trust either the Germans or the Japanese. With Germany un economically divided! as it is at present, half of its area being under the control of Russia and the other half under the occupation of British and American troops, the Germans believe that only another war in Europe can make it possible for Germany to rise again. They hope, of course, that they will not be embroiled in the conflict and that Russia will be defeated, thus enabling Germany to rise again to importance in European affairs. A similar situation exists in relation to Japan. The peace treaty with Japan should be concluded as soon as possible, but even if that is done, Japan may still fall into the hands of Russia. A Russian-controlled Japan would constitute a greater menace to the safety of Australia than is the Japan of to-day. Having regard to the problems that face us in the east and the west, heavy responsibilities rest on every honorable member of this House. We should take every opportunity to study the international situation and to consider its implications.

For the first time in our history there is to be established as a part of the legislative machinery of this National Parliament a standing committee on foreign -affairs. The proposal for the establishment of such a committee constitutes a very great step forward. The deliberations of the committee will enable its members to make a close study of international affairs. Its activities will bring to the people a realization that more than ever before the difficulties that confront us in the realms of international politics are the responsibilities of all of us. The reports of its deliberations should give honorable members better information of the problems that lie ahead -of us in the international sphere. We should do our utmost to develop our international policy along such lines as will help to promote world peace at all times.

In 1948, I had an opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge of the activities of -our representatives in other countries. From personal conversations with them, T was able to gauge the responsibilities of their office, and the tremendous difficulties that face the Australian Government in its relations with other countries. The map of the world is changing so rapidly that in order to keep abreast of world developments one must study international affairs very closely. Our overseas representatives give to the Government first-hand information about the problems that confront the countries to which they have been assigned. Our career diplomats in overseas countries have outstanding qualifications and the results that they have achieved are a credit to them and to this country. They watch the world situation carefully and advise the Australian Government of all important happenings abroad. As this country grows in importance its representation overseas will have to be widened so that it will be able to play its part fully in international affairs. We have a fundamental responsibility to bring about the greatest co-operation between Australia and the other members of the British Commonwealth. I am sure that all honorable members are imbued with a desire to achieve such an objective. We must also achieve the greatest possible measure of understanding with the United States so that the foundations of our international affairs policy will ..be firm.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- There can be no doubt in the minds of honorable members of the importance of this debate. The number of honorable members who have so far taken part in it is an indication of the growing interest of the members of the Parliament generally in Australia’s position in international affairs. A great many honorable members opposite appear still to base their views about Australia’s future position on a terrible fear of the might of the Soviet Union. However, it must be admitted that even if the Soviet Union did not exist, many of the ills that beset the world to-day would not automatically disappear. For instance, the Soviet is not responsible for the starving millions of people in Asia. It has no responsibility for the difficulties that now exist in Italy. The peasants of Italy are seizing the land simply because they are land hungry and poverty-stricken. The situation which exists in many countries to-day stems from the continuance of the capitalist order of society. It is rather interesting to note that whilst some honorable members concentrate all their attention on the threat of communism, they do not give any attention to the spread and the growth of fascism, which is capitalism in its more highly developed form, and which is an even more imminent danger to democracy. Many of those who joined the underground movements in European countries during the last war and assisted the democratic forces of the allies to overthrow the Nazis, are now undergoing terms of imprisonment. Many others have met their deaths at the hands of the fascist authorities who collaborated with our enemies during the war. As an illustration I quote what is happening in Greece. In that country many prominent trade unionists have met their deaths at the hands of the fascist element of the community. One unfortunate Greek who was commended by the exiled Greek government for the part he played in the underground movement in Macedonia is now facing trial on a charge of having deserted his post during the occupation of his country. The real danger to democracy comes from the growth of the fascist forces in those countries.

The ideological line is not necessarily drawn between various nations; it may divide a nation into two. In the United States of America, for instance, some people believe in the fairHeal policy of the Truman Government. Others would go to any lengths to prevent that policy from being implemented. In Great Britain the socialist Labour Government is endeavouring to carry out a programme of nationalization of industry and to organize the country in such a. way as to bring about better living standards for the people. Opposed to that Government is the conservative and tory element which would go to any lengths to bring about the defeat of the socialist Labour Government. Honorable members opposite have made it clear that their main concern is that sufficient is not being done to consolidate the position of capitalism. They regard communism as a menace which threatens the regime of capitalism in the various countries.

I have fundamental differences of opinion with those who hold the Communist philosophy, but I believe there is an alternative to communism and capitalism. I do not believe that capitalism is the best system of organizing a nation for the good of the people. I am firmly of the opinion that socialism is the correct policy and that therefore socialism is something worth striving for. But in order that capitalism may be saved, some honorable members are prepared to endanger the future of civilization itself. Their view is that they must prepare for the coming threat of the Soviet power against what they term the Western democratic powers. I believe that no genuine effort is being made to-day to preserve the world peace that is so important to the peoples of all lands. Discussions have been along the lines of Atlantic pacts, Pacific pacts and various other pacts. It has been assumed that we are going to have a third world war and if there is going to be a third world war it is obvious that the only two nations capable of waging war on the scale war is waged in modern times - the United States of America and the Soviet Union - must participate in it. The tenor of practically all the discussion has been that war is inevitable. I hate to think that war is inevitable. If there us another world war there will not be a victor and a vanquished nation because there will be no victor. There may be no survivor.

We should be doing something to see that peace negotiations are commenced between the nations. If we adopt a defeatist attitude and assume that there is no possibility of agreement we may as well enjoy ourselves thoroughly before we are annihilated. Both sides will suffer annihilation in the next war because the two strongest nations in the world now have knowledge of the atomic bomb. We face an extraordinary situation to-day in that if, on the one hand, the Russians say that they are ready to negotiate it is asserted by the reactionary elements in every country that the offer is only propaganda, and that they do not mean what they say and if, on the other hand, the British or the Western Powers should offer to negotiate with the Soviet it is asserted that such action would be merely appeasement and would only strengthen Russia’s position. If neither side makes an approach how can there ever be agreement? If no agreement can be reached, there must be a third world war. I am one of those who sincerely believe that we ought to strive to preserve world peace. An arrangement for preserving world peace cannot be made unless the nations start to discuss the subject. That is a principle which applies in everyday life. It applies to our industrial affairs. Representatives of the parties concerned must start discussions and negotiations before they can accomplish an agreement. The same principle applies in regard to international affairs.

Probably some of the honorable gentlemen opposite who have taken part in the debate consider that they know a great deal more than I do on these war-like subjects, but I know that the workers, no matter in what country they reside, ultimately lose as a result of their participa tion in war. They have never gained from any conflict.

The greatest threat to Australia’s safety would be a resurgent Japan. What is happening? It is said we ought to get closer to the United States of America. I should like to see agreement between Australia and the United States of America but I agree with the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) that there is more than one opinion on foreign affairs in the United States of America and I should hate to believe that there were members of this House who really believed the American propaganda which tolls us that the Japanese of to-day, after a few years of occupation, are not the Japanese that we knew and against whom Australians fought in the last war. Surely honorable members do not believe that the Japanese have now accepted the principle of democratic government and have abandoned their old ways of life and action in the international sphere. After the first world war some people ‘believed that Russia would threaten world peace. Is it not a fact that the nazi regime in Germany only came to power and gained in strength because of the tory element in Britain? Hitler would never have gained his position of power without the support of these people. If the workers’ government which was in charge of Germany shortly after the end of World War I. had received the same support and cooperation from the British and American authorities as the Nazis it is probable that World War II. would not have occurred. But British and American financial in terests believed that by strengthening and re-arming Germany they would turn that nation to the east and they did not mind if Germany went to the east and attacked the Russians. But they made a mistake because Hitler reversed his plan and decided to attack the Western Powers. We appear to be going to repeat a stupidity performed after World War I. If there is a resurgent Japan it could become a real threat to the safety of Australia. 1 agree with the Minister that what happens in this part of the world is of much greater importance to its than what happens on the other side of the world; although, in a sense, whatever happens in any part of the world is of great importance to Australia. The great scientists of the world who were responsible for bringing this dreadful atomic power into existence realize what it will mean if we do not achieve international agreement and control of the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb. What does it matter whether there is a Pacific pact or an Atlantic pact if the opposing forces are using atomic bombs? In a conflict in which the United States of America and Great Britain opposed Russia the British would be annihilated. America might have some prospect of survival, although it would certainly suffer enormous damage, and so might the great Soviet power, but Great Britain could not protect itself adequately against atomic bombs. I have spoken to men who saw the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. When Professor Oliphant addressed the Chifley Cabinet when I was a member of it about two and a half years ago, he told us that bombs had already been developed in America at least 100 times as powerful as those used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Scientists know the possibilities in the event of another conflict between nations armed with this type of weapon.

Britain to-day has many difficulties to overcome. There is need for improvement in the living standards of the British people, but the living standards of the people of any country cannot be improved to any great extent if they have to bear the enormous burden of expense which in many cases, although referred to as defence expenditure, is really intended for offensive action. To-day, Britain i» spending £800,000,000 a year on its defence programme, but even that expenditure cannot provide Britain with the type of defences it would require against atomic bombs. To minimise the destruction cause . by atomic bombs the British nation would have to go underground. It would have to put its industries and its cities underground and it could not do that on an expenditure of £800.000,000 per annum. I have been told that the cost of one jet bomber is £500,000. It costs £400. a year for the training of each conscripted soldier. All that expense would be useless against atomic bombs. There is no nation in the world to-day capable of protecting itself adequately against the atomic bomb, yet honorable members opposite say there should be no agreement with the Soviet. “We should try to obtain agreement and we should appreciate that all of the faults for the failure to reach agreement are not on the one side.

Let us examine the history of the development of atomic energy and the part played in that development by the Allied powers. The war was proceeding and the United States of America, Britain and the Soviet were the three great powers opposing the Nazis. When the secret of atomic energy and of the method of developing the atomic bomb was first discovered it was not shared between the three great allies but was kept from one of the partners in the war. Is it not reasonable to expect that such action would arouse the suspicions of that partner from whom the information was kept? J believe it was at this point that the seed of discord was sown.

We must strengthen the United Nations. I have not a great deal of confidence in that body because I believe that it is based on many pious hopes to which it has not real power to give effect ; however, at least it did discuss the question of some international control of atomic energy. What happened? Many honorable members have expressed the opinion that the Russians did not want any control. It is true a great deal of suspicion and fear existed on both sides. T accept that America and Britain are sincere in the fears that they expressed just as I can understand the Soviet viewpoint which was probably that it might strengthen a ring of nations which would eventually endeavour to destroy it. We have to try to induce the great nations to discuss the need for international control of atomic energy. I understand that agreement could not be reached with the Soviet Union on the question of inspection of the development of atomic energy because the Western Powers wanted to conduct continuous inspections. The Russians objected to this but said that they were not opposed to periodical inspections and were prepared to allow inspectors of the United Nations organization to choose the time at which they would make inspections. I understand an additional reason why the Russians objected to the scheme of the Western Powers was that at the time this inspection was suggested there was doubt as to whether the Russians knew how to manufacture the atomic bomb and whether they had established a stockpile. The Americans did have a stockpile and were not prepared to destroy it until they had made an inspection. If American representatives had made an inspection of the Soviet territory and had discovered that there was no stockpile in the Soviet and that the Russians lacked the knowledge of how to manufacture the bombs, America would have been in a much stronger position to dictate terms than would have been the case if it had no direct knowledge of whether the Russians had obtained the secret.

The banning of the atomic bomb would not prevent the use of other dreadful instruments of mass destruction in war I want to preserve peace and I want to make war amongst the nations impossible because of the misery that it would bring to the ordinary people of every country. [Extension of time granted.] Scientists are devising new means of mass destruction, and therefore we ought to concentrate more of our attention on the need for preserving peace. What are we doing in our own field? We hear talk about a Pacific pact, but nobody has yet mentioned any nation that is prepared to join with us in such a pact or the purpose that it would serve. Is it to be merely a defensive pact, or is it to be an economic agreement designed to improve the living standards of the people of Asia so as to prevent them from falling under the influence of the Communists? Let us be frank. The poverty of the Asian millions would not have become an important subject for debate in this Parliament or elsewhere had it not been for the fear engendered by the spread of communism. That fear is the motive that has actuated the Government in proposing the formation of a Pacific pact. It is afraid of the growing influence of communism.

My own view is that most of the progressive movements in the world to-day are national in character and. are not Communist-inspired. Yet it must be said that any movement that is designed to overthrow existing authority or to make great fundamental changes in the organization of a country is dubbed by the political opponents of the Labour party as a Communist revolution ! Most of the teeming millions of Asia are illiterate. Does the Government imagine for a moment that communism means anything to them? They probably do not know the meaning of the word. But they know the meaning of hunger, and they know the meaning of imperialism, which has brought hunger to them. They know that they have been exploited by the imperialists, and a great surge of nationalism has arisen for the purpose of overthrowing those oppressors and making great changes in their forms of government. Consider the situation in Indonesia. I am amazed by the present altitude of the Government and its supporters towards that country. Soon after the establishment of the Republic of Indonesia had been announced, newspapers in Sydney and elsewhere published articles urging Australian businessmen to jump in and seize the opportunity to expand trade because of the goodwill that was said to be entertained by the Indonesians towards the Australian nation. Who created that goodwill ? I recall that at the time the Indonesians were fighting for their independence the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) declared very strongly that the moulding of foreign policy had been taken out of the hands of the Australian Government and that decisions were being made and enforced by the Waterside Workers Federation. It is true that the actions of the waterside workers in co-operating with the republican movement in Indonesia did more to establish goodwill between Indonesia and Australia than any other factor in recent years. We ought to give the credit where it is due. I remember the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender) talking about Dr. Soekarno as a collaborator of the Japanese and the Communists. But now the honorable gentleman has suddenly changed his opinion, no doubt because he has received assurances from Dr. Soekarno that he is not a Communist and approves of the use of capitalist methods of developing Indonesia. .

What is the situation in China? Question after question has been asked of the Minister for External Affairs concerning the attitude that the Government proposed to adopt towards recognition of the Communist Government of China. The Minister promised that he would deal with that subject when he made hip statement on international affairs. I listened very intently to that wordy speech, but not one word was said in it about the attitude of the Australian Government towards the new government of China. Why does this Government hesitate on the matter? The United States of America and Great Britain, evidently with conflicting interests, have adopted different attitudes. The Government of the United States of America, instead of officially recognizing the new government of China, has been talking about making some gesture for the defence of Formosa and has made no protest against the proposal of the nationalist forces to blockade part of the coast line of China. The United Kingdom Government has formally recognized the new government. In order to be consistent, therefore, it would have to treat anybody who tried to violate the integrity of that government or of the territory under its control in the same manner as it would treat a pirate. Obviously Australia could become involved very easily in further unfortunate incidents in the east. Where does this Government stand? We have heard a great deal of talk about Australia being a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and about the need for its members to work as a united body. Why have we not worked in unity in relation to China? The Government no doubt finds itself more in sympathy with the policy of the United States of America than with that of the United Kingdom. It must face the facts sooner or later. There is a growing tide of nationalism throughout the east, and it must be realized that great changes are impending. The Government cannot maintain capitalism in the form that it would like to maintain it, with imperialist governments exercising dictatorial power to exploit the people of Asia and to suppress freedom of speech and the liberty, of the subject.

Even if Australia had the power to impose its will upon other nations and wanted to do so, it could still make its greatest contribution to the cause of world peace by entering into negotiations designed to cement friendly relationships between powers that are likely to come into conflict. With a population of S,000,000, we have neither the capacity nor, I hope, the desire to make war on any nation. Therefore, we should not talk as a war-like nation. We should talk of peace, because we know what misery wars can bring to people in every country. We ought to stand with the other members of the British Commonwealth and acknowledge certain essential facts. Some honorable members opposite condemned the British Labour Government when it decided to grant independence to India and Pakistan. They spoke of the dismembering of the British Empire. They refused to recognize that the world had changed and that people had learned to think in new ways. How long are we to talk about the “Spender plan” before we act? People in Asia are starving and they cannot afford to wait for months on end while we talk about what we plan to do to help them. The members of the Australian Country party say that we should help the starving millions of Asia and, in the process, stem the southward flow of communism. But they continue to export their wheat and other commodities at the highest possible prices and, in many instances, they charge more for their products which are sold in the East then they get for similar products which are sold in Europe. Our approach to such problems must be sincere. The Chinese and the Indonesians want to know who will give them more rice in the bowl. That is the all-important question from their point of view. I regret that there has not been more talk in this very important debate about the need for preserving world peace than there has been about preparations for a third world war and how to win it. Nobody will win if another war takes place. Therefore, I suggest that every honorable member should direct his energies towards the preservation of peace.

Mr McCOLM:
Bowman

.- I rise to speak with considerable diffidence after hearing the excellent and comprehensive statement of the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. .Spender) and some of the speeches that have been made by other honorable members. I was particularly impressed by the addresses that were given by the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) and the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley). They are two of the finest speeches in this debate so far. The field covered by the subject of international affairs is so wide that I can attempt to touch upon only several of its aspects. The general situation in Asia has changed considerably in the last few years, and we find in that region to-day young and vigorous nations with huge populations where previously there were colonies and dependencies controlled hy European powers. A lively spirit of nationalism pervades Asia, and naturally the peoples of Asia are touchy about matters that affect their national pride.

I direct my attention particularly to the new-born Republic of Indonesia. I have visited that country in recent years, and I have a high regard and a considerable affection for its people. Nevertheless I consider that the Australian Government should make it very clear that in no circumstances will it yield to Indonesia’s claims to any portion of New Guinea. As the right honorable member for Barton has said, Indonesia has no moral, ethnological or geographical claim to any part of that territory. The situation in China has been discussed during this debate. My opinion is that the spread of communism to China does not present an immediate menace to the Pacific region, because, as history has shown, any nation that goes into China goes into trouble. Up to the present, Soviet Russia has not gone into China. Some members of the present Chinese Government have been greatly influenced by Russian methods and Russian teachings, but a vastly different situation will arise if Russia tries to tate any active part in the internal management of the country. I believe that events of the next few years will prove that the Communist Government of China will have tremendous difficulty in controlling the country, because, as has been said, the average Chinese is not interested in communism. He is not really interested in any government unless it provides him with what he wants. We know that China sutlers from serious famines from time to time. According to recent newspaper reports, about 200,000,000 Chinese are facing starvation now, but I believe that those reports have been grossly exaggerated. Famines in China are usually regional in character, though, nevertheless, on account of the vast population, they affect millions of people. As armies have rolled backwards and forwards across the country during the wars of recent years, small peasant farmers, who normally grow mo3t of the food for China, hare learned that, if they grow more than they and their dependants can consume, one army or another will seize their surplus. A stage has been reached, and I am speaking about things that have been told me in recent times by people who have spent a long time in China, when the peasants are refusing to sow a greater acreage of grain than they can handle in their own small communities. When that occurs in a country like China it must cause tremendous famine in the years to come. Within the next four or five years there will be famine in China on a far greater scale than ever before. If the Communist Government is in power when that happens it will be far too concerned with its own internal problems to worry about bothering any other country. The only danger that I see in communism in China today is in the Chinese Government being used for the extension of Communist propaganda into the neighbouring States of Vietnam and Thailand, and thence into Burma and Malaya. That danger should be fought in all possible ways, especially by assisting the other countries of the world to make the internal conditions as good as possible. That should prevent dissatisfaction amongst the people and the consequent growth of communism. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) told us that the only thing which would save the world was socialism. Then he told us that the greatest danger in the world was fascism. He quoted German fascism to prove his point. I suggest that the honorable member has completely forgotten that Hitler’s Germany was a national socialist Germany.

Mr Calwell:

– There was not too much socialism in it.

Mr McCOLM:

– I do not know what experience the honorable member has had of fascism, but I lived under Hitler’s national socialism for four and a half years. An honorable member said to-day that he wondered whether any Australians were not overjoyed when Russia came into the last war. When Russia entered the war I was in a German camp near the Baltic, and people in that camp of all nationalities were overjoyed when Russia entered the war. At that time the Russian people, as was proved by events, were not prepared for war. As time passed by, and Russia grew in strength and power, it began to put up a tremendous resistance. Then the admiration of the whole world was roused and the sympathy of all people went out to the Russians. I know that is so because I saw the attitude of sympathy growing in that camp. With the assistance of the capitalist countries of the United States and the United Kingdom, the Russians then threw back the German armies and went on to a combined conquest of Germany. When Russia helped to conquer Germany, it missed the greatest opportunity it will ever have of converting the world to communism, because a vast majority of the people of Europe were prepared to accept the Russian form of communism because of what Russia had done during the war.

Mr Mullens:

– Has the honorable member heard of the Ribbentrop-Stalin pact?

Mr McCOLM:

– Yes, and I have heard the honorable member speaking about the Roosevelt-Churchill discussions at Yalta. I believe that those gentlemen, without whom we would all be national socialists to-day, were firmly convinced that they could, in the future, cope with Stalin.

Mr Mullens:

– “ Uncle Joe “ made monkeys of them.

Mr McCOLM:

– Churchill had doubts about Stalin’s sincerity, but Roosevelt had none. Roosevelt firmly believed that he could deal with him. That view was no doubt founded on the same basis as the view of the people of Europe at that time. They believed that they could trust Russia, but time has proved that Russia cannot he trusted.

In the opening lines of the Minister’s statement, it was indicated that the aims of Australian foreign policy are essentially the preservation of peace and our way of life. In considering the preservation of world peace it must be borne in mind that any efforts on our part may be made impotent by the ultimate purpose of Soviet policy. If that policy aims at world domination by Moscow, as it appears to-day, whether the honorable member for East Sydney likes it or not, then if the Soviet Government ever senses itself in a position to embark on world conquest, there can be only one way of preventing war. That is for the western democracies to maintain their fighting services in sufficient strength to match the Soviet at all times. It is not sufficient that one or two of the “Western Powers should be strong. The United Nations could have ensured world peace had it not been emasculated by the Russian veto. That organization can no longer exert a. great power for peace amongst the more important nations of the world, and therefore all the western democracies or socalled western democracies should play their part in preparing for defence against Soviet Russia. The British Commonwealth of Nations would naturally participate in any such scheme and this country should be prepared to shoulder its full share of the burden. It is not enough that we should be strong; it is necessary that Russia, should know ‘ that we are strong. It is not even enough that Russia should know that we are strong; it should further know that, if necessary, we will use that strength. Some horrible mistakes have been made in the past because world diplomacy has followed a somewhat tortuous line in many respects. Perhaps the worst example of confused diplomacy was given in 1914 when the Kaiser was led to believe that the British Empire would not go to war. Our diplomacy must be crystal clear in its intentions. It must be forthright and honest and must prove to Russia that we sincerely want peace but that we will fight to retain our way of life.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The very long statement which was read to the House by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender) is largely a departmental document and is a playback of a lot of thing? that I have heard before. The burden of the story is that foi1 our own security we should have a Pacific Ocean regional security pact. That pact is to be subscribed to by the western nations in the Pacific as ‘well as by the Asiatic nations. We were told a lot about the poverty of Asia and about the communism which always results from poverty. That is a note which the Labour party has been striking for many years. We are ready to subscribe, in part, to the views expressed in the document on the best way of meeting the situation before us. The people of this country live in a portion of the earth which geographically belongs to Asia. This country comprises 3,000,000 square miles of the British Commonwealth. It is the largest island and the smallest continent in the world, and it has 12,000 miles of coastline enclosing it. This vast territory is inhabited by a comparatively small population which for the most part is jammed between a range of mountains near the eastern coast and the eastern seaboard. The country can never be held by us, or by our descendants, unless our population is considerably increased. It is the height of folly to talk of relying on Asiatic nations to give us assistance in the fight against communism as a doctrine, or in a possible fight against Communist China or a resurgent Japan. The Minister played down the story of Soekarno and the treachery of the regime of which he is the head throughout the Japanese war. The Minister said -

I spent several days in Djakarta on my way to the Colombo Conference, and bad the opportunity of meeting President Soekarno and most of his Cabinet. I formed the conclusion that they were able men with moderate views and a sober realization of the immensity of the tasks in front of them.

Now I propose to regale the House with a few statements from the Liberal party propaganda about those men who the Minister found were men of moderate views. In a publication, that I quoted the other night in part, which was issued from Ash-street in Sydney, these sentences appeared - . . Dr. Soekarno, in 1927, as an acknowledged Communist had led a Nationalist revolt in Java resulting in bloodshed, and he fled the country - to go where? To Japan! He was later decorated by the Japanese Emperor for service? rendered. On the fall of .lava in 1.042, and within 10 days of that fall, ho was leader of a puppet government for Japan.

Soekarno is the one man who has emerged from the recent awful cataclysm without losing any prestige whatever. He was the puppet president in Japan of the Indonesian Republic and is now the president of the Indonesian regime that this Government has recognized. He is the person whom the Minister for External Territories describes as a man of moderate views. On the testimony given by the Liberal party he does not seem to be a man of very moderate views. The Minister, when he was in Opposition, spoke in this House on the 16th February, 1949, about the Delhi Conference to which the honorable member for East Sydney referred a little while ago. Every member of the Liberal and Australian Country parties castigated the resolutions of that conference as a sellout of the British Empire until Mr. Churchill said that the work performed by it was the acme of statesmenship and something to which he gave full support. Then the criticisms disappeared. The honorable member for Warringah said on that day -

That conference affirmed that white people had no right in South-East Asia, and declared that the Dutch should get out and leave the entire area of the so-called Indonesian Republic to the political body set up by the collaborations with the Japanese, and those who have, iti fact, the blood of white people on their hands.

Yet the Minister, who is the same honor* able member for Warringah went to Djakarta recently and shook hands with the people who, in his own classical terminology, have the blood of white people on their hands. I do not think the Australian .public will readily accept the testimony of the Minister on the work of Dr. Soekarno and Dr. Hatta. I shall tell honorable members what Dr. Soekarno himself said over the radio stations of Java during the war. Those statements were monitored by our own Australian short-wave station and were issued in roneo-ed and printed form by the Dutch, from time to time. On the 26th November, 1945, the Netherlands East Indies. Government Information Service issued; a document in Melbourne in which Dr.. Soekarno is quoted as having said in June, 1943-

America we will iron out, England we will break open with a crowbar.

That, is the gentleman whom the Minister says is a man of moderate views. In November, 1943, Soekarno went to Tokyo to offer thanks at the Yokusumi Shrine to the spirits of the Japanese who fell in the course of Java’s liberation. Hirohito conferred on him the Order of the Sacred Treasure (Second Class) in recognition of his co-operation with the Japanese military authorities in Java. I wonder whether Dr. Soekarno showed the Order of the Sacred Treasure (Second Class) to the Minister for External Affairs when he so impressed that honorable gentleman with the moderation of his views and the reasonableness of his approach to the problems of his own country and of ours. On the 20th July, 1944, during the festivities to celebrate the Japanese Marine Day, Soekarno said -

Wo Indonesians will continue to co-operate With Japan, even should we be defeated. I am convinced that Japan is right in this war.

Now, the Minister for External Affairs is convinced that he is right in the peace. Two days later, Dr. Soekarno made this statement -

We, the people of Java, in co-operation with the new Cabinet, will sacrifice our bodies and souls to obtain victory in the present GEA War.

On the 12th September, 1944, the Japanese Commander-in-Chief presented Dr. Soekarno with two paintings, one depicting the rising sun set in cherry blossoms, and the other Fujiyama, symbols of the Japanese spirit and virginity.

Mr Bowden:

– What does that mean?

Mr CALWELL:

– I do not ‘know. I am no longer Minister for Information. Perhaps the Minister for External Affairs can tell us what was meant. Perhaps he saw those symbols of the Japanese spirit and virginity. Soekarno said on that occasion -

On behalf of the entire people I herewith express our gratitude to the Japanese forces who regard us as their younger brothers, and who guide us politically as well as economically and in military affairs.

Your Excellency-

That means the Japanese CommanderinChief - accept the slogan of “ Indonesia Baroe “ - (New Indonesia) “Do or die with Japan”.

I eliminate a number of interesting and illuminating excerpts, and pass on until we arrive at the 19th August, 1945, when the independence of Indonesia was declared by the Japanese CommanderinChief, who named Soekarno as President of the Republic of Indonesia. The Japanese announced that henceforth they would leave the Government in the hands of Soekarno, confining themselves to the maintenance of law and order. Then came Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, who, insofar as he could, put an end to all that. When he received the surrender of the Japanese, he commanded them to annul their proclamation of the Republic of Indonesia. But Soekarno has not changed. He has been talking quite a good deal lately, and I have a little dossier on him. According to the Melbourne Sun News Pictorial of the 17th January last - my friend, Sir Keith Murdoch, would not let me clown - this is what Soekarno said -

Irian (Dutch New Guinea) would join the Indonesian Fatherland before the end of the year.

But the most interesting quotation is the following : -

Indonesians fought the first battle for independence against the British force at Sourabaya in 1945.

Now, the Minister for External Affairs asks us to believe that a republic led by such a man could be a bulwark for the defence of this country. We are relying on a rotten reed if we rely on Soekarno.

The Minister says he was impressed with what Soekarno, and Hatta and one or two others, had told him. He then repudiated the claim that Indonesia was going to grab Dutch New Guinea before the end of the year as not worthy of consideration. These are his words -

Honorable members will recall that an unofficial spokesman- and I emphasize the words “ unofficial spokesman “, as if he were a person of no account. He continued - . . in Indonesia recently declared that Australian New Guinea should be incorporated in Indonesia. I thought it desirable to make an immediate rebuttal of any such claim, and I was pleased to see that the Indonesian Government lost no time in disclaiming that it enjoyed any official support.

That was a misleading statement. Yamin’s statement ‘did enjoy official support. I quote from that great organ of public opinion, the Melbourne Argus, which reported the Minister for External Affairs as ‘follows : -

Any such claim would not admit a moment’s consideration. It would be rejected immediately.

That statement was published on the 1st February last, but Dr. Usman, who is about to be recognized by this country ass ambassador for the Republic of Indonesia, addressed an adult education summer school somewhere in Australia on the 11th January, and is reported in the Melbourne Age of the following day as having said -

Indonesians are anxious that their new Republic shall include Dutch New Guinea, as the Dutch had agreed to it when they created the State of East Indonesia in 1940.

I interpolate the observation that I do not believe that the Dutch ever agreed to any such thing. Dr. Usman declared -

Dutch New Guinea belongs to us.

We have all declared in our various ways, and on various occasions, that the Indonesians have no more claim to Dutch New Guinea than they have to Siam. There is what is known as the Wallace Line, that divides ethnically and geographically Indonesia on the one hand from Dutch New Guinea and Papua and the Australian mandated territory of New Guinea on the other hand. The Minister for External Affairs did not tell us that Dr. Usman had made that claim on the 11th January and that he had allowed it to pass. The Minister seized on Yamin’s statement, and repudiated it on the 1st February. There was also the statement by Soekarno, published in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial on the 17th January, a fortnight before the Minister disputed the claim by Indonesia, to Dutch New Guinea. I refer to the statement in which he declared that Irian, or Dutch New Guinea, would join the Indonesian fatherland before the end of the year. The Minister did not attack Soekarno for making that statement, nor have we been told that he asked Soekarno to repudiate it. At any rate, Soekarno certainly did not repudiate the statement. I now turn to the Sunday Truth of the 12th March, only a little more than a week ago, in which is published the following message from Djkarta: -

Indonesian ambitions to take over western New Guinea were dramatically highlighted to-day, when the Indonesian Lower House resolved that the territory must be brought under Indonesian control within a year.

The motion also urged that Parliament should send an investigation committee to New Guinea. ft was agreed that the question of New Guinea should go on the agenda paper for the first meeting this month of Dutch and Indonesia officials, and the United Nations Commission in Indonesia.

The Commission should continue to operate as long as the question remained undecided, the motion stated.

Further significance was given to the motion by the Premier (Dr. Hatta), who announced that Mr. L. N. Palar, chief Indonesian representative for the United Nations, had been appointed diplomatic head of an Indonesian mission which would be sent to Russia “ to work out details for the opening of diplomatic relations with the Kremlin “’.

I submit that all this proves that we can never make a deal with Indonesia in which the defence of Australia is involved. There are two prerequisites for an alliance with Indonesia. One is our recognition of Indonesia’s claim to Dutch New Guinea, something that would be fatal to our very existence as a western nation; the other condition is the abandonment of the White Australia policy. We shall never be able to make an alliance with Indonesia or any other Asiatic country unless we give to the people of that country the same opportunity to settle in Australia as is enjoyed by Europeans, and we could do that only at our peril. We have never allowed it, and we cannot abandon the White Australia policy now.

In other parts of his statement, the Minister tried to glide over difficult problems. I was amazed at the temerity he exhibited in making the following statement : - V« do not accept the inevitability of a clash between the democratic and Communist way of life; there is no logical reason why democracy and communism (as distinct from Communist imperialism) should not be able to live together in the world.

The claim that the democracies and communism can live in the world together is the Russian Communist line; it is the Affairs says, in effect, “ That is all right with me, too “. It cannot be done, no matter how he qualifies his claim by saying that democracy and communism, as distinct from communistic imperialism, can live together. What is the distinction between communism and Communistic imperialism ? Has any one ever been able to define the one as distinct from the other? Is not. the burden of the charge against Russia that it not only staged a revolution inside its own borders, but that, in accordance with the teaching of dialectical materialism, it is pledged also to bring about world revolution? It has always been claimed that social revolution cannot be successful in one country only. There were ideological differences between Stalin and Trotsky long ago but communism has never abandoned the goal of world revolution. I maintain that the world cannot be divided in the way the Russians claim, and in the way that is now claimed by the Australian Liberal party Minister for External Affairs. But, then, history is a collection of paradoxes. There are some people who think that a third world war would destroy communism. I do not believe that it would. The first world war ended with communism installed over more than one-sixth of the earth’s surface and dominating the lives of 180,000,000 people. In the second world war, Russia was mauled, but communism was strengthened. That is certainly one of the extraordinary paradoxes of modern history. To-day, communism has moved westward to the Oder-Neisse line, in central Europe, south to the Adriatic, and to within a comparatively short distance of the Dardanelles. Communism has engulfed China, and is moving south and south-west towards India and the islands to the north and north-west of Australia. A third world war might destroy Russia. I think that the Americans would undoubtedly be successful in such a conflict, yet so much human misery and material destruction would be caused by it that communism would then probably be entrenched over an even greater area of the earth’s surface than it occupies to-day. I believe that there are spiritual weapons with which to fight communism, but I also believe that there are materialistic considerations, and that it is right to strengthen those countries that may be affected by communism, and certainly to strengthen our own country primarily against such an evil. I mean by that an improvement of our social and economic conditions. I do not think that, in national affairs any more than in the life pf an individual, salvation can come from outside. Man’s salvation depends primarily upon his own effort, and the nation’s salvation depends upon its own efforts. Therefore, when I became Minister for Immigration nearly five years ago, I expressed the opinion in this Parliament and outside it that we might have only 20 or 25 years in which to make the best possible use of our second chance to survive. I stated that there was an obligation upon everybody to help as many people as possible to come to this country while we yet had time to increase the population of this nation as rapidly as we could. We are taking calculated risks, but -risks nonetheless, but any risk that we take in increasing the population of this country is small and insignificant compared with the risk of leaving it unoccupied and a prey to those who may be inclined to attack us. [Extension of time granted.] I am sorry that my time is so short, because I should like to say a good deal about this matter. I disclaim the views that have been expressed by honorable members opposite to the effect that realism is the key-note of the foreign policy of the Menzies Government. If we were realistic, we should not be worrying about Pacific pacts with Asiatic nations.

We should put our faith in whatever we can do for ourselves, and in whatever assistance we can get from the United States of America. At the moment, that country is not interested in making a Pacific pact with Australia. New Zealand and Canada are in the same category, whilst England is in no position to accept commitments outside Europe, and, unfortunately, is not even strongenough to adequately discharge its commitments in Malaya and other places. The American concentration in the Pacific is in the area from the Aleutian Islands to the Philippines. Its main, centre of activity is based upon Japan. American global strategy, as I see it, is designed to use England on one side of the earth’s surface and Japan on the other as aircraft-carriers from which to use its weapons upon Russia. America will increase its strength in the Pacific in the area to which I have referred, and at the moment it is not interested in any area south of that.

Mr TRELOAR:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It was interested inManus Island.

Mr. -CALWELL. - America was never interested in Manus Island to the degree to which the position was misrepresented hy some people. There is no statement in any documents to the effect that the Americans ever requested that ManusIsland should be ceded to the United States of America, or that we should forgo our authority over that island. However, that is now history. America to-day may be a defensive screen for us against Communist China, but other forces are rising closer to this country. I believe that the Minister for External Affairs should tell Soekarno, Yamin, Hatta, Sjahrir and other Indonesians that no nation shall come into Dutch New Guinea, other than the Dutch, and that if any other people try to interfere, the Australian Government will assert its authority in that territory before them. I do not express that view because I believe that we should be imperialistic or should want to annex any territory. I have said before that the suzerainity over the territory of Dutch New Guinea should be granted to the United Nations, and that that organization should give a trusteeship to Holland alone, or to Holland and Australia jointly; but we can never allow any other people to come within that area, because if we do, the whole of Northern Australia will become untenable.

This debate has served a useful purpose, but I consider that some honorable gentlemen opposite should have paid a tribute, as the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) did, when in Opposition in the Eighteenth Parliament, to the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) regarding the honour that was conferred upon this country and upon the right honorable gentleman himself when he was elected President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. That is the highest office within the gift of the free peoples of the world. The right honorable gentleman discharged the duties and responsibilities of his high office with great credit to himself and some advantage to the Australian nation.

I expected that the Minister for External Affairs would make some references to Europe. On the 28th May next, 600,000 Germans are to march into the Western sector of Berlin under the control and protection of 30,000 German policemen who have been trained by the Russians. The Russians have said that they will give protection to those Germans who march into the Western sectors in a neoHitler putsch. If those Germans are able to march from the Russian sector and assert their authority for a few hours in the Western sectors, not many weeks will have elapsed before they will return, and the Allies will be forced out of Berlin. If that should happen, it will not be many months before Russian influence will stretch far beyond the Odor.Neissline to the English Channel. Indeed, before long Russian influence will be dominant from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and across to the English coast. That state” of affairs can happen over night. We live in a most difficult and dangerous world. We have few friends. The day of the white man’s supremacy and domination in Asiatic countries has ended, but the day of the white man’s influence is not yet over, if we are able to help other people who have obtained the right to govern themselves, in the way to peace. I do not believe that the salvation of this country can be assured, or even possibly guaranteed by pacts of the kind that have been envisaged by the Minister for External Affairs. He should get down to reality, and abandon some of those proposals. He should not mislead himself or the nation into believing that the exchange of ambassadors with the Philippines Government and the Indonesian Government will give us added security or added friendship. The Filippinos and the Indonesians will not give us real friendship unless we agree to allow their nationals to come into this country, as we allow Europeans to enter it, despite the fact that those countries themselves, as well as all Asiatic countries, have discriminatory laws in respect of the entry of other Asiatic people.

I conclude on this note. The Minister directed attention to the fact that there are Chinese throughout the Pacific area, including 5,000,000 in Malaya, and that they all are friends of the new Communist Government. It was because I believed that they formed a potential fifth column that I wanted to remove the 600 war-time refugees of Chinese origin who are still in this country, yet the Menzies Government has decided to allow them to remain in Australia.

Mr ROBERTON:
Riverina

.- I listened with intense personal interest to the statement on foreign policy that was delivered by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender). Insofar as I am in a position to judge, the statement was frank and forthright, and I welcome now, as I welcomed before during the debate on the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply, the Government’s splendid intention to establish an allparty standing committee on foreign affairs. I assume that the two parties that constitute the Government, and the Opposition, will be represented on that committee. I am hopeful that it may do as much for us as similar committees have done for other countries within and without the British Empire.

As I stated, I listened with intense personal interest to the speech of the Minister for External Affairs and I have since listened with the same degree of interest to the speech of the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt), but

I confess to an increasing feeling of utter bewilderment. Foreign policy affects the lives of every man, woman and child in this country in an accutely personal way, yet the subject was discussed by the right honorable member as something remote and wholely impersonal, and as an academic thesis or some kind of involved political abstraction. Such an approach is of no earthly value to me. Speaking as a member of the working class - if there is a working class, and honorable members opposite assure me that there is - I say emphatically that to treat foreign affairs as an academic thesis is of uo earthly -use to me or to the electors of Riverina. I use the word “ earthly “ in its literal sense. Foreign policy is an acutely personal matter, and must be laced in ari acutely personal way. If this discussion is to be in the clouds, I admit quite frankly that I have no contribution to make to it, because it will not serve any purpose for me, as a member of the Parliament, representing a rural constituency.

The foreign policy of a free country should be the deliberately predetermined and expressed attitude of the people of that country towards the people of any and every other country. That matter is of the greatest personal importance to me and to every good Australian. As a country man, I consider that it is not possible for us to occupy this continent effectively unless we can be reasonably certain of periods of comparative peace. Foreign policy is designed to achieve that condition. A sound foreign policy is more important to us now than it has ever been before. We are, numerically, if for no other reason, the weakest link in the chain of continents, and that situation has developed within recent years. For the first time in our history, we find ourselves utterly defenceless, and grimly and terribly vulnerable, and it is the urgent duty of this Parliament to rectify that lamentable position. To-day, no powerful British Navy sails the seven seas, and no British armies are posted at Strategic points throughout the world. To-day the influence of the great British people has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. We are not a race of people that is native to this country. Unfortunately that fact is very often for- gotten. Indeed, it was forgotten in this House last night. So that, whether we like it or not, we began by having kith and kin scattered all over the world. We can be loyal to our own kith and kin or we can be disloyal to them. The choice has always been ours, and it still is. Conversely, of course, our kith and kin can either be loyal or disloyal to us. The choice, on the other hand, has always been theirs, and it still is. We could renounce the British Empire, or the Empire could renounce us; we could betray the British Empire, or the Empire could betray us. Up to this point in our history, it has always been presupposed, both at home and abroad, that we should want to remain loyal to our kith and kin wherever they may be, and that they in turn would want to remain loyal to us. The time has come for a clear restatement of the position. Such a restatement of the position is, in my opinion, basic to the fundamentals of Australian foreign policy. Without it we are a vagrant people soliciting shabby, illicit and impermanent friendships in the streets of the world.

When I listened to the right honorable member for Barton discussing foreign affairs as if they were new and obscure stars that he himself had discovered in the celestial sphere, the thought came to me that our foreign policy of the last 50 years, with all its faults - which no one knows better than I do - has been extraordinarily good to both of us and, indeed, to every honorable member in this House. When we were born into this world the British Empire was strong enough to give that degree of comparative peace and security that was necessary to enable us to establish ourselves as more or less reputable members of democratic society. Nor was it exclusive to us. The strength of the British Empire was available to every “man and every nation of good intent. It opened the doors of opportunity, and held them open, for the right honorable member for Barton, for me, and for every man and every nation willing to play the game of life according to the simple, decent rules laid down by ordinary British people. That was the blessed state of affairs that brought me from obscurity, through education, to the plough, and brought the right honorable member for Barton from the same obscurity, through education, to distinction. The world was wide open to both of us. We could go anywhere and engage in any form of activity, and as long as we observed the simple rules of decency, we were safe and no one could harm us. Twice during the last 50 years that blessed state of affairs was attacked with increasing violence, and twice during the same period it was saved for me, for the right honorable member for Barton, and for every honorable member of this House by the blood, sweat and tears of valiant men and women. We have survived, but the heart of the Empire has been torn and shattered, not by our enemies, but by our self-inflicted wounds. That, is our shame. Twenty years ago no man and no nation had anything to fear while the British Empire was strong.

To-day every free man and every free country is in deadly fear of communism. That is what comes of disaffection, of destructive criticism, and of the British blaming the British for all the wretchedness and woe that have been visited on the world since the dawn of human history. Yet that disaffection, that destructive criticism is voiced in this House. Here, too, the British blame the British for all the wretchedness and woe that are evident in the world. Such criticism is unworthy of honorable members and of our British tradition. These self-inflicted wounds are bleeding us to death. The sooner there is a general recognition of that sad fact, the sooner shall we be in a position to rectify that deplorable and tragic state of affairs. Wc, who have enjoyed comparative peace and security in the past, have wantonly destroyed any prospect of comparative peace and security for our children. The conditions that the right honorable member for Barton and I enjoyed when we were children are not now available to our children or, in fact, to any British child throughout the world. We have lost the strength that gave us that security. In my humble and contrite opinion it should be the first objective of a sound foreign policy to re-establish that strength as rapidly as possible. A foreign policy is utterly useless unless as a first step it provides for the restoration of the strength of the Empire.

The restorative process must begin by the component parts of the British Empire bringing to those parts of the world over which they have any influence a maximum degree of production, not exclusively for the benefit of the British people, but for the benefit of mankind. A restoration of economic strength will not, in itself, be sufficient. It must be coupled with a restoration of military strength if for no other reason than to enable the Empire, in association with other reputable . nations, to bring about a general re-arrangement of human affairs under which nations will be compelled to behave. With the strength of the Empire restored we can once again win the confidence of our friends and merit the respect of our enemies. If we bring about closer relations with Western Europe and the United States of America we shall be able to attract to our cause every free and peace-loving people on the face of the earth. That is the only possible answer to the threat of communism.

I was intensely interested ‘ to hear the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) express himself in terms that led me to believe that he, too, wants to buttress the free countries against the threat of communism. ‘Outside the Empire, or within a weak and impotent Empire, we are the Achilles heel in South-East Asia, without even the protection of a sock of western civilization. We have nothing to offer to Indo-China, Thailand, Burma, Malaya, Indonesia or the Philippines except advice, the responsibility for our defence and the blind admiration of a section of our people for their revolt against the French, the British, and the Americans. That advice and admiration will be rejected for the very reasons that have been stated by the honorable member for Melbourne. It has to be admitted that there are alternatives to the restoration of the strength of the British Empire, and the people should be told of them, not in academic terms, but in terms of stark realism. Perhaps I may be permitted to mention a few of them that I regard as particularly unsatisfactory. [Extension of time granted.~ I am indebted to the House for its courtesy in extending my time. The first possible alternative is a policy of isolation. If we adopt a policy of complete isolation from our kith, and kin, from the Empire and from the world, that could only serve to excite the contempt of our friends and the cupidity of our enemies. Invasion would he inevitable and the consequences would be disastrous. So we must rule out isolation as an alternative foreign policy.

Perhaps we can toy with the idea of partial isolation. At the first sign of danger we could go screaming once again to the United States of America to save us from the consequences of our own criminal negligence. But the United States of America would not be likely to hear our cry. After its last bitter experience, it would be more likely to let us scream our heads off like a truculent child, as a salutory punishment for our own neglect. We could explore the possibilities of entering into alliances with all sorts of people. Perhaps we could try Ceylon, India and Pakistan. It has to be remembered, of course, that the States of Ceylon, India and Pakistan are still experiments that have to be tested in the crucible of experience. They have to compose their religious and racial differences, and that has never been an easy problem either there or anywhere else. We could try Ireland. We could try the new Scotland that is allegedly to arrive after the new battle of Bannockburn has been fought and won. We could hawk ourselves all over the world trying to find an ally. But whatever country we entered into an alliance with, we should be expected to rush to its aid at the first sign of its danger with all our resources in men and material and we have never been good at that.

There are people in this country who would welcome an alliance with Soviet Russia at this very moment as the complete solution of all our international problems. That would be a base betrayal of our heritage and could happen only after the extermination of every man who values the spiritual and temporal liberty that British people have enjoyed throughout history.

Perhaps the United Nations gives us a final opportunity to escape from our own responsibilities in foreign affairs. I am very glad that even the right honorable member for Barton has not suggested that we should rely on the United Nations to iron out any of our international difficulties. The right honorable gentleman did mention with considerable pride the partition of Palestine as a splendid example of the effectiveness of the work of the United Nations. There are millions of Arabs who will not agree with him and millions of other people who cannot see merit in the arbitrary division of a country, regardless of the sentiments of the people of that country - not even this one.

It is the duty of this Parliament to devote what talents it may have to an examination of the position of foreign affairs in order to re-establish the strength of the British Empire for the sake of all good people, and for the everlasting good of mankind, and in order that the right honorable member for Barton and I may leave to our children, if to no one else, the same degree of security and liberty that he and I have enjoyed for so long.

Mr GRAHAM:
St. George

.- I rise to support the motion for the printing of the paper on foreign policy submitted to this House last week by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender). I regard that paper as a very complete and comprehensive review of the foreign policy that was laid down in the Governor-General’s Speech and during the pre-election period by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the leading members of the Liberal and Australian Country parties. The main basis of Australian foreign policy, as it is laid down in this document, should be complete co-operation with’ the British Commonwealth in order to preserve our way of life and to preserve peace in the world. Whilst it is reasonable for the Minister for External Affairs to indicate that peace in South-East Asia is of vital importance to Australia, it is equally important to all other SouthEast Asian countries. It is reasonable to assume that, irrespective of the various nationalistic movements in those countries, there must be amongst the educated people who are leading those movements, some realization of the basic truth of this fact. We must endeavour to be realistic. Equally as important as our own ideas and attitude towards the foreign, nations involved is there attitude towards us.

In the assessment of these facts, I believe that the House has become slightly confused during this debate. I do not think that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) could sincerely believe the statements he has made unless he is unaware of the actual facts associated with this case. I do not wish to maintain the general tenor of the debate that war with the Soviet Union is inevitable. I believe there is one chance for the avoidance of a third world war, and that is the removal of the leaders of’ tho Politburo in Moscow. Time, which is the great healer, may provide mankind with some form of escape. If the policy that is in existence to-day is continued, we shall have to meet that policy of the Politburo with force. The leaders of the Politburo have evolved what I described to this House recently as the most diabolical and efficient conspiracy that mankind has ever known. It is not sufficient to speak about attempts at compromise. We have to realize that in dealing with the Soviet Union we are dealing with people who have maintained a state of hostility since the cessation of what has been described as the shooting war in 1945. There has been no cessation of hostilities. The war is still going on. The matter is merely one of a change of attitude on our part and an awareness of the real facts involved is required. That awareness is dependent upon the capacity of the governments involved. I agree with many of the statements that have been made by the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Roberton). It is deplorable that the policy of the British Empire during the last ten or fifteen years - particularly since the end of the war - should have resulted in what has been described as the dismemberment of the British Empire. It is reasonable for a person who believes in socialism to be a. believer in passive resistance. The Government of the United Kingdm appears not to have been particularly worried about the reduction of Britain’s international status. From 1945 onwards its policies have made it ab.undan.tly clear that it was more interested in the estab lishing in its own country of what it regarded as a desirable form of governmental economy than of maintaining the strength of . its Empire overseas. Despite the good feeling and’ the ties of kinship .that exist between, this country and Great Britain, we should; be able to criticize the British Government’s policy. It is balderdash to say that, we should deny ourselves the right of criticizing the British Government. That Government has been guilty of the most shocking inactivity and spinelessness.. During the last eighteen months the prestige of Britain in the Far East has= dropped to an all-time low and had it not been for the lieutenant-commander of a little ship called Amethyst, itwould have been lower to-day than in all past history. It was the work of that lieutenant-commander that restored Britain’s prestige at least, temporarily in the Far East. It is evident that the socialists in the United Kingdom have made up their minds that being an empire does not interest them. The Australian socialist Government recently made it abundantly clear that it was more interested in being a Commonwealth than in preserving the Empire. It is useless to turn to enemy nations with an abundance of good faith, in the milk of human kindness. History has revealed that human beings cannot be trusted beyond a certain point. I have no brief for the Soviet Union. I have great respect and admiration for the fantastic fashion in which the Soviet people have achieved their aims. To speak of Mao Tse-tung as being a deviationist or a Tito-ist, or something of that ilk, is to my mind sheer stupidity. His achievements almost parallel the early achievements of Genghis Khan. He has provided a complete army in China, well-equipped and well-generalled. He has outfought and out-generalled the forces of the Kuomintang and has beaten them completely and utterly. He has been lauded in Moscow and has set up a Communist government. There can be no doubt that the aggressive tactics that have been developed by the Communist forces will be brought into full play by that Chinese generalissimo. We should be foolish to imagine that he will permit Hong Kong to remain as it is or that we can come to an agreement with him, for any given length of time, over the commercial interests that the British peoples have in the Orient. One cannot make peace with dictators and keep face. One honorable member said earlier to-day that the Australian force in Japan was causing us to lose face because of the peculiar mental standards of the Japanese people and their attitude towards the fact that Australia is not sharing fully with the United States of America in the government of that country. I believe that the interpretation of the oriental outlook is of vital importance. We must be militant if we are to maintain our prestige in the Far East. Otherwise we shall be virtually dislodged from the Orient and forced either to go to war or to back down. One cannot make peace with dictators and maintain national prestige.

The cold war situation that exists to-day, with fifth column activities developing throughout the world, represents merely a variation of the standards of war. Peace does not exist. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, there has been no cessation of hostilities. If ever people lost face, surely the Western Powers did so at the beginning of the Berlin blockade. Only the brilliance with which the airlift was carried out restored in some measure our prestige with the German people and the rest of the world. But the very fact that the airlift was necessary was absurd. The senior Russian military authorities must have asked themselves, “ Are these people so anxious for peace that they will get down on their knees and beg us to lift the blockade?” Did we not make every reasonable appeal to Russia without success? For honorable members to suggest that there is a reasonable hope of making peace with dictators is absurd. Such situations have existed before, and T have studied with interest the history of the periods of uneasy peace which, in the past, have been only breathing spaces between wars. I refer honorable members to the situation that existed in the early part of the nineteenth century, when the French empire of Napoleon Bonaparte found it necessary to come to some form of hypocritical agreement with the British Government. Napoleon found that the Government of Great

Britain, because of its own inertia and weaknesses within the country, was willing to accept peace at any price. One of the greatest Englishmen of all time took his place in the House of Lords during that period, and he made a statement which, in my opinion, embodied a principle that should be basic to the foreign policy of every nation. That man was Admiral Lord Nelson. He said -

I, my Lords, have, in different countries, seen much of the miseries of war. I am therefore in my innermost soul, a man of peace. Yet would I not, for the sake, of any peace, however fortunate, consent to sacrifice one jot of England’s honour. Our honour is inseparably combined with our genuine interest.

That statement still is absolutely true, and if we remember it and make an honest and sincere approach to the problems of foreign policy we cannot go .far wrong. At least we shall go down in history as honorable men. We shall inevitably lose our honour if we continue to talk about the possibility of compromise. Nevertheless I do not believe that we should regard war as being inevitable. There is a chance that time will be our ally and that, with good fortune, the world will be rid of the leaders of the Politburo.

Despite our basic interest in the Asiatic scene, we should not lose sight of what is happening in Europe. One interesting story that has not been discussed either in this House or in the House of Commons is that of the fate of the German army that was captured at Stalingrad in 1942. I remind honorable members that Field-Marshal Von Paulus and his German forces were surrounded at .Stalingrad in that year and captured. They were offered some form of relief and assistance during the ensuing years of the war on the condition that they accepted certain doctrines and undertook certain training. It has been revealed that Field-Marshal Von Paulus is now back in Germany with a large portion of the army that was captured at Stalingrad, trained and indoctrinated by the experts in Moscow in order that, when the occupation of Germany ceases, there will be one powerful force at least in eastern Germany ready to take over the country. Would honorable members opposite say that the planning for this move did not start years and years ago?

Are we being unreal and unfair in levelling that charge at the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Pursuing the same line of thought, I ask whether any honorable member will assure me that the Union of Soviet Socialist .’Republics would have lifted even one finger to attempt to stop the “Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe if they had crossed the English Channel in 1940? Does any honorable member suspect that the Russians would have been our allies if they had not been first attacked by the German armies? The Russian leaders are dictators intent upon the domination of the entire globe, and the sooner honorable members realize that fact the better will it be for us. Their disciples have infiltrated every nation and are endeavouring to infiltrate every household, school, parents and citizens association, ex-servicemen’s organization, trade organization and trade union in every community. Nowhere is there a group of people which can regard itself as being safe from the interference of agents directed from Moscow. There is abundant evidence to support the truth of that statement.

The socialist approach to the threat of communism has a certain ring of sincerity about it. If honorable members opposite really believe everything that they say, their attitude is logical. Nevertheless, I cannot understand how they can believe that the vast movements in Asia, where millions of people are being led by odd groups of militants, are only nationalist in character. They declare that the peoples of Asia can form themselves into great industrial nations. But do they believe that, even if standards of living in Asia could be raised quickly to the level that is enjoyed in Australia, the progress of this new movement would stop? Such a belief would be ridiculous. [Extension of time granted.”] There is a story that, when Dr. Sun Yat Sen was approached by American engineers who promised that they would irrigate China and build great dams, he replied, “Why, if you do that China will not have its outlet ! We have such a colossal population increase that we must have our regular floods and other disasters “. A proper appreciation of circumstances in Asia is essential to an intelligent approach to its problems. Members of the Opposition who speak idly, for political reasons, of imperialism and the inevitability of war do their political party irreparable harm. Any analysis of the problems of Asia must be made on a logical level if it is to be of any use. We. do not believe that the sudden thrust of communism can be countered without a great deal of planning and assistance. We believe that, we can assist Asiatic nations by securing the co-operation of various movements within those nations but we do not consider that, in the process, we must amend our White Australia policy. Economically, we have no choice but to maintain die White Australia policy, and in any case we have no desire to change it.

I wish that Mr. Churchill were the Prime Minister of Great Britain. That wish may be dictated by my political faith, but honorable members opposite should not imagine for a moment that I, and others like me, would not go anywhere to fight for Mr. Attlee’s right to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain. We have not lost faith in democracy. Some honorable members opposite have said that democracy became defunct in Australia on the 10th December last, but we do not believe that democracy has died in the United Kingdom. However, we look for a .co-ordination of policy with the United Kingdom. We believe that we should face the world together and declare the unity of British races. That attitude had meaning in the days of Pitt, Palmerston and Disraeli and during World War I. and World War 1.1. But the Russians showed us in Berlin what it means to be British to-day. The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) spoke of the preparations for a great march of Communist youth in Berlin next month. He may have based his statement on recent newspaper reports. I hope so, because I believe that the Red Army would be the last authority in the world to issue an official statement to the effect that it would defend those young men during their invasion of the Western zone of Germany. After all, such an announcement would bring Russia very close to an immediate declaration of war.

Mr Calwell:

– I advise the honorable member that that was the Western sector.

Mr GRAHAM:

– I ask the honorable gentleman to say whether it was an authoritative statement.

Mr Calwell:

– It was suggested by Soviet head-quarters. It is as authoritative as it can be.

Mr GRAHAM:

– I should be astonished if the Red Army was prepared to back up its words. If a stage is reached when Great Britain is forced to take a stand, I hope that the attitude of the British Government will be, “ Thus far and no farther “. Otherwise we shall have another Munich. Therefore the Minister’s statement has indicated a sound and logical approach to Australia’s foreign policy, and one which will have a beneficial effect upon this country. The proposal for a Pacific pact is one of expediency. The Right Honorable Ernest Bevin, when speaking about the policy of the Soviet Union which resulted in the North Atlantic Pact recalled the frustrations and disappointments that had been caused by the inability of the Western Powers to obtain any cooperation from the Soviet Government in dealing with post-war European problems and said that he was convinced that the establishment of this closer link between the Atlantic nations had led to second thoughts by Russia about the tactics that it .had been following in Germany, particularly with regard to the blockade of Berlin. That is a recent statement of this trend, and it shows that the socialists in Great Britain are at least fully aware of the circumstances.

In relation to New Guinea, I feel that the statements made by many honorable members on both sides of this House completely cover the position. As far as Dutch New Guinea is concerned, there should never be any question of its ever being anything but Dutch, or if the Netherlands Government should see fit to relinquish it, then it should become Australian territory; otherwise the thin end of the wedge will be inserted into Australian security. For strategic and political reasons it is impossible for us to permit New Guinea to fall under the domination of any other country. Some sort of policy-making body should be established by Australia and the United States as soon as possible so that our ideas upon coordinated defence may be crystallized. If the United States finds it necessary for Japan to become an aircraft carrier, then Australia will have to compromise with the most difficult thing to compromise with, that is its national conscience. I suggest that no value can be attached to General MacArthur’s statements regarding the people of Japan. The Japanese is a sub-human semimoronic creature, nothing more audi nothing less. Any idea of democratizing Japan is a sheer absurdity. There cannot be democracy in Japan to-day, and in my opinion there never will be democracy there because of the sub-normal mentality of the Japanese people. There can only be a democracy where the people have some political and mental capacity, and the Japanese have neither. Any attempt to organize Japan as an aircraft carrier could only b& agreed to by Australia after lengthy discussions on the floor of this chamber. This Parliament owes to every ex-serviceman and ex-servicewoman in Australia a full inquiry before there is such a volte face in policy. Such a suggestion as the reorganization of Japan can be explained only by the highest strategic considerations. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that such considerations have influenced the United States, but before we can agree to it the whole matter must be thrashed out in a separate debate in this House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Claret) adjourned.

page 1094

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Presentation to the Governor-General.

Mr SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Archie Cameron). - Accompanied by honorable members, I waited this day upon Hia Excellency the Governor-General at Government House, and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency’sSpeech on the occasion of the opening of the First Session of the Nineteenth Parliament, agreed to by the House on the 16th March. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply : -

Mr. Speaker

I desire to thank von fur the AddressinReply, which von have just presented to mc.

It will afford me much pleasure to convey to His Most Gracious Majesty the King the message of loyalty from the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia to which the Address gives expression.

page 1095

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Archie

Cameron).- -On Wednesday last the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Treloar) asked me a question regarding the wearing of campaign or service ribbons by attendants of the House. I have made inquiries into this matter and have found that there is no record of any previous instruction to attendants. It appears, however, to be a well-established practice in many Commonwealth buildings for attendants in uniform to wear service ribbons, and I see no reason why it should not be adopted in the House. As this matter concerns the whole of the building, I conferred with Mr. President, and he concurs in this view. Accordingly, steps will be taken to advise the attendants that ribbons may be worn on their uniforms should they so desire.

page 1095

ADJOURNMENT

Health and Medical Services

Motion (by Mr.White) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr PETERS:
Burke

– A number of private hospitals in Melbourne and throughout Australia are closing down. Numerous other hospitals are restricting the services that they render to the public because of lack of staff. The hospitals at Bentleigh, Ormond, and elsewhere are closing down or are indicating that in the future they willbe unable to take midwifery cases. Thousands of people are being turned away from hospitals to die. They cannot get admittance, and those suffering most seriously are the people whose economic conditions are the worst. Because of that fact, I invite the attention of the Government to the position and stress the necessity for urgent action in order to make the conditions in the nursing profession more attractive. The Government has realized its responsibilities in connexion with health by providing large sums of money for medical and hospital schemes, but those schemes will never come to actuality if staff is not available to implement them. Not only in Melbourne but also elsewhere throughout Australia this position is to be found. Recently an ex-member of the nursing profession in South Australia wrote a book entitled A Microbe is Close BehindYou. In that book she stressed the difficulty of obtaining qualified and suitable nurses. In the light of what I have put, I emphasize the necessity for the Government to take some action to provide scholarships or subsidies for the nursing profession, so that nurses may be attracted to the hospitals and other health institutions of this country.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation · Balaclava · LP

. -inreply- - I shall pass on to the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) the honorable member’s representations in connexion with the shortage of nurses. It is unfortunately true that a shortage of nurses exists. There are many reasons for that. There is a shortage of men and women in almost every occupation in life at present. I cannot agree that the position with regard to nursing in Melbourne hospitals is quite as bad as the honorable member indicated. Prince Henry Hospital is embarking on very large extensions, and one of the principal buildings in the scheme is the nurses’ quarters. Most other hospitals are also extending their premises. Hospitalization is one of the main factors in the Government’s health scheme, which will be before honorable members shortly. Free medicine, which the previous Government concentrated on, is of minor importance compared with the necessity for skilled nursing and more hospitals. TheRed Cross Association has a home nursing scheme, and hopes that in every home in Australia some person, man or woman, will learn something about nursing. What I have said should encourage the honorable member because I know that he is sincere in his representations. The proposal for scholarships and other means of attracting nurses is being considered by the Government, which is fortunate in having an excellent surgeon and an eminent member of the medical profession as its Minister for Health. The points mentioned by the honorable member will be well considered and will be passed oh to him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1096

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of Social Services - E. C. Cannon.

House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 March 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1950/19500322_reps_19_206/>.